Archival strategies for contemporary collecting in a world of big data: Challenges and opportunities with curating the UK web archiveAbstract: In this contribution, we will discuss the opportunities and challenges arising from memory institutions' need to redefine their archival strategies for contemporary collecting in a world of big data. We will reflect on this topic by critically examining the case study of the UK Web Archive, which is made up of the six UK Legal Deposit Libraries: the British Library, National Library of Scotland, National Library of Wales, Bodleian Libraries Oxford, Cambridge University Library and Trinity College Dublin. The UK Web Archive aims to archive, preserve and give access to the UK web space. This is achieved through an annual domain crawl, first undertaken in 2013, in addition to more frequent crawls of key websites and specially curated collections which date back as far as 2005. These collections reflect important aspects of British culture and events that shape society. This commentary will explore a number of questions including: what heritage is captured and what heritage is instead neglected by the UK Web archive? What heritage is created in the form of new data and what are its properties? What are the ethical issues that memory institutions face when developing these web archiving practices? What transformations are required to overcome such challenges and what institutional futures can we envisage?
Bingham, Nicola Jayne; Byrne, Helena
From Print to Digital: First Steps in Collecting Digital Music Publications in UK Legal Deposit LibrariesAbstract: As a result of the 2013 Non-Print Legal Deposit Regulations, the UK’s legal deposit libraries acquired two large collections of digital music publications in PDF format: 43,165 from Music Sales and 13,167 from Faber Music. These constitute their back catalogues for the period 2013 to 2018. This paper considers the genres of music that were collected, the relationship between printed and digital output and intended users. The increasing prevalence of digital publication in the UK’s music publishing industry was evident, with 99% of the content collected from these firms in this period in digital format. The ‘near duplication’ of content through the production of variant editions contributed greatly to the volume of output. Although 71% of content was popular music, other musical genres were also represented. Most of the publications were intended for performance rather than academic study. Despite the tendency to reprint extracts from printed publications digitally, there is currently little potential to switch UK music publishers from print to digital deposit. To truly reflect the nation’s cultural heritage, future collecting will need to embrace the breadth of the UK’s digital music publishing industry. Legal deposit libraries will need to collect publications with accompanying audio-visual content, those in multiple parts, proprietary music notation file formats and interactive content delivered via apps. This will require workflows that can accommodate publishers producing a handful of publications and those publishing at scale. The sustainability of collecting relies on close cooperation between libraries, composers, publishers, distributors, aggregators and music notation software providers.
ArticleAbstract: Confusion has long existed between knowledge management (KM) and information management (IM). To the uninitiated, the difference between KM and IM is unclear – largely because there are no universally accepted definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’. But the confusion is not limited to the uninitiated. KM and IM specialists argue over the meaning of explicit and tacit knowledge, over the difference between information and data, and over the difference between codified knowledge and information. Why? And does any of this matter? This article explores the confusion between KM and IM by reflecting on the origins, development and current state of the two disciplines. The words we use to think and talk about KM and IM directly influence the way we practise KM and IM: and in some contexts, confusion between KM and IM has serious adverse effects on understanding and practice. The solution might lie in closer future development of the two disciplines – as long as practitioners appreciate that KM and IM are distinct but complementary, we talk to each other, and we pay attention to the words we use.
Payne, Judy; Fryer, Jonathan