Yes, I see the RDF and EAD preservation ingests as text files. The key
affordance of this model, in my mind, is flexibility. Metadata producers
can create and maintain their data in systems designed for that purpose on
a schedule that is decoupled from preservation ingest for digital object
bitstreams, and then export that metadata for preservation ingest and
versioning as deemed appropriate for the local environment.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Rosalyn Metz <[log in to unmask]>
> in the preservation space you describe, the files would presumably be small
> text files. if that's the case it might be useful to ask, what would
> keeping the metadata separate from the content files afford you?
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Weidner <[log in to unmask]>
> > Thanks for your replies, Stuart and Brian.
> > The information you provided got me to thinking more generally about what
> > comprehensive preservation could look like for the digitized cultural
> > heritage materials we are managing. As a content administrator for an
> > access repository, I am primarily concerned with the ability to retrieve
> > bitstreams and metadata from preservation cold storage in the event that
> > lose data and our intermediate backup systems fail. I've visualized one
> > possible data restoration model in the following slides:
> > I'm curious what the C4L collective brain thinks about such an approach,
> > especially any pitfalls we should watch out for if we should choose to
> > implement this model.
> > Andy Weidner
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Brian Kennison <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> How do others approach this problem? Are there recognized best
> > > practices to
> > > >> adhere to?
> > > >>
> > >
> > > I’m still trying to put the CDL model into practice. <
> > > https://confluence.ucop.edu/display/Curation/D-flat >
> > > And Stanford has similar but different model <
> > > http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/8482 >
> > >
> > > —Brian
> > >