In regard to real-world standards, BATTIN argued the need to redefine the concept of archive and to begin to think in terms of life cycles. In the past, the naive assumption that paper would last forever produced a cavalier attitude toward life cycles. The transient nature of the electronic media has compelled people to recognize and accept upfront the concept of life cycles in place of permanency.
Digital standards have to be developed and set in a cooperative context to ensure efficient exchange of information. Moreover, during this transition period, greater flexibility concerning how concepts such as backup copies and archival copies in the CXP are defined is necessary, or the opportunity to move forward will be lost.
In terms of cooperation, particularly in the university setting, BATTIN also argued the need to avoid going off in a hundred different directions. The CPA has catalyzed a small group of universities called the La Guardia Eight—because La Guardia Airport is where meetings take place—Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, Penn State, Tennessee, Stanford, and USC, to develop a digital preservation consortium to look at all these issues and develop de facto standards as we move along, instead of waiting for something that is officially blessed. Continuing to apply analog values and definitions of standards to the digital environment, BATTIN said, will effectively lead to forfeiture of the benefits of digital technology to research and scholarship.
Under the second rubric, the politics of reproduction, BATTIN reiterated an oft-made argument concerning the electronic library, namely, that it is more difficult to transform than to create, and nowhere is that belief expressed more dramatically than in the conversion of brittle books to new media. Preserving information published in electronic media involves making sure the information remains accessible and that digital information is not lost through reproduction. In the analog world of photocopies and microfilm, the issue of fidelity to the original becomes paramount, as do issues of "Whose fidelity?" and "Whose original?"
BATTIN elaborated these arguments with a few examples from a recent study conducted by the CPA on the problems of preserving text and image. Discussions with scholars, librarians, and curators in a variety of disciplines dependent on text and image generated a variety of concerns, for example: 1) Copy what is, not what the technology is capable of. This is very important for the history of ideas. Scholars wish to know what the author saw and worked from. And make available at the workstation the opportunity to erase all the defects and enhance the presentation. 2) The fidelity of reproduction—what is good enough, what can we afford, and the difference it makes—issues of subjective versus objective resolution. 3) The differences between primary and secondary users. Restricting the definition of primary user to the one in whose discipline the material has been published runs one headlong into the reality that these printed books have had a host of other users from a host of other disciplines, who not only were looking for very different things, but who also shared values very different from those of the primary user. 4) The relationship of the standard of reproduction to new capabilities of scholarship—the browsing standard versus an archival standard. How good must the archival standard be? Can a distinction be drawn between potential users in setting standards for reproduction? Archival storage, use copies, browsing copies—ought an attempt to set standards even be made? 5) Finally, costs. How much are we prepared to pay to capture absolute fidelity? What are the trade-offs between vastly enhanced access, degrees of fidelity, and costs?
These standards, BATTIN concluded, serve to complicate further the reproduction process, and add to the long list of technical standards that are necessary to ensure widespread access. Ways to articulate and analyze the costs that are attached to the different levels of standards must be found.
Given the chaos concerning standards, which promises to linger for the foreseeable future, BATTIN urged adoption of the following general principles:
* Strive to understand the changing information requirements of scholarly disciplines as more and more technology is integrated into the process of research and scholarly communication in order to meet future scholarly needs, not to build for the past. Capture deteriorating information at the highest affordable resolution, even though the dissemination and display technologies will lag.
* Develop cooperative mechanisms to foster agreement on protocols for document structure and other interchange mechanisms necessary for widespread dissemination and use before official standards are set.
* Accept that, in a transition period, de facto standards will have to be developed.