As noted in Chapter 1, definitions of terms taken from the pre-digital preserva- tion paradigm are not always appropriate when applied to digital preservation.
Discussions about digital preservation are further confused by the difference in terminology among librarians, recordkeepers and other interested groups.
‘Terms like provenance, archiving, context, records, etc. are used with slightly different meanings . . . any discussion about preservation is challenged by confu- sion of terminology’ (Hofman, 2002, p.15). The term authenticityis one of these, and therefore we first need to establish what is meant by it
Authenticityis defined variously:
• the ‘quality of genuineness and trustworthiness of some digital materials, as being what they purport to be, either as an original object or as a reliable copy derived by fully documented processes from an original’ (UNESCO, 2003, p.161)
• ‘the digital material is what it purports to be’ (Jones and Beagrie, 2001, p.9)
• ‘the degree of confidence a user can have that the object is the same as that expected based on a prior reference or that it is what it purports to be’
(Authenticity, 1999)
• ‘a document that is the same as that which a user expected based on a prior reference’ (Kerry, 2001, p.7, citing the CEDARS Project).
Terms related to authenticity are:
• integrity, which for digital material is ‘the state of being whole, uncorrupted and free of unauthorised and undocumented changes’ (UNESCO, 2003, p.162)
• essential elements or significant properties, ‘the elements, characteristics and attributes of a given digital object that must be preserved in order to re- present its essential meaning or purpose’ (UNESCO, 2003, pp.161–162); and
88 What Attributes of Digital Materials Do We Preserve?
• identity, the attributes of a digital object that uniquely characterize and distin- guish it from other digital objects (Duranti, 2003, p.2).
The UNESCO Guidelinesget to the heart of the matter, stating succinctly that Authenticity derives from being able to trust both the identity of an object – that it is what it says it is, and has not been confused with some other object – and the integrityof the object – that it has not been changed in ways that change its meaning
and that ‘evaluating, maintaining and providing evidence of continued authen- ticity are key responsibilities for most preservation programmes’ (UNESCO, 2003, p.113).
Authenticity is valued in a number of different contexts for a variety of reasons. It is critical where digital materials are used as evidence. For records, the authenticity of the record is paramount: all who use it need to be able to trust that it is what it purports to be. Because ‘regulated industries, financial institutions, hospitals and clinics, and public entities are legally obliged to keep records over decades for purposes of accountability, continuity of operations and organizational memory’ their authenticity needs to be safeguarded (NSF- DELOS Working Group on Digital Archiving and Preservation, 2003, p.4).
Scholars ‘will need to feel confident that references they cite will stay the same over time’, and for participants in the legal system, there needs to be an assur- ance that ‘material can withstand legal evidential requirements’ (Jones and Beagrie, 2001, p.25). The list goes on: heritage materials are valued because they are authentic; for scientific data, ‘trust in their ongoing authenticity is critical, for without it they are of virtually no value’ (UNESCO, 2003, p.112). It could even be said that the future of government is at stake: ‘the likely success of e-government initiatives will depend on their ability to demonstrate to the citizen that digital records are maintained over time in systems that guarantee their authenticity and integrity’ (NSF-DELOS Working Group on Digital Archiving and Preservation, 2003, p.4).
The high value placed on authenticity has a long history. The Athenian gov- ernment considered that a key function of the library should be ‘to serve as a repository of trustworthy copies’, at least for the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Their plays were considered to be superior to those of their suc- cessors and revivals of these plays became the dramatic mainstay. However, according to Casson (2002) ‘the actors in them took liberties with the text’ to the extent that Lycurgus (leader of Athens from 338 to 325 BC) directed that
Written versions of the tragedies of [Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides] are to be preserved in the records office, and the city clerk is to read them, for purposes of comparison, to the actors playing the roles, and they are not to depart from them.
‘In other words’, notes Casson, ‘an authoritative version of each play was to be kept on file, and the actors were to follow it, under penalty of law’ (Casson, 2002, pp.29–30).
Authenticity of non-digital records has traditionally been assured by ‘the need for creators to rely upon their own active records, the fixity of these records, a 1111
2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3111 4 5 6 7 8 9 20111 1 211 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 30111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40111 1 2 3 44 45 46 47 48 49 50111
Authenticity 89
documented unbroken chain of custody from the creators to the archivists, and the description of the archival record within a finding aid’ (Gilliland-Swetland, 2005). Authenticity of non-digital materials was determined by considering provenance, integrity and context. Artifacts are of value because their origi- nality, fidelity, fixity, and stability are preserved (Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections, 2001, pp.10–11). For museum objects, provenance (‘the chain of ownership and context of use of an object’ ((Significance), 2001, p.37) is espe- cially important. An artwork that has a doubtful provenance is diminished in value (in this case financial); material from an archaeological site whose prove- nance has not been recorded is similarly reduced in irs reliability as evidence of past societies, and, therefore, in the uses to which it can be put. Integrity – an object’s ‘condition, intactness and integrity’ – provides an object with authen- ticity in that it is complete and in original condition ((Significance), 2001, p.43).
These determinations of authenticity and integrity are very closely linked to context. We need to be sure that the context in which the object was produced, discovered, owned, and stored is recorded. But this is more difficult to ensure for digital materials, and their authenticity, therefore, is harder to establish and maintain.
Why is establishing and maintaining the authenticity of digital materials dif- ferent from traditional materials? Why is it of such concern to those involved in digital preservation? As noted at the start of this chapter, preserving digital materials inevitably means altering them, because the processes and techniques we apply require changes to be made, changes that are easy to make. In the words of Jones and Beagrie (2001, p.9), ‘confidence in the authenticity of digital mater- ials over time is particularly crucial owing to the ease with which alterations can be made’. The threats to authenticity are intrinsic to the preservation processes for digital materials. These threats can be summarized as of three kinds:
1. ‘the possibility of a multiplicity of versions of a particular document’
(Authenticity 1999) resulting from ‘confusion in identifying data, changes to identifiers, or failure to document the relationships between different versions or copies’ (UNESCO, 2003, p.113)
2. changes caused by preservation processes, for example, the common practice of migrating information from one system or carrier to another may result in changes, as may adding metadata, creating new copies and other processes (UNESCO, 2003, p.113)
3. changes to the content of the material (UNESCO, 2003, p.113).
In addition there are, as noted in Chapters 2 and 3, threats that apply to all digital data – what the UNESCO Guidelines call ‘the ongoing integrity of data’
– and they affect authenticity. Among the threats are breakdown of carriers, malicious acts, such as attacks by hackers or viruses, terrorist attacks, war, civil unrest (especially as they compromise power supplies and the integrity of build- ings), accidental acts by staff, and fires, floods and other natural disasters, and business failure (UNESCO, 2003, p.113).
Because authenticity is so highly valued, digital preservation programs need to take appropriate steps to ensure that it is not compromised for the materials in their custody. The strategies applied to ensure the authenticity of digital materials include unique identifiers, encapsulation techniques (the packaging together of the digital object, its metadata, and other associated data), digital
90 What Attributes of Digital Materials Do We Preserve?
watermarking, digital signatures, encryption, digital time stamping, audit trails, controlled custody, and trusted repositories (Authenticity, 1999; NSF-DELOS Working Group on Digital Archiving and Preservation, 2003, p.6).