Digital Curation at Work: Modeling Workflows for Digital Archival Materials

Abstract

This paper describes and compares digital curation workflows from 12 cultural heritage institutions that vary in size, nature of digital collections, available resources, and level of development of digital curation activities. While the research and practice of digital curation continues to mature in the cultural heritage sector, relatively little empirical, comparative research on digital curation activities has been conducted to date. The present research aims to advance knowledge about digital curation as it is currently practiced in the field, principally by modeling digital curation workflows from different institutional contexts. This greater understanding can contribute to the advancement of digital curation software, practices, and technical skills. In particular, the project focuses on the role of open-source software systems, as these systems already have strong support in the cultural heritage sector and can readily be further developed through these existing communities. This research has surfaced similarities and differences in digital curation activities, as well as broader sociotechnical factors impacting digital curation work, including the degree of formalization of digital curation activities, the nature of collections being acquired, and the level of institutional support for various software environments.

Maintaining Repositories, Databases, and Digital Collections in Memory Institutions: An Integrative Review

“…Gordon et al suggest that cooperation with “researchers in the target domain” engenders a more useful system (2015). Several others (Allen, 2017; Darcovich et al, 2018; Doty et al, 2015; Pierce, 2019; Post et al, 2019; Thakar and Szalay, 2010) also laude the positive impacts of collaboration between multiple stakeholders and specialists. Consider multi‐institutional collaboration . This can be to support interoperability between institutions and filling knowledge gaps.…”

“…Six focused on database maintenance in preparation for migration (Darcovich et al, 2018; Dressler, 2014; Georgieva and Flinchbaugh, 2021; Walsh, 2010; Wu et al, 2016; Wu et al, 2019). 39 papers were about maintenance or sustainability of a system separate from migration (Bond, 2006; Dal Pra et al, 2019; Downs & Chen, 2010; Gordon et al, 2015; Greenberg et al, 2009; Greig & Nixon, 2007; Gries et al, 2018; Han, 2011; Herrera, 2007; Imker, 2020; Jeng et al, 2017; Jiang et al, 2015; Jones et al, 2000; Kertesz et al, 2020; Lafferty‐Hess et al, 2020; Le et al, 2015; Lee et al, 2018; Lutz & Meadow, 2006; Madsen & Oleen, 2013; Manninen, 2018; Marcial & Hemminger, 2010; Nagendra et al, 2001; Nie et al, 2021; Owen & Michalak, 2015; Park et al, 2018; Philipson, 2020; Post et al, 2019; Powell & Moseley, 2021; Reilly, 2009; Rossi & Ahmed, 2016; Rousidis et al, 2014; Schuler & Kesselman, 2018; Stolte et al, 2003; Trisovic et al, 2020; Tuan et al, 2011; Waldron, 2017; Wilkinson et al, 2017; Xu et al, 2016; Zohner et al, 2019). Two papers took a broad look at both migration and maintenance (Stigler & Steiner, 2018; Thomer & Twidale, 2014).…”

“…This included mapping and crosswalking metadata and data schemas (Georgieva and Flinchbaugh, 2021;Gordon, 2015;Kansa, 2005;Lutz and Meadow, 2006;Matusiak, 2017;Owen and Michalak, 2015), unexpected data cleaning (Dunn, 2016;Knight-Davis et al, 2015), and integrating legacy data (Kansa, 2005;Knight-Davis et al, 2015). Several noted that there simply isn't a one size fits all solution to migrations, and that it's necessary to plan for building custom workflows (Lafferty Hess et al, 2020;Mannien, 2018;Post, 2019).…”