Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // RESULTS // CONCLUSION The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings • files need to be valid of the German National Library of Science preferred • lack of (open source) AV validation and Technology are analyzed regarding the software present file formats. The most frequent AV • testing render ability cannot replace file formats are examined in terms of validation [1]. suitability as preservation format based on a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their accepted MKV, ffv1 Vs 3, PCM risk of obsolescence is evaluated using // FUTURE WORK view paths. The examined file formats are obsolete established • evaluate if view paths add a crucial value not preferred as preservation formats, but in order to determine the right time for MPEG-4, AVC, AAC Vs 4 they are not obsolete either. migration WebM, VP8, Vorbis MPEG-PS, MPEG Video • get a deep insight of the equipment and // INTRODUCTION Vs 2, MPEG Audio Vs 1 requirements of the designated Video Audio community Container AV formats Codec Codec • schedule a regular check if the view critical MPEG-4 AVC AAC Vs 4 paths still apply to the designated 27% WebM VP8 Vorbis community MPEG MPEG • establish automated evaluation of (digital MPEG-PS Are the file formats preferred as preservation formats? 57% Video Vs 2 Audio Vs 1 to digital) migration of AV content 8% divers (42 formats) • evaluate if tentatively migrating into a 8% preferred file format can replace Are the file formats obsolete? validation // REFERENCES [1] J. Houpert, P. Melas, W. Bailer, and P. Walland, “Recommendations and techniques for content in a 'born Merle Friedrich [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-7158-8583 robust' form,” 2015. Accessed on: Jun. 25 2018. Preservation Planning for Digital Audio-Visual Material at the (TIB): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3386323 Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // CRITERIA CATALOGUE // TO THE RESULTS The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings of the German National Library of Science and Technology are analyzed regarding the present file formats. The most frequent AV file formats are examined in terms of suitability as preservation format based on a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their risk of obsolescence is evaluated using view paths. The examined file formats are not preferred as preservation formats, but they are not obsolete either. // COMMON CRITERIA FOR FILE FORMAT SELECTION • adoption • platform independence • disclosure or documentation • transparency and • metadata support [2]. // REFERENCES [2] M. Todd, “File formats for preservation: Technology Watch Report,” https://www.dpconline.org/component/ Merle Friedrich [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-7158-8583 docman/?task=doc_download&gid=375, 2009. Preservation Planning for Digital Audio-Visual Material at the (TIB): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3386323 Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // RESULTS // TIB’S HOLDINGS The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings • file format consists of of the German National Library of Science • a container (C), and Technology are analyzed regarding the • a video codec (V) and present file formats. The most frequent AV • an audio codec (A) file formats are examined in terms of • worst weighting is the overall result suitability as preservation format based on • because e.g. a preferred result in Adoption Transparency Platform Independence Disclosure Metadata Support a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their Format Overall platform independence does not risk of obsolescence is evaluated using C MPEG-4 ++ ++ o + + + compensate a critical result in view paths. The examined file formats are transparency V AVC + ++ - + + - not preferred as preservation formats, but • evaluated file formats are weighted they are not obsolete either. A AAC, Version 4 ++ ++ - + + - critical as preservation format C WebM + ++ o ++ + + // COMMON CRITERIA FOR V VP8 + ++ - + + - FILE FORMAT SELECTION A Vorbis + ++ - + + - • adoption C MPEG-PS ++ + o + + + • platform independence V MPEG Video, Version 2 ++ + - + + - • disclosure or documentation A MPEG Audio, Version 1, Layer 2 ++ + - + + - • transparency and • metadata support [2]. ++ preferred + accepted - critical o not rated // REFERENCES // TO THE CRITERIA [2] M. Todd, “File formats for preservation: Technology Watch Report,” https://www.dpconline.org/component/ Merle Friedrich [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-7158-8583 docman/?task=doc_download&gid=375, 2009. Preservation Planning for Digital Audio-Visual Material at the (TIB): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3386323 Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // VIEW PATHS // TIB’S HOLDINGS The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings A View path consists of the information on • two view paths for each of the examined of the German National Library of Science • the hardware platform, formats and Technology are analyzed regarding the • the operating system and • view paths work independent from each present file formats. The most frequent AV • the viewer application other file formats are examined in terms of which enables the designated community to access the content of the → no component is used twice suitability as preservation format based on file [5]. • the examined file formats are not a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their obsolete risk of obsolescence is evaluated using File Operating Viewer view paths. The examined file formats are Hardware System Application not preferred as preservation formats, but Format they are not obsolete either. Intel® Windows Windows Core™ i7- 10, Version Media Player // OBSOLESCENCE MPEG 4, 8700 1803 Version 12 • the risk to become inaccessible [3, p. 93] AVC, to our designated community AAC Vs 4 Intel® Windows 8.1 VLC Media Core™ i5- Pro, Version Player • one factor to measure obsolescence 3470 6.3 Version 2.2.2 → if no rendering software is available [4]. // REFERENCES [3] D. Pearson and C. Webb, “Defining File Format [4] H. M. Ryan, “Who's afraid of File Format [5] J. F. Steenbakkers, “Digital Archiving in the Twenty- Obsolescence: A Risky Journey,” IJDC, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. Obsolescence? Evaluating File Format Endangerment First Century: Practice at the National Library of the 89–106, https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.44, 2008. Levels and Factors for the Creation of a File Format Netherlands,” Library Trends, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 33–56, Endangerment Index” School of Information and Library http://muse.jhu.edu/article/193231, 2005. Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2014. .