Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02096625 = product of:
  0.1257975 = sum of:
    0.06289875 = weight(_text_:web in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06289875 = score(doc=4465,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
    0.06289875 = weight(_text_:web in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06289875 = score(doc=4465,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

The increasing use and prominence of web archives raises the urgency of establishing mechanisms for transparency in the making of web archives to facilitate the process of evaluating a web archive's provenance, scoping, and absences. Some choices and process events are captured automatically, but their interactions are not currently well understood or documented. This study examined the decision space of web archives and its role in shaping what is and what is not captured in the web archiving process. By comparing how three different web archives collections were created and documented, we investigate how curatorial decisions interact with technical and external factors and we compare commonalities and differences. The findings reveal the need to understand both the social and technical context that shapes those decisions and the ways in which these individual decisions interact. Based on the study, we propose a framework for documenting key dimensions of a collection that addresses the situated nature of the organizational context, technical specificities, and unique characteristics of web materials that are the focus of a collection. The framework enables future researchers to undertake empirical work studying the process of creating web archives collections in different contexts.

0.0032205172 = product of:
  0.038646206 = sum of:
    0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 3743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038646206 = score(doc=3743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3743, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3743)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

As the field of digital preservation (DP) matures, there is an increasing need to systematically assess an organization's abilities to achieve its digital preservation goals, and a wide variety of assessment tools have been created for this purpose. This article aims to map the landscape of research in this area, evaluate the current maturity of knowledge on this central question in DP and provide direction for future research. To do so, this paper reviews assessment frameworks in digital preservation through a systematic literature search and categorizes the literature by type of research. The analysis shows that publication output around assessment in digital preservation has increased markedly over time, but most existing work focuses on developing new models rather than rigorous evaluation and validation of existing frameworks. Significant gaps are present in the application of robust conceptual foundations and design methods, and in the level of empirical evidence available to enable the evaluation and validation of assessment models. The analysis and comparison with other fields suggest that the design of assessment models in DP should be studied rigorously in both theory and practice, and that the development of future models will benefit from applying existing methods, processes, and principles for model design.