Same Same But Different – Comparing Rendering Environments for Interactive Digital Objects

Guttenbrunner, Mark; Wieners, Jürgen; Rauber, Andreas; Thaller, Manfred

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16873-4_11

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Guttenbrunner et al [2010b] case studies of interactive objects comparing the rendering outcomes of different rendering environments using the aforementioned characterization language XCL on the level of screenshots of renderings are presented. In this article we refine the concepts shown in the case studies to different levels of extraction of information about the rendered object.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Measurement Framework for Evaluating Emulators for Digital Preservation

Guttenbrunner

Rauber

2012

ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessible emulation is often the method of choice for maintaining digital objects, specifically complex ones such as applications, business processes, or electronic art. However, validating the emulator's ability to faithfully reproduce the original behavior of digital objects is complicated.This article presents an evaluation framework and a set of tests that allow assessment of the degree to which system emulation preserves original characteristics and thus significant properties of digital artifacts. The original system, hardware, and software properties are described. Identical environment is then recreated via emulation. Automated user input is used to eliminate potential confounders. The properties of a rendered form of the object are then extracted automatically or manually either in a target state, a series of states, or as a continuous stream. The concepts described in this article enable preservation planners to evaluate how emulation affects the behavior of digital objects compared to their behavior in the original environment. We also review how these principles can and should be applied to the evaluation of migration and other preservation strategies as a general principle of evaluating the invocation and faithful rendering of digital objects and systems. The article concludes with design requirements for emulators developed for digital preservation tasks. ACM Reference Format:Guttenbrunner, M. and Rauber, A. 2012. A measurement framework for evaluating emulators for digital preservation.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Measurement Framework for Evaluating Emulators for Digital Preservation

Guttenbrunner

Rauber

2012

ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So in the second phase of my investigation I decided to design engineering experiments to advance the understanding of the processes and methods by which digital art can be preserved and handled. For example to preserve digital objects, we need to be able to extract essential characteristics -the significant properties (see for example Guttenbrunner et al, 2010;Hedstrom & Lee, 2002) -of the digital object from a file, to decide whether approaches such as migration and emulation will work for maintaining digital objects in accessible form. This is a new approach to research in this area.…”

Section: Engineering Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the gap in digital art preservation: interdisciplinary reflections on authenticity, longevity and potential collaborations

Innocenti¹

2015

Preserving Complex Digital Objects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital casualties: challenges for digital art preservationBorn digital art is fundamentally art produced and mediated by a computer. It is an art form within the more general "media art" category (Paul, 2008a;Paul, 2008b;Depocas et al., 2003;Grau, 2007;Lieser, 2010) and includes software art, computer-mediated installations, Internet art and other heterogeneous art types.The boundaries of digital art are particularly fluid, as it merges art, science and technology to a great extent. The technological landscape in which digital art is created and used challenges its long term accessibility, the potentiality of its integrity, and the likelihood that it will retain authenticity over time. Digital objects -including digital artworks -are fragile and susceptible to technological change. We must act to keep digital art alive, but there are practical problems associated with its preservation, documentation, access, function, context and meaning. Preservation risks for digital art are real: they are technological but also social, organizational and cultural 1 .Digital and media artworks have challenged "traditional museological approaches to documentation and preservation because of their ephemeral, documentary, technical, and multi-part nature" (Rinehart, 2007b, p. 181). The technological environment in which digital art lives is constantly changing, and this fast change makes it very difficult to preserve this kind of artwork. All art changes. And these changes can occur at art object level and at context level. In most circumstances this change is very slow, but in digital art this isn't the case anymore because it is happening so quickly, due to the pace of technological development.Surely the increased pace of technological development has more implications than just things happening faster. Digital art, in particular, questions many of the most fundamental assumptions of the art world: What is it a work of art in the digital age? What should be retained for the future? Which aspects of a given work can be changed and which must remain fixed for the work to retain the artist's intent? How do museums collect and preserve? Is a digital work as fragile as its weakest components? What is ownership? What is the context of digital art? What is a viewer 2 ? It is not feasible for the arts community to preserve over the centuries working original equipment and software. And 1 See for example the work done in the DRAMBORA (Digital Repository Audit Method Based On Risk Assessment), created and developed by DigitalPreservationEurope and the UK Digital Curation Centre, see http:/www.repositoryaudit.eu/, accessed 06/08/2012. Among other benefits, using this tool allows to build a detailed catalogue of prioritized pertinent risks, categorized according to type and inter-risk relationships, that includes not only technical but also for example organizational and legal risks, in relation to the organization's mission, objectives, activities and assets. See (Innocenti et al., 2008). 2 The artist creates the context, the platform, ...

show abstract

“…This is described as the look & feel aspect of an object. Case studies of interactive objects comparing the rendering outcomes of different rendering environments using the aforementioned characterization language XCL on the level of screenshots of renderings have been carried out [6].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Emulation and Migration: Birds of a Feather?

Guttenbrunner

Rauber

2012

The Outreach of Digital Libraries: A Globalized Resource Network

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Evaluating the results of a digital preservation action, be it migration or emulation, is a complex task. The usual approach for migration is to evaluate object properties after the migration. For emulation strategies the result of the rendering of the object is evaluated. In this paper we argue that the change of object properties when migrating is not sufficient evidence if a digital preservation action is successful or not. Even for migration the rendering process of the digital object is crucial, and as such evaluating object properties is not enough. The difference in evaluation between emulation and migration as a strategy for digital preservation becomes blurred as migration results have to be compared based on the rendering of the target format and the environment used to render the migrated digital object. Evaluation of object properties when migrating will only validate a necessary condition for preserving significant properties, i.e. whether the information underlying a specific property is still present in an object after migration. It cannot guarantee that the rendering based upon the migrated object will exhibit a specific significant property. In this paper we show the view-path of digital objects and explain how emulation and migration actions affect it. We then compare the changes that occur in the view-path and show that these are at least as severe when migrating a digital object as when emulating its rendering environment.

show abstract

Same Same But Different – Comparing Rendering Environments for Interactive Digital Objects

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

A Measurement Framework for Evaluating Emulators for Digital Preservation

A Measurement Framework for Evaluating Emulators for Digital Preservation

Bridging the gap in digital art preservation: interdisciplinary reflections on authenticity, longevity and potential collaborations

Evaluating Emulation and Migration: Birds of a Feather?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About