Opening Up the Archives: Part 3- Future Proofing
Post categories: Opening Up the Archives,Ìývideo
| 15:30 UK time, Thursday, 14 June 2012
In this episode of the video looking at R&D's efforts to support the ´óÏó´«Ã½ archive we take a look at the need to not just address the challenges of the past, but to also ensure the future resilience of the archive.Ìý As we increasingly move content in the archive off he earlier generations of analogue and discrete digital storage, and into digital mass storage, R&D and colleagues across the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are developing strategies to deal with the novel problems that this new approach to storage throws up.Ìý In today's film we get to see just how complex this future platform for the archive is proving to be.
Ìý
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Ìý
Comment number 1.
At 14th Jun 2012, Russ wrote:When are you going to publish the list of the 300k radio programmes?
Russ
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 16th Jun 2012, Trev wrote:Actually there is no such thing as Future Proofing all one can do is make it as easy as possible to upgrade. I have always felt that punched tape is the best archive format. It could last thousands of years and any school boy could construct a reader for it.
I understand LTO tapes could have a life as short as 17 years depending on use. I suspect that the format might be obsolete by then in any case. The preservation of working codecs may be even more of a problem.
The archive problem is not unique to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ though. My own personal videos amount to several terabytes which are kept on external hard discs and a copy kept at my son's house several miles away.
Do you know what the archive is worth. My guess is that even one tape could be worth millions of pounds. It must be the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s most valuable asset. It must cost alot of money to insure!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)