Deciding How to Manage Assets and Expectations
In Chapter 2, it was mentioned that the process of ascertaining the storage, use, and final destination of digital assets
was virtually identical to the appraisal and acquisition processes that archivists and records managers have employed
for decades. The similarities between the work of digital asset managers and traditional archivists don’t end there.
For the last 100 years, the branch of Information Science concerned with the retrieval of information was called
Library Science; the subset of Library Science concerned with past records was called Archival Science; related
practices to both Library Science and Archival Science became Records Management, a discipline that boomed as
laws were formulated to govern the amazing explosion of records generated in the last half of the twentieth century.
As long as humans have produced recorded information, we have struggled to agree on the best way to store and
access that information. That Library Science became sophisticated enough to become a postgraduate level of study
in the United States and elsewhere should indicate the millions of hours of thought and writing that have gone into
the study and argument around how we arrange, describe, preserve, and provide access to information materials.
You don’t need to have a degree in Library Science, Archival Science, or Records Management to be a good
digital asset manager, but understanding that all the problems you face in organizing and providing access to massive
amounts of information are not new issues—just old problems dressed up in new technology—can go a long way in
helping you understand how to approach DAMs in everyday practice.
When John Cutter published his first overview of the Cutter Number system (which became the basis for
the Library of Congress in 1882), debates on the best way to organize information were already well established.
The Dewey system was first published in 1876, and the idea of indexing library materials on cards was seen as a
revolutionary step forward in organization and speed of research. By the time I was gently walking genealogists
through their first encounters with computer catalogs in 1995, most universities and major cities had already moved
to cataloging through the centralized system of WorldCat. Created in 1971, WorldCat freed librarians from constantly
re-cataloging books or magazines with wide circulations. The ability to just download already available records to
local online search systems was a major efficiency for libraries. By the time this book prints, WorldCat will house
something like 300 million records pointing to 2 billion physical and digital assets. As we move into the new century,
online catalogs of electronic books and records are common, providing not just the catalog information for locating
a resource, but the actual resource itself. This leap forward in written information delivery is in many ways just as
responsible for the need for DAMs as the complicated process of photograph and video delivery.
Deciding How to Manage Assets and Expectations
In Chapter 2, it was mentioned that the process of ascertaining the storage, use, and final destination of digital assets
was virtually identical to the appraisal and acquisition processes that archivists and records managers have employed
for decades. The similarities between the work of digital asset managers and traditional archivists don’t end there.
For the last 100 years, the branch of Information Science concerned with the retrieval of information was called
Library Science; the subset of Library Science concerned with past records was called Archival Science; related
practices to both Library Science and Archival Science became Records Management, a discipline that boomed as
laws were formulated to govern the amazing explosion of records generated in the last half of the twentieth century.
As long as humans have produced recorded information, we have struggled to agree on the best way to store and
access that information. That Library Science became sophisticated enough to become a postgraduate level of study
in the United States and elsewhere should indicate the millions of hours of thought and writing that have gone into
the study and argument around how we arrange, describe, preserve, and provide access to information materials.
You don’t need to have a degree in Library Science, Archival Science, or Records Management to be a good
digital asset manager, but understanding that all the problems you face in organizing and providing access to massive
amounts of information are not new issues—just old problems dressed up in new technology—can go a long way in
helping you understand how to approach DAMs in everyday practice.
When John Cutter published his first overview of the Cutter Number system (which became the basis for
the Library of Congress in 1882), debates on the best way to organize information were already well established.
The Dewey system was first published in 1876, and the idea of indexing library materials on cards was seen as a
revolutionary step forward in organization and speed of research. By the time I was gently walking genealogists
through their first encounters with computer catalogs in 1995, most universities and major cities had already moved
to cataloging through the centralized system of WorldCat. Created in 1971, WorldCat freed librarians from constantly
re-cataloging books or magazines with wide circulations. The ability to just download already available records to
local online search systems was a major efficiency for libraries. By the time this book prints, WorldCat will house
something like 300 million records pointing to 2 billion physical and digital assets. As we move into the new century,
online catalogs of electronic books and records are common, providing not just the catalog information for locating
a resource, but the actual resource itself. This leap forward in written information delivery is in many ways just as
responsible for the need for DAMs as the complicated process of photograph and video delivery.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
