Hubbry Logo
Digital curationDigital curationMain
Open search
Digital curation
Community hub
Digital curation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Digital curation
Digital curation
Digital curation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Servers of the Wikimedia Foundation, a large digital curator, in 2012

Digital curation is the selection,[1] preservation, maintenance, collection, and archiving of digital assets.[2][3][4][5] It is a process that establishes, maintains, and adds value to repositories of digital data for present and future use.[4] The implementation of digital curation is often carried out by archivists, librarians, scientists, historians, and scholars to ensure users have access to reliable, high-quality resources.[6] Enterprises are also starting to adopt digital curation as a means to improve the quality of information and data within their operational and strategic processes.[7] A successful digital curation initiative will help to mitigate digital obsolescence, keeping the information accessible to users indefinitely.[8] Digital curation includes various aspects, including digital asset management, data curation, digital preservation, and electronic records management.[9]

Word History

[edit]

Much like the word archive has layered meanings and uses, the word curation is both a noun and a verb, used originally in the field of museology to represent a wide range of activities, most often associated with collection care, long-term preservation, and exhibition design. Curation can be a reference to physical repositories that store cultural heritage or natural resource collections (e.g., a curatorial repository) or a representation of varied policies and processes involved with the long-term care and management of heritage collections, digital archives, and research data (e.g, curatorial/collections management plans, curation life-cycle, and data curation). Yet curation is also associated with short-term objectives and processes of selection and interpretation for the purposes of presentation, such as for gallery exhibitions and websites, which contribute to knowledge creation. It has also been applied to interaction with social media including compiling digital images, web links, and movie files.

The term curation entered the legal framework through federal historic preservation laws, starting with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,[10] and was further defined and coded into federal regulations through 36 CFR Part 79: Curation of Federally-owned and Administered Archaeological Collections.[11] Curation has since permeated into an array of disciplines but remains closely tied to heritage and information management.

Core Principles and Activities

[edit]

The term "digital curation" was first used in the e-science and biological science fields as a means of differentiating the additional suite of activities ordinarily employed by library and museum curators to add value to their collections and enable its reuse[12][13][14] from the smaller subtask of simply preserving the data, a significantly more concise archival task.[12] Additionally, the historical understanding of the term "curator" demands more than simple care of the collection. A curator is expected to command academic mastery of the subject matter as a requisite part of appraisal and selection of assets and any subsequent adding of value to the collection through application of metadata.[12]

Principles

[edit]

There are five commonly accepted principles that govern the occupation of digital curation:

  • Manage the complete birth-to-retirement life cycle of the digital asset.[5]
  • Evaluate and cull assets for inclusion in the collection.[5]
  • Apply preservation methods to strengthen the asset’s integrity and reusability for future users.[5]
  • Act proactively throughout the asset life cycle to add value to both the digital asset and the collection.[5]
  • Facilitate the appropriate degree of access to users.[5]

Methodology

[edit]

The Digital Curation Center offers the following step-by-step life cycle procedures for putting the above principles into practice:[15]

Sequential Actions:

  • Conceptualize: Consider what digital material you will be creating and develop storage options. Take into account websites, publications, email, among other types of digital output.[4][15]
  • Create: Produce digital material and attach all relevant metadata, typically the more metadata the more accessible the information.[4][15]
  • Appraise and select: Consult the mission statement of the institution or private collection and determine what digital data is relevant. There may also be legal guidelines in place that will guide the decision process for a particular collection.[4]
  • Ingest: Send digital material to the predetermined storage solution. This may be an archive, repository or other facility.[4][15]
  • Preservation action: Employ measures to maintain the integrity of the digital material.[4][15]
  • Store: Secure data within the predetermined storage facility.[4][15]
  • Access, use, and reuse: Determine the level of accessibility for the range of digital material created. Some material may be accessible only by password and other material may be freely accessible to the public.[4][15] Routinely check that material is still accessible for the intended audience and that the material has not been compromised through multiple uses.[15]
  • Transform: If desirable or necessary the material may be transferred into a different digital format.[15]

Occasional Actions:

  • Dispose: Discard any digital material that is not deemed necessary to the institution.[4][15]
  • Reappraise: Reevaluate material to ensure that is it still relevant and is true to its original form.[4][15]
  • Migrate: Migrate data to another format in order to protect data for using better in the future.[15]
[edit]

The term "digital curation" is sometimes used interchangeably with terms such as "digital preservation" and "digital archiving."[2][16] While digital preservation does focus a significant degree of energy on optimizing reusability, preservation remains a subtask to the concept of digital archiving, which is in turn a subtask of digital curation.[12][14] For example, archiving is a part of curation, but so are subsequent tasks such as themed collection-building, which is not considered an archival task. Similarly, preservation is a part of archiving, as are the tasks of selection and appraisal that are not necessarily part of preservation.[14]

Data curation is another term that is often used interchangeably with digital curation, however common usage of the two terms differs. While "data" is a more all-encompassing term that can be used generally to indicate anything recorded in binary form, the term "data curation" is most common in scientific parlance and usually refers to accumulating and managing information relative to the process of research.[17] Data-driven research of education request the role of information professional gradually develop tradition of digital service to data curation particularly at the management of digital research data.[18] So, while documents and other discrete digital assets are technically a subset of the broader concept of data,[12] in the context of scientific vernacular digital curation represents a broader purview of responsibilities than data curation due to its interest in preserving and adding value to digital assets of any kind.[13]

Challenges

[edit]

Rate of creation of new data and data sets

[edit]

The ever lowering cost and increasing prevalence of entirely new categories of technology has led to a quickly growing flow of new data sets.[19] These come from well established sources such as business and government, but the trend is also driven by new styles of sensors becoming embedded in more areas of modern life.[13] This is particularly true of consumers, whose production of digital assets is no longer relegated strictly to work. Consumers now create wider ranges of digital assets, including videos, photos, location data, purchases, and fitness tracking data, just to name a few, and share them in wider ranges of social platforms.[13]

Additionally, the advance of technology has introduced new ways of working with data. Some examples of this are international partnerships that leverage astronomical data to create "virtual observatories," and similar partnerships have also leveraged data resulting from research at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and the database of protein structures at the Protein Data Bank.[14]

Storage format evolution and obsolescence

[edit]

By comparison, archiving of analog assets is notably passive in nature, often limited to simply ensuring a suitable storage environment.[2] Digital preservation requires a more proactive approach.[20] Today’s artifacts of cultural significance are notably transient in nature and prone to obsolescence when social trends or dependent technologies change.[13] This rapid progression of technology occasionally makes it necessary to migrate digital asset holdings from one file format to another in order to mitigate the dangers of hardware and software obsolescence which would render the asset unusable.[15][8]

Underestimation of human labor costs

[edit]

Modern tools for program planning often underestimate the amount of human labor costs required for adequate digital curation of large collections. As a result cost-benefit assessments often paint an inaccurate picture of both the amount of work involved and the true cost to the institution for both successful outcomes and failures.[13]

The concept of cost in business field would be more obvious. Varieties of business systems are running for daily operations. For example, human resources systems deal with recruitment and payroll, communication systems manage internal and external email, and administration systems handle finance, marketing, and other aspects. However, business systems in institutions are not designed for long-term information preservation initially.[21] In some instances, business systems are revised to become Digital Curation systems for preserving transaction information due to cost consideration. The example of business systems are Enterprise Content Management (ECM) applications, which are used by designated group people such as business executives, customers for information management that support key processes organizationally. In the long run, to transfer digital content from ECM applications to Digital Curation (DC) applications would be a trend in large organizations domestically or internationally. The improvement of maturity models of ECM and DC may add value to information that request cost deduction and extensive use for further modification.[21]

Standardization and coordination between institutions

[edit]

An absence of coordination across different sectors of society and industry in areas such as the standardization of semantic and ontological definitions,[22] and in forming partnerships for proper stewardship of assets has resulted in a lack of interoperability between institutions, and a partial breakdown in digital curation practice from the standpoint of the ordinary user.[13] The example of coordination is Open Archival Information System (OAIS).[2]

OAIS Reference Model allows professionals and many other organizations and individuals to contribute efforts to the OAIS open forums for developing international standards of archival information in long-term access.[2][23]

Digitization of analog materials

[edit]

The curation of digital objects is not limited to strictly born-digital assets. Many institutions have engaged in monumental efforts to digitize analog holdings in an effort to increase access to their collections.[2] Examples of these materials are books, photographs, maps, audio recordings, and more.[13] The process of converting printed resources into digital collections has been epitomized to some degree by librarians and related specialists. For example, The Digital Curation Centre is claimed to be a "world leading centre of expertise in digital information curation"[24] that assists higher education research institutions in such conversions.

Material Types

[edit]

Manuscripts

[edit]

Built Cultural Heritage

[edit]
Artifacts
[edit]
Monuments or Architectural Assets
[edit]

Nowadays, with the development in ICT and computer-based visualisation, curators benefit from the 3D Reconstruction methods and Digital Twin to not only represent their updated and authentic cultural heritage data sets but also assist conservation architects and the other experts in further practices on the assets.[25]

Intangible Cultural Heritage

[edit]
Folklore
[edit]

New representational formats

[edit]

For some topics, knowledge is embodied in forms that have not been conducive to print, such as how choreography of dance or of the motion of skilled workers or artisans is difficult to encode. New digital approaches such as 3D holograms and other computer-programmed expressions are developing.[citation needed]

For mathematics, it seems possible for a new common language to be developed that would express mathematical ideas in ways that can be digitally stored, linked, and made accessible. The Global Digital Mathematics Library is a project to define and develop such a language.[26][27]

Accessibility

[edit]

The ability of the intended user community to access the repository’s holdings is of equal importance to all the preceding curatorial tasks. This must take into account not only the user community’s format and communication preferences, but also a consideration of communities that should not have access for various legal or privacy reasons.[28]

Access can be increased by providing information about open access status with open data and open source methods such as the OAI-PMH endpoints of an open archive, which are then aggregated by databases and search engines like BASE, CORE, and Unpaywall for academic papers.[29]

Responses to challenges

[edit]
  • Specialized research institutions[30][31]

There are three elements for essential needs of institutions dealing with issues of digital curation: Leadership, Resources, and Collaboration. Three elements related to the role of advance-guards for librarians and archivists working with open approaches to technology, standardized process and scholarly communication. The archivist with leadership, who needs to be a dynamic and active role to embrace technology, standardized process, and scholarly communication. In addition, Archivist leader might adopt the business concept and methods to deal with their workflow such as raise funds, invest technology system, and comply with industry standards, in order to obtain more resources. Collaboration in archives and digital curation community could provide and share training, technologies, standards, and tools to help institutions on challengeable issues of digital curation. Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC), the Open Preservation Foundation or novel partnerships offer collaboration opportunity to institutions facing similar challenges in digital curation issues.[32]

  • Academic courses

Information field especially in libraries, archives, and museums significantly need to bring knowledge of new technologies. Traditional graduate school education is not enough to meet that demand; training program for current staffs in cultural repository would be an efficient supplement for that request, such as professional workshops, and MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses) in data curation and management.[33]

International Digital Curation Conference (IDCC) is an established annual event since 2005, aiming to collaborate with individuals, organizations, and institutions facing challenges, supporting development, and exchanging ideas in the field.[36]

  • Peer reviewed technical and industry journals[37]

The International Journal of Digital Curation (IJDC) is administered by IJDC Editorial Board including the Editor-in-Chief, Digital Curation Center (DCC), and the following members. IJDC dedicate to provide scholarly platform for sharing, discussing, and improving knowledge and information of digital curation within the worldwide community. IJDC has two types of submission under editorial guidelines, which are peer-reviewed papers and general articles base on original research, the field information, and relevant events in digital curation. IJDC is published by the University of Edinburgh for the Digital Curation Centre in electronic form on a rolling basis two times a year. The open access to the public supports knowledge exchangeable in digital curation worldwide.[38]

Approaches

[edit]

Many approaches to digital curation exist and have evolved over time in response to the changing technological landscape. Two examples of this are sheer curation[12] and channelization.[citation needed]

Sheer curation is an approach to digital curation where curation activities are quietly integrated into the normal work flow of those creating and managing data and other digital assets. The word sheer is used to emphasize the lightweight and virtually transparent nature of these curation activities. The term sheer curation was coined by Alistair Miles in the ImageStore project,[39] and the UK Digital Curation Centre's SCARP project.[40] The approach depends on curators having close contact or 'immersion' in data creators' working practices. An example is the case study of a neuroimaging research group by Whyte et al., which explored ways of building its digital curation capacity around the apprenticeship style of learning of neuroimaging researchers, through which they share access to datasets and re-use experimental procedures.[41]

Sheer curation depends on the hypothesis that good data and digital asset management at the point of creation and primary use is also good practice in preparation for sharing, publication and/or long-term preservation of these assets. Therefore, sheer curation attempts to identify and promote tools and good practices in local data and digital asset management in specific domains, where those tools and practices add immediate value to the creators and primary users of those assets. Curation can best be supported by identifying existing practices of sharing, stewardship, and re-use that add value, and augmenting them in ways that both have short-term benefits, and in the longer term reduce risks to digital assets or provide new opportunities to sustain their long-term accessibility and re-use value.[citation needed]

The aim of sheer curation is to establish a solid foundation for other curation activities which may not directly benefit the creators and primary users of digital assets, especially those required to ensure long-term preservation. By providing this foundation, further curation activities may be carried out by specialists at appropriate institutional and organisation levels, whilst causing the minimum of interference to others.[citation needed]

A similar idea is curation at source used in the context of Laboratory Information Management Systems LIMS. This refers more specifically to automatic recording of metadata or information about data at the point of capture and has been developed to apply semantic web techniques to integrate laboratory instrumentation and documentation systems.[42] Sheer curation and curation-at-source can be contrasted with post hoc digital preservation, where a project is initiated to preserve a collection of digital assets that have already been created and are beyond the period of their primary use.[citation needed]

Channelization is curation of digital assets on the web, often by brands and media companies, into continuous flows of content, turning the user experience from a lean-forward interactive medium, to a lean-back passive medium. The curation of content can be done by an independent third party, that selects media from any number of on-demand outlets from across the globe and adds them to a playlist to offer a digital "channel" dedicated to certain subjects, themes, or interests so that the end user would see and/or hear a continuous stream of content.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Digital curation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Digital curation is the active management and preservation of digital data over its entire lifecycle, encompassing activities from planning its creation and initial selection to ongoing maintenance, appraisal, and dissemination to ensure long-term accessibility, authenticity, and usability for current and future needs. This process addresses the challenges posed by rapidly evolving technologies, formats, and storage media that threaten the obsolescence or loss of digital assets, applying principles of sustainability, interoperability through common standards, and protection against degradation. In essence, it transforms static digital information into dynamic, reusable resources that support research, cultural heritage, and decision-making across sectors. The concept of digital curation emerged in the early 2000s, primarily from the scientific and e-science communities grappling with the explosion of and the need for its reliable long-term . A pivotal development was the establishment of the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) in the in 2002, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee () to promote best practices in and preservation. This was followed by the launch of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Digital Curation in 2006, which solidified digital curation as a distinct academic and professional discipline focused on holistic lifecycle approaches rather than mere technical archiving. Early influences included international standards like the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) , adapted to emphasize proactive curation over reactive preservation. Central to digital curation is the DCC's Curation Lifecycle Model, a graphical framework that outlines sequential and iterative actions for effective , divided into key stages such as ingest (acquisition and validation), preservation planning, and access/dissemination. This model supports roles across functional units, including appraisal for selection, metadata creation for discoverability, migration to prevent format obsolescence, and to maintain . It underscores curation's iterative nature, where activities like re-appraisal and transformation occur cyclically to adapt to changing user needs and technological landscapes. Digital curation's importance spans academia, cultural institutions, , and industry, where it enables for , ensures compliance with legal and ethical standards, and safeguards investments in amid growing volumes of materials. For instance, in environments, it facilitates and by enhancing from creation onward, while in heritage sectors, it preserves irreplaceable records like photographs, manuscripts, and for access. Challenges include resource constraints and skill gaps, but ongoing advancements in tools and policies continue to evolve the field toward more robust, automated solutions.

Overview and History

Definition and Scope

Digital curation is defined as the active management and preservation of over its entire lifecycle to ensure long-term , , and value. This process encompasses maintaining and enhancing digital materials, mitigating risks such as technological obsolescence, and facilitating their reuse for research and other purposes. Unlike simple , digital curation requires ongoing human decision-making and intervention to adapt to evolving technological and contextual needs. Key objectives of digital curation include selection and appraisal to determine which materials warrant preservation, ingestion into secure systems, preservation planning to address potential threats, to ensure integrity, and to enable access and reuse. These activities are guided by models such as the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model, which outlines sequential and cyclical steps from creation through disposal. The scope of digital curation extends to both born-digital content—originally created in digital form, such as emails, , and files—and digitized materials converted from analog sources, like scanned documents or photographs. It applies across diverse sectors, including libraries, archives, and museums for institutional collections; research environments for scholarly data; and even personal collections for individual digital memories. The term digital curation first appeared in amid growing initiatives in digital libraries and preservation efforts to address the challenges of managing rapidly proliferating digital information. This development reflected broader shifts toward proactive strategies for handling digital assets beyond mere archival storage.

Etymology and Evolution

The term "curation" originates from the Latin verb , meaning "to take care of," a historically applied to the and care of physical collections in museums and archives. In the digital realm, this notion adapted during the late to address the challenges of managing ephemeral electronic data, spurred by the rapid proliferation of after the Internet's mainstream adoption in the . The specific phrase "digital curation" first appeared in 2001 at a titled "Digital Curation: Digital Archives, Libraries and e-Science," organized by the UK's Digital Preservation Coalition, marking the formal recognition of the discipline as an extension of traditional curation to born-digital materials. Key milestones shaped the field's emergence, beginning with the 1994 Digital Libraries Initiative, a joint program by the U.S. (NSF), (DARPA), and (NASA), which allocated $24 million to six projects exploring digital collection building, metadata standards, and user access—laying groundwork for curation practices. In 2004, the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) was founded in the UK through funding from the (JISC) and the e-Science Core Programme, aiming to foster research and tools for long-term digital stewardship across disciplines. The DCC further solidified the terminology in 2005 by defining digital curation as "maintaining and adding value to a trusted body of digital information for current and future use; specifically, the active management and appraisal of data over its entire life cycle," emphasizing proactive intervention beyond mere storage. Digital curation evolved from foundational principles in and , which traditionally focused on physical records, but adapted to the volatile, volume-intensive nature of digital assets post-Internet, incorporating lifecycle approaches to ensure usability and integrity. Early adopters included the , which launched its National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program in 2000 to curate web archives and multimedia, and JISC, which sponsored pilot projects in the early 2000s to integrate curation into UK higher education research workflows. By the 2010s, the discipline shifted emphasis from static preservation to enabling active reuse and , driven by mandates for in scientific funding and the rise of initiatives that prioritized discoverability and . The field continues to evolve, as evidenced by the International Digital Curation Conference reaching its 19th edition in 2025.

Core Principles

Fundamental Principles

Digital curation is grounded in a set of fundamental principles that ensure the long-term integrity, usability, and value of digital assets throughout their lifecycle. These principles guide the active management of data from creation to reuse, emphasizing technical and operational strategies to mitigate risks associated with technological change and data degradation. The principle of provenance requires maintaining comprehensive metadata that documents the origin, custody, and any transformations applied to digital objects. This includes recording the sources of data creation, subsequent handling by custodians, and all preservation actions performed, such as migrations or format conversions. In the OAIS reference model (as updated in the 2024 version, ISO 14721:2024), provenance information forms a core component of Preservation Description Information (PDI), enabling users to verify the historical context and trustworthiness of archived materials. By systematically tracking these details, curators can reconstruct the chain of custody, which is essential for scholarly validation and legal accountability in research data management. Authenticity in digital curation focuses on preserving the and reliability of digital objects to demonstrate that they remain true to their original form and intent. This is achieved through mechanisms such as checksums for detecting alterations, digital signatures for verifying creator identity, and trails that log all access and modification events. The PREMIS supports this by defining elements for fixity information, which confirms that content has not been corrupted or intentionally changed without authorization. Similarly, the OAIS model incorporates fixity as part of PDI to ensure that the semantic meaning and factual accuracy of digital assets are maintained over time. These tools collectively build user confidence in the unaltered state of preserved data, particularly in fields like scientific research where depends on verifiable sources. The principle of addresses the need for strategies that guarantee the long-term viability of digital objects despite evolving hardware, software, and formats. Curators employ techniques like emulation, migration to new formats, and redundant storage to counteract and . In frameworks, persistence is realized through ongoing monitoring and intervention to reproduce objects accurately in future environments, as outlined in foundational theories that quantify communication across technological shifts. This principle underscores the shift from mere storage to , ensuring that digital assets remain interpretable and functional for designated communities indefinitely. Accessibility balances the preservation of digital objects with their discoverability and usability for intended users, requiring metadata schemas that facilitate search, retrieval, and interpretation. This involves embedding descriptive, technical, and structural metadata to support user interfaces and tools, while adhering to standards that prevent lock-in. The OAIS model (as updated in the 2024 version, ISO 14721:2024) defines access rights within PDI to manage permissions and enable controlled , ensuring equitable without compromising . In practice, this promotes the of systems where users can interact with preserved in contextually appropriate ways, such as through web-based viewers or APIs. Interoperability serves as a guiding by mandating adherence to open standards and protocols that allow seamless exchange and integration of digital objects across diverse systems. The OAIS (as updated in the 2024 version, ISO 14721:2024) exemplifies this through its functional entities for ingestion, storage, and dissemination, which are designed to be implementable in varied archival environments using non-proprietary formats. By prioritizing standards like those in the PREMIS dictionary, curators ensure that metadata and content can migrate between repositories without loss of functionality, fostering in global data ecosystems. The sustainability principle emphasizes cost-effective planning to support ongoing curation activities, including resource allocation for storage, staffing, and technological updates. The Digital Curation Sustainability Model (DCSM) provides a framework for assessing and balancing economic, organizational, and technical factors to maintain viable preservation operations over decades. This involves strategic decisions on scalable and models to avoid silos, ensuring that curation efforts remain feasible amid growing data volumes. These principles collectively inform data lifecycle management by providing a foundation for proactive . Digital curation is guided by ethical imperatives that prioritize the protection of rights, ensuring creators retain control over their digital works while allowing for preservation and access under defined limits. These rights extend to digital artifacts, where curators must obtain permissions or rely on exceptions to avoid infringement, balancing innovation with fair compensation for original contributions. Ethical concerns also encompass , particularly in curating indigenous or sensitive materials, where digitization risks perpetuating colonial narratives or violating community protocols without consultation. For instance, tools like Mukurtu software enable Indigenous-led curation to safeguard sacred knowledge from unauthorized dissemination. Equity in access further underscores these ethics, demanding that digital collections mitigate barriers for underrepresented groups through inclusive metadata and open platforms, preventing the reinforcement of historical exclusions. Privacy considerations form a of ethical digital curation, especially when handling embedded in archives or datasets. Under the European Union's (GDPR) of 2018, curators must secure explicit consent for processing identifiable information and implement safeguards like anonymization to prevent re-identification risks. Similarly, the (CCPA) of 2018 grants residents rights to access, delete, and opt out of data sales, compelling institutions to audit collections for compliance and restrict access to sensitive elements. These regulations highlight the need for curators to embed privacy-by-design principles, ensuring long-term stewardship does not compromise individual rights. Legal foundations underpin these practices through frameworks like copyright laws, which govern reproduction and distribution in digital environments. In the United States, the of 1998 provides safe harbors for curators acting as intermediaries while permitting for non-commercial preservation, such as copying for archival stability without market harm. evaluations consider factors like purpose, nature, amount, and effect on the original work's value, enabling limited access for research or education. Internationally, the of 1996 establishes protections for digital works, requiring adequate safeguards against circumvention while promoting exceptions for libraries and archives. Data protection acts, including GDPR and CCPA, complement these by enforcing accountability in handling personal information across borders. Open access ethics in digital curation emphasize promoting the FAIR principles—Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and —to enhance without compromising . These principles advocate for persistent identifiers, rich metadata, standardized formats, and clear licensing to facilitate ethical , as articulated in the 2016 foundational guidelines. By aligning curation with , institutions foster transparency and , though requires vigilance against restrictions. Curators face dilemmas in deaccessioning or selective curation, where decisions to remove or prioritize materials risk introducing or eroding collection authenticity. Ethical deaccessioning demands transparent criteria to avoid favoritism toward dominant narratives, ensuring removals serve public trust rather than resource constraints. Selective practices must counteract inherent biases in source materials, such as underrepresentation of marginalized voices, through diverse appraisal methods. These challenges relate briefly to broader principles of authenticity, requiring curators to verify amid ethical trade-offs.

Key Activities and Processes

Data Lifecycle Management

Data lifecycle management in digital curation encompasses the systematic processes to ensure digital assets remain accessible, authentic, and usable over time, from initial creation through long-term preservation. This involves sequential stages that address the evolving needs of data throughout its existence, guided by established models to mitigate risks of loss or degradation. The pre-curation stage focuses on appraisal and selection, where curators evaluate digital materials based on their informational value, uniqueness, and to organizational goals to determine suitability for long-term retention. This appraisal considers factors such as legal requirements, potential, and resource implications to prioritize assets for . Following selection, the stage involves transferring approved data into a curation system, including the assignment of descriptive, technical, and administrative metadata to facilitate discovery, , and future use. Metadata standards like or PREMIS are commonly applied during this process to embed essential context about the data's origin, structure, and . Repositories such as and support these workflows by providing open-source platforms for automated ingestion, validation, and initial storage, ensuring compliance with archival standards. Active preservation occurs post-ingestion, emphasizing ongoing to counteract threats to , such as format obsolescence, through actions like format migration and normalization. This stage ensures remains interpretable by converting files to sustainable formats while preserving their intellectual content and fixity. Access and represent the final active phase, where curated is made available to users via interfaces that support search, retrieval, and reuse, often with access controls to protect sensitive . This includes generating dissemination information packages tailored to user needs, balancing with . Throughout the lifecycle, monitoring for degradation is essential, involving regular integrity checks—such as checksum verification—and risk assessments to detect , hardware failures, or environmental threats. These proactive measures, often automated within repository systems, help maintain and inform preservation actions. Disposition concludes the lifecycle by applying criteria for retention or deletion, weighing the data's enduring value against storage costs, legal obligations, and institutional policies. Assets deemed no longer relevant may be securely deleted, while others are retained indefinitely. Digital curation lifecycle management integrates closely with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) , an ISO standard that outlines functional entities including submission (for ingest), archival storage (for preservation), and administration (for monitoring and disposition). This alignment ensures robust, interoperable workflows across institutions.

Curation Methodologies

Digital curation methodologies provide structured frameworks and standards to guide the systematic management, preservation, and of digital assets throughout their lifecycle. These approaches emphasize reliability, , and adaptability, drawing from established models to address the complexities of long-term digital . Key methodologies include lifecycle models, audit criteria, metadata standards, cost estimation tools, and iterative processes adapted from other disciplines. The DCC Curation Lifecycle Model, developed in 2008 by the Digital Curation Centre, offers a cyclical framework for planning and implementing curation activities. This model organizes curation into sequential yet iterative stages, encompassing actions such as ingest, appraisal, representation (including metadata creation and description), preservation planning, preservation actions (like migration and validation), , access and use, transformation, and . Its cyclical nature ensures ongoing management, allowing organizations to identify risks, assign roles, and optimize workflows for data creators, curators, and users, thereby supporting holistic research data management infrastructure. The model is adaptable to various granularities and has been widely used for training and resource allocation in efforts. Complementing lifecycle approaches, the Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) framework, published in 2007 by the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) in collaboration with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), establishes criteria for evaluating the reliability of digital repositories. TRAC focuses on three core areas: organizational infrastructure (governance, financial sustainability, and policies), digital object management (ingest, metadata handling, and preservation strategies), and infrastructure and security risk management (technical systems, disaster recovery, and security measures). It provides a checklist of 84 criteria, including qualitative and quantitative metrics, to assess a repository's capacity for long-term preservation, enabling audits that build trust among stakeholders such as funders and users. This methodology has influenced subsequent standards like ISO 16363 and is applied in repository self-assessments and third-party certifications. PREMIS (Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies), maintained by the since 2008 following its initial development by and RLG in 2005, serves as a standard for capturing and recording metadata essential to preservation actions in digital curation. It defines a core set of implementable elements across four entities—intellectual entities, objects, agents, and —covering descriptive, technical, , and metadata to document actions like format migrations, fixity checks, and access restrictions. The PREMIS Data Dictionary provides detailed semantics and implementation guidelines, supported by an for interoperability, ensuring that preservation decisions and processes are traceable and verifiable over time. Widely adopted in repository systems such as and , PREMIS facilitates automated preservation workflows and compliance with audit requirements like TRAC. Cost estimation models, such as (TCO), are critical for planning and budgeting digital curation efforts, accounting for the full spectrum of expenses beyond initial acquisition. In digital curation contexts, TCO encompasses costs for data capture, storage (hardware and media), maintenance (software updates and staff), and access/dissemination, often calculated over multi-year periods to reflect lifecycle realities. For instance, the Digital Curation Centre's analyses highlight that staff costs typically dominate (around 66% in early examples), while storage costs have declined dramatically due to technological advances, enabling projections like £1,000 per terabyte per year for sustainable operations. These models support decision-making on , shared , and , helping institutions mitigate financial risks and ensure long-term viability. Agile curation methods, adapted from principles, promote iterative and flexible approaches to digital curation tasks, emphasizing and responsiveness to evolving needs. Drawing from the Agile Manifesto, these methods prioritize individuals and interactions, usable over exhaustive documentation, user , and to change, applied through sprints for tasks like metadata enhancement or preservation planning. Initial agile curation principles, proposed in community discussions around 2017, include maximizing impact via accelerated access, fostering automated interactions through well-documented services, ensuring close creator-curator , and pursuing incremental improvements with metrics focused on usage and citation. This enhances efficiency in dynamic environments, such as research repositories, by enabling self-organizing teams to deliver sustainable enhancements without rigid upfront planning. Digital Preservation refers to the series of managed activities necessary to ensure the long-term and of digital materials for as long as needed, regardless of changes in or environments. This process focuses primarily on technical strategies such as format migration, emulation, and integrity checks to prevent and degradation, distinguishing it from digital curation's broader emphasis on active management, selection, and value addition throughout the data lifecycle. Key activities include creating preservation metadata and establishing policies to maintain authenticity and reliability over time. Digital Stewardship encompasses the comprehensive oversight of digital resources, integrating preservation, curation, and to ensure their and across their entire lifecycle. It involves not only technical maintenance but also policy development, funding allocation, and among stakeholders to address organizational and societal needs for digital assets. Unlike narrower preservation efforts, stewardship adopts a holistic approach that includes ethical considerations and long-term to support ongoing use and reuse. Data Archiving involves the long-term storage and preservation of in a repository to ensure its retention and future , often including activities such as , format migration, and metadata management to combat technological . This process emphasizes secure retention and basic retrieval mechanisms, but typically focuses on preservation rather than the dynamic appraisal, selection, or contextual enrichment emphasized in digital curation. While it requires proactive interventions to maintain integrity, it lacks the full lifecycle management and value-adding aspects of curation. Digital Asset Management (DAM) is the systematic process of ingesting, storing, organizing, retrieving, and distributing digital files—particularly media such as images, videos, and documents—within a centralized system to support business operations and content reuse. DAM systems typically incorporate metadata tagging, , and tools tailored for commercial environments, enabling efficient asset sharing across teams while maintaining and rights management. In contrast to curation's research-oriented focus, DAM prioritizes practical, enterprise-level handling of assets for immediate productivity and purposes. Born-Digital Materials are digital objects created natively in electronic form without an original analog counterpart, such as emails, web pages, or generated directly by software. These materials often require curation strategies that address volatile formats, embedded dependencies on proprietary systems, and rapid obsolescence risks inherent to their digital-native origins. Digitized Materials, conversely, are analog items— like photographs or manuscripts—converted into digital formats through scanning or other reformatting processes, resulting in that aim to replicate physical characteristics. Curation of digitized content involves ensuring to the source while managing conversion artifacts and hybrid workflows, differing from born-digital needs by emphasizing migration from physical to digital states.

Distinctions from Adjacent Fields

Digital curation distinguishes itself from traditional archiving primarily through its proactive, ongoing management of digital materials throughout their lifecycle, in contrast to the more static preservation of physical records in conventional archival practices. Traditional archiving typically involves the appraisal, arrangement, and description of inert paper-based or analog documents once they are transferred to an archival repository, with limited intervention after initial processing. In digital curation, however, curators actively intervene across the entire records continuum—from creation and selection to long-term maintenance—to address the dynamic nature of digital formats, which can degrade, become obsolete, or require format migration to ensure accessibility. This approach is necessitated by the inherent instability of digital objects, unlike the relative durability of static physical records. Compared to digital libraries, digital curation prioritizes the long-term integrity and sustainability of digital assets over immediate user access and retrieval functionalities. Digital libraries focus on organizing and providing current discoverability through search interfaces, metadata standards, and user-oriented platforms to support present-day and needs. In contrast, curation extends beyond access to encompass strategies for mitigating technological risks, such as software obsolescence and , ensuring that materials remain authentic and usable for , potentially spanning decades or centuries. This preservation-centric orientation in curation often involves technical interventions like integrity checks and emulation, which are secondary in digital library operations. Digital curation also diverges from by emphasizing the cultural, historical, and research value of digital materials rather than and operational efficiency. deals with the creation, control, and of records during their active use phase, guided by retention schedules and legal requirements to meet organizational or governmental mandates. Curation, however, appraises and sustains materials for their enduring scholarly significance, incorporating appraisal decisions that extend beyond compliance to foster and interpretation in broader contexts. For instance, while might dispose of documents post-retention, curation seeks to add value through enhancement and contextual metadata for perpetual access. In relation to data science, digital curation underscores the long-term stewardship and integrity of datasets, whereas centers on analytical processing and insight generation from data. Data science practices often involve cleaning, transforming, and mining data for immediate applications like modeling or visualization, with a focus on short-term utility and algorithmic outputs. Digital curation, by comparison, maintains data authenticity, , and quality over extended periods to support future reuse, including archiving and measures that prevent loss of during analysis-heavy workflows. This distinction highlights curation's role in bridging data creation to archival sustainability, rather than prioritizing interpretive or . Digital curation exhibits interdisciplinary overlaps with , drawing on shared principles of metadata management, , and , yet it maintains a unique emphasis on the of digital resources amid evolving technological landscapes. contributes frameworks for data and user-centered systems, which curation adapts to ensure long-term viability through practices like persistent identifiers and format normalization. However, curation's distinct focus on environmental and institutional —addressing challenges such as for perpetual access—sets it apart, integrating archival and computational expertise to preserve in digital forms.

Major Challenges

Data Growth and Volume

The exponential growth of digital data presents one of the most pressing challenges in digital curation, as the sheer volume overwhelms traditional management practices and infrastructure. According to recent IDC forecasts as of May , the global datasphere—the total amount of data created, captured, or replicated—reached 149 zettabytes in 2024 and is projected to expand to 181 zettabytes by the end of , driven primarily by increases in video content, IoT devices, and cloud-based services. This surge implies escalating storage demands, with curators needing to allocate resources for petabyte-scale repositories that require not only physical hardware but also robust network capacity and computational power to handle and access. For instance, institutions like research libraries and must plan for data that doubles roughly every two years, straining budgets and operational workflows. A key issue arising from this data proliferation is selection overload, where curators face difficulties in appraising and prioritizing vast sets for long-term preservation amid limited resources. In environments like archives, the volume, variety, and velocity of content—such as billions of posts, images, and videos generated daily—complicate traditional appraisal methods that rely on assessing evidential or informational value. Digital datasets often lack clear boundaries, unlike physical , making it challenging to determine what merits curation without risking the loss of potentially significant material or incurring unnecessary storage costs. This overload exacerbates appraisal difficulties, as curators must navigate ephemeral, that may hold cultural or historical importance but is buried in terabytes of redundant or low-value . The impacts of such growth are profound, including rising operational costs and an urgent need for automated triage tools to filter and prioritize content efficiently. As data volumes increase exponentially, storage expenses—despite declining unit costs—escalate due to the need for redundant, secure systems to mitigate risks like hardware failure, with one analysis noting that storage can represent the largest risk factor in repository operations even as prices drop. This has led to calls for automated selection techniques to manage scale, as manual processes become untenable for datasets exceeding petabytes. A prominent example is the curation of web archives, where the , holding over 99 petabytes of content as of October 2025 with total storage exceeding 200 petabytes, grapples with scaling issues such as slow retrieval times and resource bottlenecks from high traffic and continuous crawling of the expanding web. These challenges highlight how unchecked data growth can hinder accessibility and preservation efforts without strategic interventions, though efforts may help in coordinating multi-institutional responses.

Technological Obsolescence

Technological obsolescence poses a significant threat to digital curation by rendering stored inaccessible due to the rapid evolution of hardware, software, and file formats, potentially leading to permanent loss without proactive intervention. In , this risk arises as technologies that were once standard become unsupported, making it impossible to read or interpret data without migration or emulation strategies. For instance, the lifecycle of often spans decades, during which shifts in technology can outpace preservation efforts, emphasizing the need for ongoing monitoring and to ensure long-term accessibility. Format evolution exemplifies this challenge, as storage media and file structures have transitioned from physical formats like floppy disks to modern cloud-based systems, necessitating repeated migrations to maintain access. Early floppy disks, such as 8-inch, 5.25-inch, and 3.5-inch variants, became obsolete within years of their introduction due to discontinuation by manufacturers, forcing curators to transfer data to newer media to avoid degradation and incompatibility. Similarly, analog video formats like tapes, popular in the late , are now at risk of as playback equipment becomes scarce and tapes degrade through magnetic decay, prompting migrations to digital formats such as MP4 to preserve content integrity. These shifts highlight how format changes can compound risks, particularly when combined with increasing data volumes that amplify the scale of required interventions. Software dependencies further complicate curation, as proprietary applications essential for viewing or interacting with digital objects may cease support, leading to widespread inaccessibility. A prominent example is , whose end-of-life on December 31, 2020, affected numerous archived web-based media, including interactive animations and videos, as browsers and operating systems discontinued compatibility, requiring curators to convert Flash content (SWF files) to open standards like or . The Archives, for instance, faced challenges in preserving Flash-dependent websites and games, underscoring the vulnerability of software-reliant artifacts to vendor-driven obsolescence. Hardware risks manifest in the need for specialized equipment to access legacy systems, often addressed through emulation to simulate obsolete environments on contemporary hardware. Early personal computers, such as those from the like the IBM PC, relied on specific processors and peripherals that are no longer manufactured, making direct access to their data or software impractical without emulators that replicate the original system's behavior. Emulation strategies, as outlined by the on Library and Information Resources, enable curators to run vintage applications on modern machines by mimicking hardware dependencies, thereby preserving the authentic without physical restoration of rare components. To mitigate these risks, tools like format registries provide essential identification and profiling capabilities for proactive planning. The PRONOM registry, maintained by The National Archives of the United Kingdom, catalogs over 1,300 file formats with details on their technical specifications, risks of , and migration pathways, allowing curators to assess and prioritize actions for at-risk holdings. By integrating PRONOM data into workflows, institutions can automate format identification and monitor emerging threats, facilitating timely interventions to sustain access. A notable case illustrating these issues is NASA's curation of Apollo mission data from the 1970s, where original tapes stored on 1-inch magnetic reels faced severe decay and obsolescence due to deteriorating media and incompatible playback hardware. The tapes, intended as backups for mission recordings, were largely erased and reused in the early 1980s amid tape shortages, while surviving reels suffered from binder —a chemical degradation process—rendering much of the raw lunar surface data irrecoverable without extensive restoration efforts. This incident, detailed in NASA's official report, demonstrates the perils of unaddressed technological obsolescence in high-stakes scientific archives, prompting ongoing initiatives to safeguard remaining mission artifacts.

Resource and Labor Constraints

Digital curation efforts are frequently hampered by resource and labor constraints, as the human-intensive nature of tasks such as metadata creation and often exceeds initial projections. Labor represents the largest component of overall curation costs, far surpassing expenditures on hardware, software, or storage. For instance, staff costs in data centers typically account for 69% to 82% of total budgets, highlighting the hidden efforts involved in maintaining over time. These activities, including manual metadata generation and validation, demand substantial time and expertise, with still limited in addressing the full scope of needs. Skill gaps further exacerbate these challenges, requiring interdisciplinary expertise that combines , archival practices, and domain-specific knowledge. Digital curation professionals must navigate technical skills like systems alongside curatorial judgment in areas such as scientific or cultural domains, yet the field suffers from a of trained individuals. According to the U.S. , employment of librarians is projected to grow 2% from to 2034, slower than the average for all occupations, while archivists, curators, and workers are projected to grow 6%, faster than average; however, inadequate training programs and non-standardized job titles hinder workforce development, leading to reliance on generalists ill-equipped for complex curation demands. The field continues to face challenges in attracting library and information science graduates to digital curation roles, underscoring the need for targeted to bridge these gaps. Funding structures pose additional barriers, with short-term grants ill-suited to the perpetual requirements of long-term preservation. Many projects, including EU initiatives like , operate on biennial tenders from EU funds and national ministries, providing methodological support for but no direct financial aid for ongoing or . This mismatch—where funding cycles last 3-5 years while curation demands indefinite —results in under-resourced operations, as only 21% of researchers receive financial support for archiving despite widespread obligations. 's model, while promoting through partnerships and cost reductions in metadata enhancement, leaves cultural institutions bearing the brunt of high expenses, particularly for smaller entities. In understaffed institutions, the reliance on manual processes amplifies risks of strain and high turnover, as labor shortages compound the demands of increasing volumes. Economic models, such as lifecycle costing frameworks developed by the LIFE project, offer tools to predict these expenses by modeling costs across ingestion, storage, access, and preservation phases over 5-10 year horizons. These frameworks enable institutions to forecast total costs, emphasizing the need for proactive budgeting to mitigate perpetual shortfalls.

Standardization and Interoperability

Digital curation faces significant challenges due to the absence of universally adopted global standards, which leads to inconsistencies in how digital objects are described and managed across institutions. Variations in metadata schemas, such as (DC) and Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), exemplify this issue; DC provides a simple set of 15 basic elements suitable for broad resource discovery, while MODS offers a more structured and richer framework with 20 elements and subelements that inherit MARC semantics for detailed bibliographic control, making direct difficult without mapping or transformation. These differences arise because DC lacks substructure and precise instructions for elements like "Creator" or "Date," resulting in inconsistent local implementations, whereas MODS addresses complex digital objects but requires greater expertise, hindering seamless adoption in diverse curation environments. Interoperability barriers further complicate digital curation, as siloed systems—often using incompatible formats, protocols, or metadata—prevent effective data sharing and reuse across institutional and national boundaries. In , these silos manifest in fragmented workflows where repository software like or fails to integrate smoothly with institutional systems or distributed services, leading to incomplete preservation chains and reliance on manual interventions. Such barriers are exacerbated by heterogeneous data structures, including unstructured formats like spreadsheets, which demand advanced semantic mapping to enable cross-system access. The fluid nature of digital information across temporal and disciplinary lines amplifies these issues, as evolving hardware and software dependencies create ongoing risks that vary by context. Coordination challenges among libraries, governments, and private sectors add to the complexity, with fragmented national digital strategies resulting in disjointed efforts and misalignments. For instance, academic libraries often develop isolated digital curation services due to varying institutional priorities, while initiatives may overlook private-sector innovations, leading to duplicated investments without shared protocols. Human-centered factors, such as resistance to data sharing stemming from concerns over control or insufficient training, compound these coordination hurdles, necessitating negotiated agreements across distributed networks. Progress toward standardization has been advanced through key initiatives like the ISO 14721 Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model, which provides a for digital archiving that standardizes terminology, processes, and data models to facilitate comparison and integration among systems. Similarly, the International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) promotes in web archiving by coordinating global member institutions—spanning over 35 countries—to develop shared tools, training, and collaborative projects that ensure consistent capture and access of born-digital web content. These interoperability issues contribute to substantial risks, including data silos that foster duplicated curation efforts and the potential loss of collective knowledge through inaccessible or redundant archives. Siloed environments lead to inefficient , as organizations replicate similar preservation activities without leveraging shared repositories, ultimately fragmenting the global digital heritage.

Digitization of Analog Content

Digitization of analog content involves converting physical materials, such as books, manuscripts, photographs, audio tapes, and three-dimensional artifacts, into digital formats to enable long-term curation and access. This process is essential for preserving deteriorating analog items but presents significant technical hurdles, particularly in achieving high-resolution captures without causing physical damage. For instance, scanning rare books and manuscripts requires specialized equipment like overhead or planetary scanners to capture images at resolutions of 400-600 pixels per inch (ppi) or higher, ensuring fine details are preserved while minimizing handling that could exacerbate fragility. Fragile items, such as brittle paper or tightly bound volumes, demand non-destructive techniques, including the use of cradles or v-support systems to avoid stress on bindings and spines during imaging. Conservators often assess materials beforehand to identify risks, such as restricted openings in early printed books that could lead to tearing if forced. Quality control remains a core challenge, encompassing issues like color fidelity and the accuracy of (OCR) for textual content. Maintaining accurate color reproduction requires calibrated scanners with consistent lighting and color targets to match the original hues, as variations in spectral response can distort tonal ranges in digitized images. For textual materials, OCR performs reliably on printed documents but struggles with handwritten ones, where error rates can exceed 10-15% due to variations in script, degradation, and paper texture, necessitating manual verification or advanced tools to achieve usable accuracy levels above 85%. These quality concerns are amplified in mass digitization efforts, where inconsistencies can compromise the integrity of the digital surrogate for curation purposes. Scaling to large collections introduces legal and logistical obstacles, exemplified by the project launched in 2004, which aimed to scan millions of volumes but encountered substantial hurdles from authors and publishers. The initiative faced lawsuits alleging infringement through unauthorized scanning of in-copyright works, leading to a decade-long legal battle resolved in 2015 when a U.S. court ruled the project constituted for search and snippet views, though full access remained restricted. Beyond legal issues, the sheer volume demands efficient workflows, yet clearances slow progress and limit public availability. Additionally, the process is labor-intensive and costly for complex formats; digitizing audio tapes involves cleaning, winding, and real-time playback to capture analog signals, often taking hours per reel due to degradation risks like . Similarly, 3D objects require multiple scans from various angles using structured light or laser technologies, with costs ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars per item depending on complexity, plus extensive post-processing to align and refine models. To address these challenges, established best practices emphasize structured workflows, as outlined in the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Guidelines for Projects. These recommend phased planning, including selection criteria, metadata standards, and protocols to ensure reproducibility and minimal intervention. Such guidelines promote the use of open standards for file formats like TIFF for images and for audio, facilitating while prioritizing preservation over access in initial captures. Post-digitization, the resulting files must be monitored for format obsolescence to sustain curatorial value.

Material and Format-Specific Issues

Digital curation encounters distinct challenges when addressing the preservation of diverse content types, where the inherent properties of materials and formats demand tailored metadata strategies, handling protocols, and technological interventions to mitigate loss of authenticity and over time. For instance, artifacts often embed proprietary encodings or interactive elements that complicate long-term viability, requiring curators to balance fidelity to original intent with adaptive preservation techniques. These issues are amplified in emerging formats, where rapid innovation outpaces standardization efforts. In curating and digitized texts, a primary concern involves developing robust metadata schemas to capture textual , such as editorial revisions or manuscript differences, ensuring scholarly access to historical evolutions without conflating versions. Handling redactions poses additional hurdles, as curators must systematically identify and mask sensitive information in digital surrogates while preserving the document's structural integrity and contextual annotations for future analysis. Metadata standards like those from the Getty emphasize descriptive and administrative elements to index such , facilitating discoverability amid evolving textual scholarship. For materials, preserving 3D models of artifacts derived from techniques introduces risks of data obsolescence, as for rendering point clouds and meshes becomes unsupported, potentially rendering models inaccessible without emulation or migration. Curators must address format-specific degradation, such as loss of texture fidelity in high-resolution scans, by adopting open standards like to enhance across platforms. These challenges underscore the need for proactive validation workflows to verify model accuracy against physical artifacts over decades-long preservation horizons. Curating , such as performances and oral traditions, relies heavily on video and audio recordings to capture ephemeral expressions, yet preserving the surrounding context—like performer intent, cultural rituals, or linguistic nuances—remains elusive without enriched metadata that documents performative variables. Institutions employ multimodal approaches, integrating transcripts and ethnographic notes with files, to mitigate the flattening of dynamic elements inherent in live traditions. guidelines highlight the importance of community involvement in metadata creation to ensure recordings reflect authentic intangible values rather than isolated artifacts. Emerging formats exacerbate curation difficulties, particularly for VR/AR content, where immersive environments depend on device-specific runtimes that risk rapid obsolescence, necessitating strategies like scene graph exports to sustain spatial interactions. Social media ephemera, such as transient posts or stories, challenges preservation due to platform dependencies and privacy restrictions, often requiring API-based harvesting before content vanishes, though legal barriers limit comprehensive capture. AI-generated media introduces authenticity issues, as algorithmic outputs lack clear provenance, demanding metadata for tracing generative models and input parameters to verify integrity against future deepfake proliferation. Specific examples illustrate these tensions: preserving interactive web art requires emulating browser environments to maintain user-driven behaviors, as original scripts may fail on modern hardware, with curators employing tools like Webrecorder to archive dynamic states. Similarly, blockchain-based NFTs face curation obstacles in linking on-chain metadata to off-chain media files, where server downtime or can sever artwork from ownership proofs, prompting hybrid strategies that embed assets directly on distributed ledgers. These cases highlight the imperative for format-agnostic preservation frameworks to accommodate evolving digital expressions.

Strategies and Approaches

Technological Solutions

Technological solutions in digital curation encompass a range of software tools, platforms, and systems designed to mitigate challenges such as technological and data volume by enabling long-term preservation, automated processing, and secure storage of digital objects. These solutions often align with established standards like the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model, facilitating the ingest, management, and access of digital content while ensuring its authenticity and usability over time. Key approaches include emulation and migration for rendering obsolete formats, AI-driven automation for metadata enhancement, robust storage infrastructures, monitoring systems for compliance, and innovative tracking mechanisms like . Emulation recreates the original hardware and software environment to run legacy digital objects, avoiding the need to alter the content itself, while migration converts files to contemporary formats to maintain accessibility. , an open-source , supports by simulating historical operating systems and hardware, allowing curators to execute and view preserved software artifacts without proprietary dependencies. For instance, has been integrated into preservation workflows to emulate environments for early and documents, demonstrating its reliability in maintaining functional integrity. Complementing emulation, JHOVE (JSTOR/Harvard Object Validation Environment) serves as a Java-based tool for identifying, validating, and characterizing file formats during migration processes, ensuring that converted objects conform to expected standards before archival storage. These tools collectively address by providing verifiable pathways to sustain access, with JHOVE's extensibility allowing integration into broader curation pipelines. Automated workflows leverage and to streamline metadata generation, reducing manual labor and enhancing discoverability in large-scale digital collections. In image curation, models apply techniques to automatically tag visual content with descriptive keywords, such as objects, scenes, or emotions, thereby enriching metadata schemas like without exhaustive human annotation. Scholarly analyses highlight how these AI methods improve curation efficiency in cultural repositories, where automated tagging achieves up to 90% accuracy in controlled datasets, though human oversight remains essential for contextual nuances. Such workflows integrate with existing systems to process heterogeneous data types, supporting scalable curation by generating records and semantic links that facilitate long-term retrieval. Storage solutions prioritize durability, scalability, and cost-effectiveness for archival needs, with cloud-based options like Glacier offering tiered retrieval classes optimized for infrequently accessed data. S3 Glacier Deep Archive, for example, provides 99.999999999% (11 nines) durability and retrieval times of within 12 hours for standard or up to 48 hours for bulk, making it suitable for preserving petabyte-scale cultural and scientific datasets. Storage costs $0.00099 per GB-month, with retrieval costs as low as $0.0025 per GB for bulk operations (as of November 2025). Distributed systems like the (IPFS) enable decentralized, content-addressed storage, where files are pinned across peer networks to prevent single points of failure and ensure persistent availability for preservation purposes. IPFS has been adopted in archival projects to maintain verifiable, tamper-resistant copies of digital heritage materials, complementing traditional storage by distributing redundancy globally. Monitoring tools such as Archivematica automate OAIS-compliant processing from ingest to dissemination, incorporating validation, normalization, and packaging into microservices-based workflows. Developed as an open-source system, Archivematica generates preservation metadata (e.g., PREMIS events) and supports format migration, ensuring compliance with standards like ISO 14721 while tracking the lifecycle of digital packages. Institutions use it to monitor integrity through checksum verification and automated reporting, with its modular design allowing customization for specific curation needs. Recent advances in technology have introduced pilots for tracking, creating immutable ledgers to record the custody and modifications of digital objects post-2020. For instance, projects integrating with IPFS have demonstrated enhanced traceability in library archives, where hashed records on distributed ledgers verify authenticity and without centralized vulnerabilities. A 2023 IEEE study on long-term preservation services piloted for digital signatures, achieving robust audit trails for archival files by combining it with decentralized storage, thus bolstering trust in curated collections. These initiatives, often tested in contexts, underscore 's potential to automate verification while addressing concerns through hybrid models.

Institutional and Collaborative Strategies

Institutional and collaborative strategies in digital curation emphasize organizational frameworks, partnerships, and capacity-building to ensure long-term sustainability of digital assets. These approaches address resource constraints by fostering coordinated efforts among institutions, governments, and stakeholders to develop policies, share responsibilities, and build expertise. Policy development forms a cornerstone of these strategies, with national initiatives providing guidelines for systematic curation practices. In the UK, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) funded studies in 2008 to outline models for institutional digital preservation policies, aiming to integrate curation into broader research data management frameworks. These efforts, including the Digital Preservation Policies Study, recommended structured approaches to governance, risk assessment, and compliance to support ongoing digital asset viability across higher education institutions. Collaborative consortia exemplify shared infrastructure to distribute curation burdens and enhance scalability. The Data Conservancy, initiated by in partnership with entities like the National Snow and Ice Data Center, offers a discipline-agnostic platform for data collection, preservation, and access, utilizing open-source tools like Fedora Commons to enable interoperable services across communities. Similarly, , a of over 60 libraries, maintains a shared preservation repository with more than 19 million digitized volumes (as of 2025), allowing members to contribute content without individual hosting costs while ensuring redundant storage and access for print-disabled users. These models promote collective development of metadata standards and workflows, reducing and costs through pooled resources. Training programs build essential skills for effective curation, often delivered through specialized modules and workshops. The Digital Curation Centre (DCC) provides targeted training on research data management principles, including data management plans via tools like DMPonline, preservation strategies, and principles, offered in formats such as one- to two-day workshops for librarians, researchers, and IT professionals. These sessions, conducted globally since the DCC's inception, emphasize practical application without formal certifications but equip participants to implement institutional policies. Funding models sustain these initiatives through diversified sources that align with long-term goals. Endowments offer stable support, as seen in philanthropic commitments from foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which fund preservation aligned with societal benefits. Public-private partnerships facilitate innovation, such as industry collaborations providing cloud credits for , exemplified by the NIH's BD2K program that supported reuse platforms before transitioning to member-based models like , where national institutes contribute to maintenance for free global access. These hybrid approaches mitigate financial risks by blending government grants with private investments. Audit frameworks enable institutional to verify trustworthiness and compliance. The Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) criteria, developed in 2007 by the Center for Research Libraries and the , provide a of over 100 metrics across organizational , digital object , and risk mitigation, allowing repositories to evaluate , preservation , and technical safeguards internally. This self-audit tool, aligned with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model, helps institutions identify gaps and prepare for external certifications like ISO 16363, promoting transparency and accountability in curation practices.

Emerging Innovations

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are transforming digital curation by enabling predictive analytics for risk assessment and automated appraisal processes. Predictive models analyze historical data on file degradation, format obsolescence, and storage failures to forecast potential threats to digital assets, allowing curators to prioritize interventions proactively. For instance, AI-driven tools can evaluate the long-term viability of datasets by simulating environmental and technological risks, reducing the likelihood of data loss in large-scale repositories. Automated appraisal leverages machine learning algorithms to classify and select content for preservation, such as the Automated Video Appraisal (AVA) system, which generates preliminary decisions on video recordings that archivists can refine, streamlining workflows in resource-constrained environments. These innovations enhance efficiency while maintaining curatorial oversight, particularly for born-digital materials where manual review is impractical. Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies provide immutable audit trails that bolster the authenticity and provenance of curated digital objects. By recording metadata and access events on a decentralized ledger, ensures tamper-proof documentation of an asset's lifecycle, from creation to reuse, countering risks of alteration or falsification in distributed archives. In settings, these systems verify the of digital records through cryptographic hashing, enabling verifiable chains of custody without relying on central authorities. This approach is particularly valuable for preserving , where authenticity underpins scholarly trust and legal validity. Integrations with open science frameworks, especially the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles introduced in 2016, have reshaped curation practices by embedding reusability into ecosystems. Post-2016 implementations emphasize machine-actionable metadata and persistent identifiers to facilitate data discovery and integration across platforms, aligning curation with collaborative research needs. Collaborative networks like the Data Curation Network apply FAIR guidelines to standardize processing, ensuring datasets from diverse sources remain interoperable for long-term analysis. This shift supports by promoting ethical sharing while addressing challenges like metadata inconsistency in heterogeneous collections. Sustainability innovations in digital curation focus on to minimize the of storage and processing. Practices such as optimizing infrastructures for energy efficiency and employing low-carbon data centers reduce the environmental impact of long-term preservation, where petabyte-scale archives contribute significantly to global emissions. Scalable, on-demand storage models allow curators to deactivate idle resources, cutting energy use by up to 30% in some deployments without compromising accessibility. These strategies integrate with broader green IT principles, prioritizing renewable energy sources and hardware longevity to align curation with climate goals. Post-2020 trends highlight curation challenges and solutions for pandemic-related data and emerging content. During the crisis, digital curators facilitated open repositories like the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), applying principles to aggregate and preserve heterogeneous health data for rapid scientific reuse while mitigating risks. This effort underscored the need for agile curation in crisis contexts, with practices evolving to include real-time metadata standards for global collaboration. For content, preservation involves capturing immersive assets, such as 3D cultural reconstructions, using for authenticity and VR-compatible formats for replayability. Platforms like metaverse heritage simulations enable the curation of intangible cultural elements, ensuring their endurance beyond platform lifecycles. These developments address the ephemerality of virtual environments, fostering sustainable access to interactive digital narratives.

Applications Across Domains

Cultural Heritage Preservation

Digital curation plays a pivotal role in preserving cultural heritage by ensuring the long-term accessibility and integrity of both tangible artifacts and intangible expressions, mitigating risks from physical decay, geopolitical conflicts, and cultural erasure. Strategies for tangible artifacts often involve advanced digitization techniques such as 3D scanning and virtual reconstructions, which create high-fidelity digital surrogates that can be stored, analyzed, and shared without compromising the originals. For instance, the British Museum employs 3D scanning to digitize its collections, enabling virtual exhibitions and scholarly access to items like ancient sculptures and manuscripts, thereby extending their lifespan beyond physical constraints. These methods not only safeguard against material degradation but also facilitate immersive experiences through technologies like augmented reality. Intangible cultural elements, such as oral histories, traditional performances, and rituals, are preserved through archiving that captures audio, video, and interactive formats. Digital curation here emphasizes metadata standards and contextual documentation to maintain authenticity and cultural significance, allowing communities to revisit and transmit knowledge across generations. Projects like the Recordings archive oral traditions from indigenous groups using preservation, ensuring these ephemeral elements endure despite the absence of physical forms. This approach addresses the of living heritage, integrating community involvement to avoid . A prominent is UNESCO's , launched in 1992, which focuses on and nominating documentary heritage of global importance to prevent loss and promote universal access. The program has supported the of diverse collections, including ancient manuscripts from the and African oral archives, resulting in 570 registered items as of 2025. Challenges in this domain include ethical considerations around , where digital surrogates raise questions of ownership and cultural ; for example, debates over virtual access to repatriated artifacts underscore the need for collaborative agreements between institutions and source communities to respect . Outcomes of these curation efforts have significantly enhanced global access to cultural heritage, democratizing knowledge that was once limited to physical sites. The Europeana portal, aggregating digitized content from European institutions, provides open access to over 58 million items as of 2025, including artworks, books, and audiovisual materials, fostering education and cross-cultural dialogue while adhering to preservation standards. By addressing repatriation ethics through transparent digital policies, such initiatives not only preserve heritage but also promote equity in its representation.

Scientific and Research Data Management

Digital curation plays a critical role in scientific and research data management by ensuring the long-term accessibility, integrity, and usability of data to support reproducibility, which is essential for validating scientific claims and advancing knowledge. Reproducibility requires curating digital artifacts such as raw data, processed datasets, code, and documentation to allow independent verification of results, addressing challenges like data loss or obsolescence over time. This process involves active management throughout the data lifecycle, including appraisal, metadata creation, and preservation strategies that maintain the context and provenance of research outputs. Metadata standards are fundamental to this curation effort, enabling discoverability and interoperability of datasets. For instance, the DataCite Metadata Schema provides a core set of properties, such as identifiers, titles, creators, and resource types, that facilitate accurate citation and persistent linking of datasets to publications. This schema supports DOI minting for datasets, ensuring they can be reliably referenced and retrieved, which is vital for reproducible research across disciplines. In , the CERN Data Preservation in High Energy Physics (DPHEP) collaboration exemplifies these practices by archiving vast volumes of experimental data from accelerators like the , totaling over one exabyte (more than 1,000 petabytes) as of 2025, to enable future analyses and reinterpretations. Similarly, the (NIH) has implemented data sharing policies since the 2010s, including the 2014 Genomic Data Sharing Policy and the 2023 Data Management and Sharing Policy, which mandate plans for making scientific data findable, accessible, and reusable to foster collaboration and verification in biomedical research. Big data in fields like and modeling presents unique curation challenges due to , velocity, and variety, requiring scalable strategies to handle petabyte-scale datasets while preserving fidelity. In , curating sequences from next-generation sequencing involves managing heterogeneous formats, ensuring against errors, and addressing storage demands that can exceed exabytes, all while complying with regulations. For models, challenges include integrating observational with simulations, correcting biases in historical records, and maintaining for evolving model outputs to support accurate projections. Tools like Jupyter notebooks enhance curation by serving as artifacts that bundle , , visualizations, and narrative explanations into interactive documents, promoting transparency and ease of . These notebooks allow researchers to document workflows reproducibly, with cells that can be executed in sequence to regenerate results, though curation must address dependencies on evolving software environments to prevent bit rot. The impacts of such curation extend to enabling meta-analyses and advancing , where shared, well-curated data amplify research efficiency and innovation. Repositories like facilitate this by providing a platform for depositing datasets linked to publications, supporting secondary analyses that pool evidence across studies to draw robust conclusions, as seen in ecological and biomedical meta-analyses that leverage for greater statistical power.

References

  1. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/what-digital-curation
  2. https://siarchives.si.edu/what-we-do/digital-curation
  3. https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2011/08/digital-preservation-digital-curation-digital-stewardship-what%25E2%2580%2599s-in-some-names/
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293670/
  5. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/curation-lifecycle-model
  6. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/about/digital-curation
  7. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/18590/pga_164543.pdf
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293667/
  9. https://digitalpreservation.gov/personalarchiving/
  10. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/30/digital-curation/
  11. https://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/m.pennock/publications/docs/lib-arch_curation.pdf
  12. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=46350
  13. https://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/2/2
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32895209_Digital_Curation_for_Science_Digital_Libraries_and_Individuals
  15. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/about/history-dcc
  16. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/wya/papers/LibHiTech-2012.pdf
  17. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bult.135
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4232231_The_Digital_Curation_Centre_a_vision_for_digital_curation
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/digital-curation
  20. https://www.digitalpreservation.gov/series/pioneers/
  21. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/idcc25
  22. https://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/understandingPREMIS_english_2021.pdf
  23. https://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/
  24. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/activities/pmwg/premis-report.pdf
  25. https://irods.org/uploads/2015/01/DICE_Moore_Theory_Dig_Preserv-08.pdf
  26. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub107/thibodeau/
  27. https://www.4cproject.eu/dcsm/
  28. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright
  29. https://www.kimchristen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/41christenKimberly.pdf
  30. https://www.mellon.org/grant-story/mukurtu-provides-ethical-tools-for-archiving-and-preservation
  31. https://www.dpconline.org/docs/dpc-technology-watch-publications/technology-watch-guidance-notes/2503-exploring-ethical-considerations-for-providing-access-to-digital-heritage-collections/file
  32. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/data-protection
  33. https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
  34. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618
  36. https://direct.mit.edu/dint/article/2/1-2/10/10017/FAIR-Principles-Interpretations-and-Implementation
  37. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/155019061300900209
  38. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2174071
  39. https://ceblog.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/2023/06/20/data-is-never-raw-ethics-and-biases-in-digital-cultural-heritage-collections/
  40. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=jcas
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220924444_The_DCC_curation_lifecycle_model
  42. https://www.dpconline.org/handbook/digital-preservation/preservation-issues
  43. https://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/48
  44. http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/d6/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf
  45. https://www.dpconline.org/handbook/institutional-strategies/audit-and-certification
  46. https://www.dpconline.org/docs/miscellaneous/events/215-cost-models-giaretta/file
  47. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/IDCC17~/94_Community_Engagement.pdf
  48. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/resource/curation-manual/chapters/microfilm/Microfilm_2011_Final.pdf
  49. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/DC%2520101%2520Preservation%2520Planning.pdf
  50. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/digitalpreservationbp.pdf
  51. https://www.folger.edu/blogs/collation/digital-stewardship-the-one-with-all-the-definitions/
  52. https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2019/05/20/preserve-curate-or-steward
  53. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/help-guidance/guides-to-good-practice/digital-archiving/what-is-digital-archiving/
  54. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/data-archiving/data-curation-and-architecture
  55. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/database-archiving
  56. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/digital-asset-management
  57. https://business.adobe.com/blog/basics/digital-asset-management
  58. https://www.bynder.com/en/what-is-digital-asset-management/
  59. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/nudh1/chapter/three-types-of-digital-material-digitized-born-digital-and-reborn-digital/
  60. https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2012/05/all-digital-objects-are-born-digital-objects/
  61. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/digital-records-transfer/what-are-born-digital-records/
  62. https://www.dpconline.org/handbook/organisational-activities/creating-digital-materials
  63. https://americanarchivist.org/doi/10.17723/aarc.71.2.p0h0t68547385507
  64. https://www.choice360.org/libtech-insight/digital-collections-and-digital-preservation-one-and-the-same-right/
  65. https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2011/08/digital-preservation-digital-curation-digital-stewardship-whats-in-some-names/
  66. https://preservica.com/resources/blogs-and-news/document-management-vs-digital-preservation
  67. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3365/short8.pdf
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/data-curation
  69. https://rivery.io/blog/big-data-statistics-how-much-data-is-there-in-the-world/
  70. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/10903/1/DaWG_WP_final.pdf
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8218557/
  72. https://publishing.escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/article/id/467/
  73. https://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/download/125/173/551
  74. https://archive.org/web/petabox.php
  75. https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/data-overload-web-archives-and-the-challenges-of-scale-may-2019/
  76. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/aboutapps/pronom/
  77. https://digitalpreservation.gov/news/2004/e-ScienceReportFinal.pdf
  78. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/librarians.htm
  79. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/curators-museum-technicians-and-conservators.htm
  80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293671/
  81. https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/10/421
  82. https://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/3.1guenther.pdf
  83. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/briefing-papers/standards-watch-papers/using-metadata-standards
  84. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/the-effectiveness-and-durability-of-digital-preservation-and-curation-systems/
  85. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/interoperability
  86. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18590/chapter/5
  87. https://www.iso.org/standard/57284.html
  88. https://netpreserve.org/
  89. https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/rare-books-and-manuscripts/rbms-guidelines/guidelines-for-planning-digitization.pdf
  90. https://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/scan.html
  91. https://www.archives.gov/files/preservation/technical/guidelines.pdf
  92. https://research.aimultiple.com/handwriting-recognition/
  93. https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/02/24/fair-use-week-2023-looking-back-at-google-books-eight-years-later/
  94. https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub137.pdf
  95. https://www.si.edu/content/MCIImagingStudio/papers/scanning_paper.pdf
  96. https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/preservation-and-conservation/publications/digitization-projects-guidelines.pdf
  97. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&context=si_facpub
  98. https://shesc.asu.edu/centers/digital-antiquity/resources
  99. https://www.getty.edu/publications/intrometadata/setting-the-stage/
  100. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.04507
  101. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstreams/7fceab63-b849-4a9e-91e5-62814179dab3/download
  102. https://www.academia.edu/36445372/Research_Challenges_for_Digital_Archives_of_3D_Cultural_Heritage_Models
  103. https://indigo.uic.edu/ndownloader/files/42558817
  104. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/23889/1/sutherlandt_etd2014.pdf.pdf
  105. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000135857
  106. https://www.digipres.org/publications/ipres/ipres-2024/papers/surmounting-the-barriers-to-social-media-archiving-with-a-little/
  107. https://research.gatech.edu/when-ai-blurs-reality-rise-hyperreal-digital-culture
  108. http://csis.pace.edu/~marchese/CS775/Proj1/Becker_icadl07_preserving_interactive_multimedia_art.pdf
  109. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=utk_libfac
  110. https://digitalcuration.umaine.edu/teleconferences/index.html
  111. https://aws.amazon.com/s3/storage-classes/glacier/
  112. https://www.emerald.com/rmj/article/368572/Digital-Preservation-Policies-Study-Part-1
  113. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/m.pennock/publications/docs/404publicreport-2008.pdf
  114. https://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/mayernik/09mayernik.html
  115. https://www.hathitrust.org/member-libraries/services-programs/
  116. https://www.dcc.ac.uk/training
  117. https://datascience.codata.org/en/articles/10.5334/dsj-2025-029
  118. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393356971_APPLICATION_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_IN_DIGITAL_PRESERVATION_EMERGING_TRENDS
  119. https://www.dpconline.org/blog/blog-michael-popham-ai-webinar
  120. https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3479010
  121. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/126011023.pdf
  122. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.470
  123. https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/a2cd85a7-73aa-4795-bccd-8c2c44fd00ce
  124. https://ijdc.net/ijdc/article/view/848
  125. https://www.dpconline.org/digipres/discover-good-practice/environmentally-sustainable-digital-preservation
  126. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24965
  127. https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-024-01403-1
  128. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/8/3426
  129. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/documentary-heritage-74-new-entries-unescos-memory-world-register
  130. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/europeana
  131. https://www.rd-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1020Things20for20Curating20Reproducible20and20FAIR20Research20v1.1.pdf
  132. https://publishing.escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/article/451/galley/749/download/
  133. https://schema.datacite.org/
  134. https://schema.datacite.org/archive/kernel-2.2/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v2.2.pdf
  135. https://dphep.web.cern.ch/welcome
  136. https://home.cern/science/computing/data-preservation
  137. https://cerncourier.com/a/as-the-lhc-surpasses-one-exabyte-of-stored-data
  138. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-policies/dms
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6381353/
  140. https://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/download/94/122/438
  141. https://datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2020-052
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10783158/
  143. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstreams/c73d0edd-b491-45bd-87b8-62d85ebe9558/download
  144. https://blog.datadryad.org/2025/07/24/benefits-of-open-data/
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11271959/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.