2. The UNESCO “Memory of the World” Programme
2.3 The Digital Documentary Heritage of Humanity
acknowledged that they may have different values, no hierarchy was suggested, and this was to be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, this does not mean that MoW does not presently consider digital documents at all. Of course, it does, and even the MoW Companion does. Yet, it is one thing to acknowledge that digital documents may count just like any other documents, and it is different to state that they count only because of their information.
However, it is important not to convey the wrong message, especially in its key documents that are meant to offer guidance, specifically because MoW intends to increase understanding and create a global vision of documentary heritage. The recognition of the heritage value of documents in digital form is perhaps better reflected in the emergence of a new and related concept of heritage - the digital heritage - and given that the background for the emergence of this new concept was offered by MoW, an introduction to the Programme would be incomplete without also dedicating some space to this concept.
with the widespread use of computers for creating texts, sounds or images, thereby creating digital originals rather than digitized copies. While this has considerably added to the number of available documents, it has also prompted some challenges, including the increased difficulty of managing this huge quantity of data.160 However, a more serious challenge relates to the long-term accessibility of digital documents being compromised by the process of technological obsolescence. Like all other documents regardless of the carrier, digital documents may become inaccessible if the media on which information is stored degrades, although the main cause for digital documents becoming inaccessible is the rapid development of ever “newer” software and hardware that are incapable of handling older materials.161 Indeed, it is ironic that while ancient manuscripts have survived hundreds of years and will potentially do so even longer if properly cared for, digital documents produced today are not expected to live longer than ten years. This has determined the international community involved in documentary heritage preservation to react once again, drawing attention to the new technical layer of risks that causes the loss of documentary heritage in digital form. As a result, the UNESCO Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage was adopted in 2003.162
While the notion of digital heritage was already present in UNESCO’s Medium Term Strategy 2002-2007, its definition was set down in the 2003 Charter.163 According to the Charter, digital heritage, considered as heritage of humanity, “embraces cultural, educational, scientific and administrative resources, as well as technical, legal, medical and other kinds of information created digitally, or converted into digital form from existing analogue resources.”164 The main focus of the Charter lies on information created digitally, which it calls “born-digital”, yet the definition of digital heritage also refers to digitized information.
There may be a certain degree of confusion between documentary and digital heritage, probably because both notions deal with recorded information, and also because the definition of digital heritage includes digitized copies of analogue documents. However, whereas the Charter is a statement of principles that should alert governments, industry and the public
160 Challenges have been discussed in subchapters 3.2, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 in this dissertation.
161 UNESCO, Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, 2003.; These causes are listed also in UNESCO, Report by the Director-General on a Draft Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, Item 3.6.1 of the provisional agenda, (No. 164 EX/21), Paris, 2002.
162 UNESCO, Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, 2003.
163 UNESCO, Medium-Term Strategy 2002-2007, Contributing to Peace and Human Development through Education, the Sciences, Culture and Communication, resolution adopted by the General Conference, 31st session, 3 November 2001, in Records of the General Conference, vol. 1 Resolutions, 31st session, 15 October – 3 November 2001 (Paris: UNESCO, 2002).
164 UNESCO, Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, Art.1.
about the problems caused by digital technology, the difference is that MoW is a programme concerned with the preservation of originals, including digital originals. In the context of MoW, copies, whether digital or otherwise, mainly count for access purposes.165 However, the similarities between MoW and the Charter are possibly caused by the fact that MoW offered a background for the concept of digital heritage, although the lack of explanations regarding their link, which is evident mainly to those involved in drafting the Charter, creates confusion regarding concepts of documentary and digital heritage. Regretfully, no such explanation is provided in the documents aimed at informing the general public about MoW or the Charter. Indeed, even the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, which operates in connection with the Charter, make no reference to the Memory of the World Programme, despite the MoW Logo being placed on its cover.166 Only an analysis of reports and discussion papers of the MoW Committees reveals, through one or the other statement, that the Memory of the World Programme offered the background for the Charter.167 The MoW Committees did well to develop the Charter and draw attention to the impacts of digital technology, because, as shown by the intensification of scientific conferences covering this topic, this is strongly required. However, digital technology also seems to have an important impact upon the MoW Programme itself.
Already in 1998, an evaluation of MoW observed “a change of emphasis, perhaps unintentional, from preserving original materials to merely safeguarding the information which they contain.”168 Consequently, the evaluation team recommended “that the balance between preservation and access be carefully reconsidered to avoid an over emphasis, and perhaps over-dependence, on the newest [digital] technology.”169 Despite SCoT, which is responsible with the technical aspects of MoW, recognising that not all documents were suitable for digitization, following research it concluded that despite some disadvantages (mainly related to costs), “the use of digital storage was the way forward for many types of document. The advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages.”170 Additionally, SCoT also considers digital technology suitable for access, as revealed by the General Guidelines:
165 There are exceptions, for example if the original storage medium has degraded entirely and the best surviving example is a copy.
166 National Library of Australia, Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage (Paris: UNESCO, 2003).
167 E.g. Boston, Edmondson and Schüller, Memory of the World Programme A Debate.
168 Petherbridge, Kitching and de Wolf, “Memory of the World” Programme External Evaluation, 16.
169 Petherbridge, Kitching and de Wolf, “Memory of the World” Programme External Evaluation, 16.
170 UNESCO, Report of the First Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, Vienna, Austria, 3-4 June 1994, Paris, 1994. The main category of documents to which SCoT referred was audio-visual documents on unstable media, whose chemical decomposition cannot be stopped.
“Digitization for access is an effective strategy proposed by the IAC’s Technology Sub-committee, which has also set recommended standards.”171 Nevertheless, questions or rather warnings regarding the limits of digital technology have sometimes been raised and acknowledged, albeit modestly. In a 1996 report of SCoT, “concerns were expressed about the suitability of digitisation for some types of documents.”172 However, a SCoT member clarified “that a collection should only be digitised after a careful examination of the potential benefits, and problems, that digitisation might generate for the collection.”173 Furthermore, in a later report of SCoT from 2002, it was questioned “if the SCoT and, through it, the Memory of the World Programme were emphasising digitisation at the expense of other technologies.”174 However, A SCoT member again clarified that “there is no intention of supporting any technology above others subject to the technology being able to assist in achieving the twin primary aims of the programme.”175 Furthermore, later still in 2004, SCoT acknowledged that “digitisation was emphasised at the beginning of the Committee's work”, yet “that the Memory of the World is a programme that employs the techniques and technologies which serve to best enhance preservation of and access to documents of all kinds.”176 Despite such statements, digital technology still seems to be considered and promoted as the technology that best serves the aims of MoW even if the exact limits of digital technology are not clear.177 In theory, it could support the preservation and access of documentary heritage; however, practically “the level of success that the Programme was having in improving the standard of preservation of and access to documents was uncertain.”178 What is quite certain, and shown by the analysis that has just been conducted in this chapter, is that the use of digital technology not only (potentially) triggers increased access, but also a series of conceptual and practical changes, whose compatibility with the overall philosophy of MoW are somewhat doubtful. While this requires reconsidering the use of digital technology in the context of MoW, this can only be achieved in light of an informed understanding of changes triggered by digital technology. Some insights can be gained through a review of the literature published in the context of library and archival sciences,
171 Edmondson, Memory of the World: General Guidelines, 15.
172 UNESCO, Report of the Third Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, Prague, Czech Republic, 1-4 March 1996, Paris, 1996.
173 UNESCO, Report of the Third Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology, 1996.
174 UNESCO, Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, Paris, 13-15 June 2002, Paris, 2002.
175 UNESCO, Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology, 2002.
176 UNESCO, Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, Paris, 6-7 February, 2004, Paris, 2004.
177 See also discussion in chapter 8 in the present dissertation.
178 UNESCO, Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology, 2008.
studying how the notion of document and related practices have changed over time, with the following chapter dedicated to this accordingly.