Thanks for you thoughtful feedback. Yes, I remember meeting you in Ottawa last May. You did a presentation on the SHERPA-DP project right?

Before I launch into my comments I just want to add the disclaimer that my definitions and opinions are based within the viewpoint of my own research domain. They may not work everywhere. However, I have tried to start from scratch and work my way back up and that at least provides for some interesting reading as you so kindly noted (at least for digital preservation geeks

1) RE: “Information”: I am trying to avoid the word data altogether. It’s become a little clouded. Instead I am using content in combination with the concept of message, signs, symbols, or patterns. I define content as “the message that is communicated by information.”

2) RE: “Context”: I agree 100% that context must be present along with content and structure, otherwise we are not dealing with information but just an incomprehensible message or, if you like, just a bunch of data.

I think I made that point in the section above entitled “The Message Has No Meaning Without Context” as well as in the previous post on Information in the section entitled “The Importance of Context and Knowledge”. But maybe I should clarify it more simply somewhere in there: no context = no information.

3) RE: “Digital”: In the next post I look a little closer at Digital Information Objects. There I point out that there is no theoretical difference between an information object in analogue or digital form. However, in reality managing the content, structure, and context of digital information objects is much more complex and vulnerable to loss. On top of that we have to accept the enigma that the digital object’s structure exists but we can never be truly specific about where (see the section ‘If a Digital Information Object Falls in the Forest…’).

4) RE: “Location of Contextual Information”: I think it is commonly accepted in the digital preservation world that contextual information does not have to be embedded with the digital object (both OAIS and ISO15489 allow for the linking to external or remote metadata repositories/databases). However, if the links to the metadata is lost then we are back to square one and we are once again not dealing theoretically with information but just with a bunch of content and possibly some structure. So sure, embedding is probably less risky from a preservation point-of-view but it is not a requirement, as long as the contextual information can be brought together with the content and structure at the point of access.

5) RE: “OAIS”: Yes, like most of our colleagues I have been guided or influenced by the OAIS concepts for quite some time now. The concept of the Information Package (whether AIP or DIP) is very useful. In the course of actually developing a physical data model that implements these concepts I have stripped down and simplified the Information Package (to the point that I can’t call it an OAIS Information Package anymore). Quite simply, when I refer to content, I am referring to the OAIS Content Data Object. When I am referring to contextual information, I am referring to the OAIS Representation Information, Preservation Descriptive Information, Packaging Information, and Descriptive Information. Some or all of this contextual information is required to give the digital information object its structure but, once again, it is not the actual structure.

I think we met an an IS&T Conference? Anyway, I’m wondering about your use of the word ‘information’ as opposed to data in the case of digital objects. Sure digital objects contain content (data) and structure but often they do not contain all the contextual information necessary to understand them. In that case does that mean they are not information objects? And they cannot be used on their own as paper records can – they must be mediated by hardware and software oeprating together with the data object to produce the record/information.

In archival institutions the information object will most often be the actual digital data object plus a lot of contextual metadata that lives somewhere else. Does this mean that archival institutions are not preserving information objects? I guess you have looked at the OAIS reference model? Perhaps the concept of the archival information package (AIP) could be useful for you?

Anyway, this is interesting reading – keep it up!

cheers
Andrew Wilson