<div dir="ltr">Ref: E-mails on Sept. 13, 2008 with the subject line "Re: GOD vs. SCIENCE" <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">        Particularly discussion started by Peter Farwell As some readers of TheButtery know, I have been reading theory of knowledge (epistemology) and philosophy of language.  Although this started in response to a sort of schoolboy challenge, the topic rapidly enthralled me and finally, to my surprise, proved useful.  (In retrospect, I should not have been surprised.)  An outcome is a reading and criticism opportunity for you--an opportunity that you might find amusing if you found Peter Farwell's and my comments on the boundary between knowledge and belief interesting.  That the topic of this note, long-term preservation of digital documents, is socially important is suggested by an article that appeared in yesterday's New York Times and is cited below.  As you will see, the topic also might lead to something helpful to your own family. The review linked below is intended for archivists and librarians, a non-technical readership.  Hesitancy of those who have written about the topic has for some years been associated with their belief that certain technical requirements were not matched by known solutions.  This belief has, for about five years, been mistaken.  The essay is part of two-part review intended to persuade this community that it can progress with digital preservation with confidence that how to do it reliably is known.  The two essays are rhetorical (intended to persuade) rather than conveying any new ideas.  There are two difficult social problems.  (1) What I call "inattention across disciplinary boundaries" is closely associated with C.P. Snow's The Two Cultures, which describes difficulties between literary and other non-technical scholars, on the one hand, and scientists and engineers, on the other hand.  (2) Problems of the former community at understanding (how to exploit) technology--problems sometimes associated with mathematics phobia and similar afflictions.  With this in mind, the essays avoid technical material and jargon as much as I know how to do in describing methodology that is, at its core, a technical exercise. The first essay is called Long-Term Preservation of Digital Records, Part I: A Theoretical Basis.  A draft is now available at <a href="http://home.pacbell.net/hgladney/LDPreview1.pdf" target="_blank">http://home.pacbell.net/hgladney/LDPreview1.pdf</a>  .  It uses 20th-century epistemology to show that published difficulties with its topic are, in fact, connected with "failure to understand the logic of our language" (a phrase from Ludwig Wittgenstein).  Its thesis is that, once one overcomes one's own confusions about what is feasible, the solution to the technical portion of the long-term digital preservation challenge is obvious.  I.e., Part I sets the stage for Part II, which describes computer programs that I think needed. The second essay is called Long-Term Preservation of Digital Records, Part II: A Technical Solution.  With luck, I will be able to make a draft available in about one week.  This essay will first remind its readers of what has for a decade or so been available under various overlapping labels: "digital library software", "digital repository software", and "content management".   (Whenever you use Google, a university digital library, WikiPedia, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you are exploiting content management technology.)  It then shows that the additions to such widely deployed infrastructure--additions to extend their services to make information perpetually useful--are relatively small programming extensions.  The difficult aspect about writing this essay has making it comprehensible to anybody of reasonable intelligence.  If I succeeded, you will need little prior knowledge about computer programming to understand the ideas involved. Whether or not anybody (even I) implements the computer programs sketched is an open question.  For my part, the job is somewhat bigger than I can undertake on my own.  Furthermore, funding to engage programmers is not readily available to somebody who is neither a university nor a private sector computing technology enterprise. I believe that the topic, long-term digital preservation, is a critical social and cultural imperative.  I freely admit to being biased in my opinion of its importance.  On the other hand, John Swinden just signaled a pertinent New York Times opinion that corresponds.   See Robert Pear, In Digital Age, Federal Files Blip Into Oblivion, September 13, 2008, available via <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html?inline=nyt-per" target="_blank">http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html?inline=nyt-per</a> or <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/13records.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/13records.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a> . There is a close-to-home reason why I believe that you might find the topic of interest.  Are you writing things that you want your grandchildren to enjoy 50 years from now or later?  Do you have digital photograph collections, digital music recordings, or family videos that you are (realistically) concerned might become unusable in 10 or 20 years?  If so, my playmates and I believe we know how to help you achieve the former goal and forestall the latter disappointment. If you read one or both of these essays, I would welcome your questions and critical comments, particularly comments about comprehensibility and suggestions how to overcome weaknesses in that aspect.  If you choose to do this, it would be good to post copies of your notes on TheButtery, because such commentary often stimulates ideas from other readers.  (I.e., in the modern jargon, the topic at hand is a good one for a blog!) Best wishes, Henry H.M. Gladney, Ph.D. HMG Consulting <a href="http://home.pacbell.net/hgladney/" target="_blank">http://home.pacbell.net/hgladney/</a> (408)867-5454 </div></div> </div>