[SCC_Active_Members] Software Archive Problem Statements?

[Eric Petrich]

Hello All,

The current discussion on software archives has left me with two questions:

1. What is the role of the SPG in framing the "problem statement"
surrounding the software archive?

Al Kossow's recent e-mail requested that members hold off proposing
solutions until the museum staff can create a requirements document. Or,
as Grady Booch put it, before the problem is understood.

Is there anything the SPG can do to expedite this process? I'm not a
librarian or a museum science specialist, and I suspect the same goes
for most SPG members. I have only the barest sense of the methods and
processes that are used to turn items (physical, virtual, or whatever)
into artifacts, so I'm not sure that I'm qualified to weigh in on the
subject.

I'd welcome some clarification on this matter.

2. Do we have multiple problems?

I think members are suggesting implementations out of a sense of
urgency; several people have stated that we are probably missing chances
to preserve software because we don't have an archive ready.

Do we need both short-term and long-term solutions? Can we (or the
museum staff) come up with a "problem statement" regarding how to get
software archived with enough metadata and incorruptibility to allow
formal accessions later on?

My wife suggested burning stuff to CDs or DVDs as a way to ensure
(albeit temporarily) that we have copies that can't be altered. That's
an implementation without a complete understanding of the problem, but
I'm trying to illustrate how we can have a temporary solution that
wouldn't necessarily be part of the long-term plan.

My second question gets back to my first one, since I suspect I'm not
well-qualified to make comments on archival processes. But since the
SPG's work statement includes the goal of "preserving and collecting
software," I'd like to better understand how we can do this effectively.


- Eric Petrich