A bit late this morning (ahem!), so I missed some of the start of this. A very interesting and thoughtful exposition from Steve Knight of NZNL. They have a recently revised act, and have really taken digital preservation to heart: quote from their CEO “no job un-changed”! It’s not the platform or software, it’s the business approach, and management of provenance. They gave up on ”pointless” discussions on build vs buy, commercial vs open source: what counts is the requirements. In the end they opted for a commercial solution from Ex Libris that is being implemented now (phase 1 to go live 30 October). Need joined up and working together tools; most are being implemented in isolation.
Plenty of discussion about collaboration. Vicky Reich suggested that perhaps collaboration might be more focused with specific issues to solve. For example, Steve Knight had suggested there was a need to decide on registry approaches (PRONOM, GDFR, RRORI). Maybe integrating tools might be another issue. Martha Anderson pointed out that successful partnerships centred around content on the one hand and mutual local benefit on the other.
Comment that the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK and nestor in Germany and neighbouring German-speaking countries are both very valuable; is there a role for similar long-lived (non-project) pan-national organisations? Similar organisations suggested in Netherlands and Denmark, and also the Alliance for Permanent Access to the Records of Science.
Question from Steve Knight about how we move to a position where there is a market for digital preservation solution?