What Does an Electronic Records Archivist Do
By Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig, Electronic Records Archivist
http://blog.photography.si.edu/2010/08/10/electronic-records-archivist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+si%2FvrZU+(The+Bigger+Picture)
Great post here referenced in the JISCmail list
Who knows what gems may live on such media, even if they were belong either a personal or corporate collection it would be really interesting to unwrap each items content.
I would be looking to migrate the content onto modern platforms. You can purchase USB 3.5" floppy disk drives these days, that would be a good first port of call for those items.
5.25" may be more tricky, but getting hold of some legacy kit and interface cards you should be able to put something together.
I think sometimes the hardest part beyond the physical recovery, is the actual interpretation of the data. Clearly many files may have been created in now-defunct applications. However with Virtual machines and emulation, the possibility exists to recreate the configurations of operating systems and applications that will allow a good chance of accessing content. However getting hold of the applications and operating systems to create an emulation platform may be difficult.
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Monday, 19 July 2010
Sharepoint - an exciting opportunity for organisations?
I have been taking a good look at Sharepoint recently, many organisations are expressing a great interest in this platform (particularly SP2010) either as a complement to existing arrangements or an outright replacement.
I am currently investigating its suitability but can already see some potential given Office 2010 and Office Communicator integration and how you can virtually instantly make contact with document authors from the properties screen. So I can imagine how much better document sharing and collaboration might be with SharePoint given a little bit of insight from Office 2010 alone.
The general consensus seems to be that thankfully many core functions of document and records management are now within SP 2010 where they were lacking in 2007. The UI is improved, metadata better supported, retention policy is better implemented.
I already have a SP 2007 VHD setup at home and can see the document management side coming through it, but it is somewhat more restricted than other platforms I have used. I look forward to continuing my investigative work on this and hopefully getting my hands on with a SP 2010 platform soon either at work or at home.
I am currently investigating its suitability but can already see some potential given Office 2010 and Office Communicator integration and how you can virtually instantly make contact with document authors from the properties screen. So I can imagine how much better document sharing and collaboration might be with SharePoint given a little bit of insight from Office 2010 alone.
The general consensus seems to be that thankfully many core functions of document and records management are now within SP 2010 where they were lacking in 2007. The UI is improved, metadata better supported, retention policy is better implemented.
I already have a SP 2007 VHD setup at home and can see the document management side coming through it, but it is somewhat more restricted than other platforms I have used. I look forward to continuing my investigative work on this and hopefully getting my hands on with a SP 2010 platform soon either at work or at home.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Retention of telephone conversations and their file format
This is an interesting issue that I am looking to address. How long should telephone conversations be kept?
A data protection principle is that information should be kept for no longer than necessary.
RM principles suggest you maintain records dependent upon their content/function for as long as is required. These principles are format independent so you do not look to apply the same one size fits all rule to a "format". For instance we do not keep all emails for x period of time, if the email is a contractual arrangement - it is kept as a contract record. An email about arranging a lunch is not kept beyond the event, it can be deleted straight away.
The same should be applied to phone recordings but if it is not possible to do classify calls, what should be done? It looks like a one-size fits all approach will have to be taken - 1 year, 6 months, 30 days - what fits best?
File format is interesting as well, in this instance .WAV files are generated - wouldn't an MP3 be more open and accessible, particularly for those who do not operate Windows systems?
A data protection principle is that information should be kept for no longer than necessary.
RM principles suggest you maintain records dependent upon their content/function for as long as is required. These principles are format independent so you do not look to apply the same one size fits all rule to a "format". For instance we do not keep all emails for x period of time, if the email is a contractual arrangement - it is kept as a contract record. An email about arranging a lunch is not kept beyond the event, it can be deleted straight away.
The same should be applied to phone recordings but if it is not possible to do classify calls, what should be done? It looks like a one-size fits all approach will have to be taken - 1 year, 6 months, 30 days - what fits best?
File format is interesting as well, in this instance .WAV files are generated - wouldn't an MP3 be more open and accessible, particularly for those who do not operate Windows systems?
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Standards for comment - Records Management are ISO/DIS 30300 (Fundamentals and vocabulary) and ISO/DIS 30301 (Requirements)
Two documents are available for review and comment by the RM community, well worth a look http://drafts.bsigroup.com/
They are 'Fundamentals and Vocabulary' and Requirements for "Management System for Records".
They are 'Fundamentals and Vocabulary' and Requirements for "Management System for Records".
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Corrupt Word Documents - Word 2003
I have been given a handful of corrupt word documents to see whether they can be repaired.
When opening them within Word 2003, they fail to open at all with no real useful suggestion by Word as to what to do next.
I discovered Word has a limited inbuilt recovery functionality which helped with all the corrupt files in question.
You need to select FILE/OPEN then single click on the file in question and then select "Open and Repair" from the dropdown menu of the Open dialog box in the bottom right corner.
Word 2003 will then attempt to open the file, repair errors and notify you of the them allowing you to resave the document. Note that there may be things missing or lost such as formatting in the recovery process.
When opening them within Word 2003, they fail to open at all with no real useful suggestion by Word as to what to do next.
I discovered Word has a limited inbuilt recovery functionality which helped with all the corrupt files in question.
You need to select FILE/OPEN then single click on the file in question and then select "Open and Repair" from the dropdown menu of the Open dialog box in the bottom right corner.
Word 2003 will then attempt to open the file, repair errors and notify you of the them allowing you to resave the document. Note that there may be things missing or lost such as formatting in the recovery process.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Opening old Microsoft Office files from years ago
This is the first time I have hit upon the problem (in a professional business context) of opening an older file in a newer application.
Specifically the file is listed under its properties as "Microsoft Word 5.0/5.1 for Macintosh Document" and I am using Microsoft Word 2003 SP3
It appears that SP3 for Office 2003 and I believe as standard in Office 2007 will not open file types earlier than Office 97 versions by default.
So the message you get when opening such a file under this configuration is
"You are attempting to open a file that was created in an earlier version of Microsoft Office. This file type is blocked from opening in this version by your registry policy setting. "
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/922849
The fix was to correct the registry setting following the advice at MS support here
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938810
And all is well - but clearly there is a business need to have access to files prior to 1997 both for historical, informational, reference purposes let alone the statutory obligations if applicable.
I am tempted now to make a new set files to sit alongside the originals in PDF format for future preservation.
Specifically the file is listed under its properties as "Microsoft Word 5.0/5.1 for Macintosh Document" and I am using Microsoft Word 2003 SP3
It appears that SP3 for Office 2003 and I believe as standard in Office 2007 will not open file types earlier than Office 97 versions by default.
So the message you get when opening such a file under this configuration is
"You are attempting to open a file that was created in an earlier version of Microsoft Office. This file type is blocked from opening in this version by your registry policy setting. "
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/922849
The fix was to correct the registry setting following the advice at MS support here
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938810
And all is well - but clearly there is a business need to have access to files prior to 1997 both for historical, informational, reference purposes let alone the statutory obligations if applicable.
I am tempted now to make a new set files to sit alongside the originals in PDF format for future preservation.
Friday, 10 October 2008
One on One EDRMS training
I have worked in two organisations both using the same EDRM and have seen and delivered various means of training.
I have found that the most preferred method of training by users has been one on one, which allows the user to walk through the session at their own pace. However clearly this is the most resource intensive. Feedback has been very positive and each candidate has passed their post training assessments with little issue.
It has allowed me to customise the session to their particular role and needs, for instance showing references to their work and other points of interest.
I will continue performing training in this manner whilst time and resource allows, I am loathe to sacrifice this method but may consider very small groups (of 3 people) in a quasi-classroom/one on one style session. That way I should be able to still deliver the same customisation and training but to more individuals. It will all depend upon the numbers of new candidates over time.
I have found that the most preferred method of training by users has been one on one, which allows the user to walk through the session at their own pace. However clearly this is the most resource intensive. Feedback has been very positive and each candidate has passed their post training assessments with little issue.
It has allowed me to customise the session to their particular role and needs, for instance showing references to their work and other points of interest.
I will continue performing training in this manner whilst time and resource allows, I am loathe to sacrifice this method but may consider very small groups (of 3 people) in a quasi-classroom/one on one style session. That way I should be able to still deliver the same customisation and training but to more individuals. It will all depend upon the numbers of new candidates over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)