Thursday, 29 August
Gabriella Ivacs extended Pierluigi & Milena plea for thinking right the access to the “skins” we put on data. The topics of “access, integrity and interoperability” are the core issues when it comes to project a knowledge discovery tool.
Today it is in fashion to take the issue of “big data” on the forefront and today is not an unusual case. Admittedly, there is a tricky question begging for the answer if humanities will be able to rip de benefits of using the resources called now “big data”. Then some debate was needed to clarify a bit the topic. This led to an important conclusion on which we arrived: “digital objects are marked by a limited set of variables, yet generic attributes”.
A model, OAIS to be more exact, was explored and what it means to establish a digital repository. The tricky part is always the money and we have debated high and low the issue. One solid conclusion for everyone is to seek on the path of collaboration: shared costs and resources.
Hence, some of the issues will disappear like storage, maintenance, etc, but there is the organisational aspects that need a lot of attention, and when it comes to dealing with the yuma resource there is a whole new chapter to explore with all of its implications.
No good debate is passing without a fair amount of metadata talk. The tri-faceted reality of metadata (descriptive, structural, and administrative), were chopped into manageable learning pieces.
Margaret Crockett, in the afternoon, brought to light one very important issue concerning persistence and it is to retain that first we do need a proper context first to realise fixity. If for paper it is easier to establish both, the digital resources exhibit a different behaviour and different possible alternatives are to be explored.
There were long debates on the approaches toward accomplishing Open Government Partnership’s goals and mostly what are the traits of the processes in our own countries that hinder or at least delay delivery.