General characterization of internal, long-term storage procedures used by survey participants ("not applicable" responses excluded) (n=76).
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Purpose and Scope
Methodology
Personal invitations to participate in the survey were sent by e-mail to nearly 900 GIS archaeologists from 69 countries worldwide. Due to the lack of an objective benchmark against which to assess the concepts and issues addressed in the survey, no attempt was made to assess the validity of the GIS survey data.
Results and Conclusions
One of the most disturbing findings is that fewer than one in three participants are concerned enough about the long-term sustainability of their projects to factor such concerns into the planning, design or implementation of their project. Finally, there is a perception, especially among participants who work as consultants, that long-term conservation concerns are entirely the client's problem.
Background
The InterPARES 2 Project
Case Study 14
Case Study 14 examines how the documents of a GIS system at the Center for Desert Archeology in Arizona are created, maintained, and preserved, and the corresponding impact of these processes on the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the documents. The purpose of the case study is to help answer questions about the nature of digital archaeological records in general, how the increased reliance on GIS is affecting the archaeological community and, in particular, how both of these issues play a role in the archival habits of archaeologists.
General Study 09
Purpose and Scope
Survey Rationale
The aim of this survey was therefore to collect baseline data on the existing digital record keeping knowledge and habits of GIS archaeologists to help measure the current level of awareness and understanding within the archaeological community on: (1) digital preservation issues, (2) digital recordkeeping practices and (3) the potential impact of such practices on the long-term preservation of accurate, reliable, authentic, and accessible digital archaeological data and research records.
Target Population
Methodology
About the Survey
Data Acquisition Strategy
Survey Design
One-page design is characterized by static, plain HTML (or equivalent) forms in which all survey questions are arranged, often one after the other, on a single HTML page. Multi-page design is characterized by server-side HTML forms that are capable of using various interactive controls, such as automatic query jumping and jumping, conditional branching, response validation, timing, etc.
Survey Content
Section C asked eleven questions designed to assess participants' GIS project and documentation and file management habits. In addition, a number of questions in this section addressed the issue of metadata, looking specifically at how participants recorded metadata, what, if any, standards they followed, and how they integrated metadata into their GIS projects.
Risk Analysis
Reasons given included: (1) browser's unwillingness to accept cookies, (2) unreliable Internet connection, (3) browser incompatibility, and (4) a temporary server outage on the penultimate day of the survey. This may have been due in part to limitations inherent in the online survey architecture.
Response Rate
Completion Time
Thus, the total number of responses used in the calculation of the relative distribution of responses for each question varies depending on the total number of valid responses received for that question. 16. 16 This number is given in the caption of the distribution graph for each question as: n=[total number of valid responses].
Survey Data Characteristics
Reliability
- Survey Dropout
- Survey Participant Behaviour
- Summary of Survey Reliability
Comparison of the relative percentages of years of GIS experience of participants who completed the survey with those who dropped out. Comparison of the relative percentages of professional affiliations of participants who completed the survey with those who dropped out.
Validity
In other words, there were no obvious discrepancies between the participants' answers to questions C5 and C11. standard"), and compare it to the survey responses. Unfortunately, this approach cannot be used to assess the validity of the GIS survey, as there are no such "golden standards" for the concepts and issues addressed in the survey.
Summary of Results
Section A: Introduction
Perhaps instead, this underrepresentation of the human element in GISs points to the presence of some degree of disconnection between the actual influence that participants have on their GIS projects and their perception of this influence. Several of the participants admitted that they felt somewhat overwhelmed by the analytical potential of their GISs, primarily due to a lack of formal GIS training.
Section B: GIS Experience/Background
- Geographic Distribution
- Current Professional Archaeological Affiliation
- Years of Experience
- Frequency of Use
- Project Phase Experience
- GIS Design(s) Used
However, differences in the geographic distribution of participants included in the two surveys suggest that the observed difference in the distribution of experience levels between participants in the two surveys is in fact real. Question B3 sought to discern the nature of participants' involvement in each of several discrete procedural phases of GIS research, including: A.
Section C: File Management/Documentation Procedures
- File Naming Procedures
- File Version Control
- Related Paper Documents
- Overall Degree of Documentation
- Specific Documentation Strategies
- Documentation of Data/File Modifications
- Overall Documentation Processes and Procedures
- Documentation Rationale
- Sufficient Documentation
Characterization of the process commonly used by survey participants to document their GIS projects in relation to the timing of a project event. Question C9: Which of the following best characterizes your overall documentation procedures (regardless of their actual manifestations) from one GIS project to another.
Section D: Digital Preservation Practices
- Influence of Preservation Concerns on GIS Projects
- Long-term Preservation: Use of Designated Repositories vs. In-house Preservation
- In-house Preservation Strategies
- Structure of Preserved Projects
- Factors Influencing Preservation Decisions
- Metadata: Information Recorded
- Metadata: Procedures Used
- Metadata: Standards Used
- Metadata: Methods of Association
- Metadata: Use of Controlled Vocabularies
- Most Important Elements of GIS Projects for Long-term Preservation
Even more illuminating is the fact that a quarter (25.2%) of participants admit that they have no concerns about the long-term sustainability of their projects, at least not during the planning, design and implementation phases. Question D7 sought to identify which of several key considerations were responsible for influencing which, or how many, of the participants' GIS projects were maintained over the long term. Question D7: Which of the following considerations prevent you from storing some or all of your GIS projects long term (either 'in house' or in a designated repository).
Section E: Data Input/Output Practices
Systematisation of Procedures
Just over half (51.6%) of participants answering question E1 said that, overall, they always or usually follow a routine or systematic set of procedures when creating the various files and outputs for their GIS projects , while almost one in ten (9.8%) said they never do (Figure 55).60 Just over a third (38.5%) said they occasionally follow a routine or systematic sequence of procedures , or else that it varies depending on the type of file or output in question. According to many of the comments received to question E1, the creation of certain elements, such as maps and TINs (triangulated irregular networks), and the implementation of certain data creation and modification activities, such as those related to the digitization of map data or The implementation of GPS and geophysics routines are generally more 'rule-bound' and thus typically involve more standardized or structured procedures.61 Several participants noted that they often create templates and flowcharts, or set up batch processes, to assist them in automating many of these activities and results. On the other hand, certain data collection and post-processing activities, such as scanning section drawings or correcting digital photographs, as well as certain activities related to the actual analysis of the data, such as creating renderings, are typically much less rule-bound and therefore subject to greater procedural variation.
Reliance on GIS Procedures Manuals
Section F: Record Quality, Reliability & Authenticity Issues
- Concepts of Accuracy
- Background on Accuracy and Related Concepts
- Survey Results
- Accuracy and Auditing of Data Files
- Identification of GIS Project Creator
- Project Access and Security
- Privileged System/File Access
- Privileged Facilities Access / Physical Site Security
- User and Record Logging Software
- File Ownership and Digital Rights Management
- File/Data Encryption
- Project Data Integrity
Attribute accuracy refers to how closely the descriptions of the features in the GIS match the reality of those features on the ground. Comparison of the extent to which attributes related to scientific concepts of accuracy, precision, and relevance were cited by survey participants. Just over a third (35.2%) of participants indicated that they always or usually use file ownership and Digital Rights Management measures to protect their GIS project files from unauthorized access or modification (see Figure 64).
Section G: General Comments
The length and complexity of the survey were indeed issues of concern, in part because, as mentioned earlier, participants were asked to complete the survey during a single online session. These concerns likely affected some or all of the 38% of survey entries that resulted in partially completed surveys. These results provide compelling, albeit somewhat anecdotal, evidence to support a conclusion that participant attrition did not significantly bias the reliability of survey results.
Conclusions and Commentary
Overall Assessment
- File Creation Practices
- File Management Practices
- Preservation Practices
- Documentation Practices
For example, as was evident in many of the participants' comments, there is a growing sense of frustration (in some cases even despair) at the current lack of suitable long-term repositories available to archaeologists, as well as at the continued lack of a concerted, profession-wide response to these specific issues and concerns (despite the efforts of the Archeology Data Service in Britain). Although nearly two-thirds of participants (62%, see Figure 34) claim that their documentation practices are always or usually consistent from project to project, in many cases the effectiveness of these practices can be compromised by the fact that like many participants admit that project documentation often does not occur at or around the time the event is documented, and that for a full quarter of participants, project documentation typically does not occur until the end or after the end of the event. project (see figure 32). As these quotes clearly suggest, there is already substantial awareness within the profession of the importance of good documentation for the effective long-term preservation of digital records.
Recent Developments
It is also interesting to note that in warning researchers that their "ability to reconstruct the necessary metadata declines rapidly with time, often catastrophically with the death of the investigator" (Ibid., emphasis as in the original), the report clearly highlights the potentially dire consequences, from a long-term conservation perspective, of letting the contextual knowledge of one's project reside entirely, or largely, within the heads of one or two researchers, a concern that was also highlighted by a number of the survey participants in their comments. Although many problems involving the technological components of the long-term preservation equation (regarding software/hardware obsolescence, digital media impermanence, etc.) have yet to be fully overcome, as the results of this survey indicate, satisfactory solutions to problems related keeping with the socio-cultural components of the equation (regarding record-keeping practices, attitudes regarding the need for long-term preservation, etc.) currently lags even further behind. Thus, unless or until the archaeological community (and, indeed, society in general) is able to reconcile its long-term digital preservation needs, its digital record-keeping practices, and the types of digital objects it generates as by-products of the various technologies, such as GIS—on which more and more archaeological research relies so heavily—the long-term preservation of accurate, reliable, authentic, and accessible archaeological data and research records is likely to remain, in all but isolated cases, an elusive goal.
Bibliography of References Cited
The main components are: 1-data processing, 2-data manipulation and the most important is 3-data analysis. Questions can be asked about the data and further investigation takes place through the GIS system. 4903 All aspects must be preserved so that the reconstruction of each phase of the project can be carried out.
Copies of this data (usually on CD) are physically stored with the official (departmental) copy of the extension. 4952 All the elements mentioned above seem important to me to include in the metadata section of the project report.
