One of the recurrent discussions around the Keepers Registry is about language: we are regularly asked about the terms used in the holdings statements and precisely what they indicate. In fact, as this post explains, this is not merely a question of clarity and precision but rather of systems, resources and assumptions: we need vocabulary which is both apt and consistent, but which must also accommodate the variations in processes and practices used by the archiving agencies. With Keepers Extra, we now have some time and space to think through these issues, which remain unresolved for the moment. This post, the first of a series focused on issues around the registry, discusses our current use of the term ‘preserved’.
In reporting the current extent of archiving, the Keepers Registry lists the titles and volumes that are held by the Keeper agencies as either ‘preserved’ or ‘in progress’. As we currently use these terms, ‘preserved’ means simply that the content has been ingested and ‘in progress’ indicates that a Keeper is either in discussion with a publisher about that content or in the process of setting up the infrastructure and workflows required for ingest. This means that in practice these terms can actually indicate content in different formats and at various stages of different ingest processes. As a result, users would need to do further research with the Keeper holding a title if they wanted to establish details such as file formats or the exact volumes and issues held for a title ‘in progress.’
The term ‘preserved’, moreover, has certain implications that may or may not be helpful. Some approaches transfer digital content upon ingest into specific data models and file formats for long-term preservation, others focus on collecting the bits and defer migration to the on-demand point in time when that effort is needed. There are approaches that front-load the costs of curation, but also those that utilise minimal treatment, focusing current resources on preserving greater quantities of content.
The Keepers Registry remains neutral on this debate. We currently aggregate data from ten quite different archiving agencies, with different ingest methods. The Keepers Registry is valued for reporting on the activity of these agencies,  and it is important that the Keepers Registry does not favour one method over another. Our Keepers range from globally active preservation services to smaller discipline specific archives, and include a number of national libraries and University Library-led consortia services. Each operates with a distinctive mission and business model, different infrastructure, processes, and resources. The forms in which we receive data are therefore varied, as are the formats in which the different Keepers store their content. At the outset, we deemed ‘preserved’ to be general enough to cover all of the different modes in which the Keepers hold their collections. However, we have had some discussions that highlighted it as a contentious phrase and have been considering the alternative phrase ‘archived’ instead.
The Keepers Extra project will allow us to consider language with users and reporting Keeper agencies. We can look at the merits of ‘preserved’ and ‘archived’. We will also be looking at other language requirements, for example around clarity of access conditions. Our intention is to convey  rich information appropriate to all our users’ needs and we will be considering this over the coming months as we consult further with librarians, archivists and researchers.
