Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories
The article describes and compares key policies and workflows from three long standing digital repositories for archaeological data: Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) of the Netherlands, the Swedish National Data Service (SND), and the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) from the United Kingdo...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of York
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Internet Archaeology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue67/3/index.html |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850155616095436800 |
|---|---|
| author | Tim Evans Hella Hollander Ulf Jakobsson Valentijn Gilissen Holly Wright |
| author_facet | Tim Evans Hella Hollander Ulf Jakobsson Valentijn Gilissen Holly Wright |
| author_sort | Tim Evans |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The article describes and compares key policies and workflows from three long standing digital repositories for archaeological data: Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) of the Netherlands, the Swedish National Data Service (SND), and the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) from the United Kingdom. The workflows examined are representative of operational workflows around data assessment and data removal that are common to all data repositories, as well as specific strategies for dealing with Microsoft Access databases, a commonly deposited file format used by archaeologists for assessment and analysis.
The article presents each workflow as a succinct case study with an emphasis on why the decisions have been made to follow a certain method. This is followed by a discussion on similarities and differences in approach and implementation in order to bring together core recommendations that can be used by others who are currently building or scoping the development of new digital repositories in the archaeological sector. Links are also provided to copies of the detailed workflows and policies deposited within the Community Owned Digital Preservation Tool Registry (COPTR), a finding aid for helping find tools to deal with practical data management issues. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2a65f4f7feaf447abd6ec5c237801d5c |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1363-5387 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | University of York |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Internet Archaeology |
| spelling | doaj-art-2a65f4f7feaf447abd6ec5c237801d5c2025-08-20T02:24:51ZengUniversity of YorkInternet Archaeology1363-53872024-12-016710.11141/ia.67.3Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositoriesTim EvansHella Hollander0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2725-6730Ulf Jakobsson1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6724-8751Valentijn Gilissen2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2399-7598Holly Wright3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3403-4159Archaeology Data ServiceSwedish National Data ServiceData Archiving and Networked Services of the NetherlandsArchaeology Data ServiceThe article describes and compares key policies and workflows from three long standing digital repositories for archaeological data: Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) of the Netherlands, the Swedish National Data Service (SND), and the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) from the United Kingdom. The workflows examined are representative of operational workflows around data assessment and data removal that are common to all data repositories, as well as specific strategies for dealing with Microsoft Access databases, a commonly deposited file format used by archaeologists for assessment and analysis. The article presents each workflow as a succinct case study with an emphasis on why the decisions have been made to follow a certain method. This is followed by a discussion on similarities and differences in approach and implementation in order to bring together core recommendations that can be used by others who are currently building or scoping the development of new digital repositories in the archaeological sector. Links are also provided to copies of the detailed workflows and policies deposited within the Community Owned Digital Preservation Tool Registry (COPTR), a finding aid for helping find tools to deal with practical data management issues.https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue67/3/index.htmlarchaeologydigital preservationdata managementcommunity practice |
| spellingShingle | Tim Evans Hella Hollander Ulf Jakobsson Valentijn Gilissen Holly Wright Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories Internet Archaeology archaeology digital preservation data management community practice |
| title | Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories |
| title_full | Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories |
| title_fullStr | Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories |
| title_full_unstemmed | Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories |
| title_short | Archiving Archaeological Data: Understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories |
| title_sort | archiving archaeological data understanding current practice through case studies from established repositories |
| topic | archaeology digital preservation data management community practice |
| url | https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue67/3/index.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT timevans archivingarchaeologicaldataunderstandingcurrentpracticethroughcasestudiesfromestablishedrepositories AT hellahollander archivingarchaeologicaldataunderstandingcurrentpracticethroughcasestudiesfromestablishedrepositories AT ulfjakobsson archivingarchaeologicaldataunderstandingcurrentpracticethroughcasestudiesfromestablishedrepositories AT valentijngilissen archivingarchaeologicaldataunderstandingcurrentpracticethroughcasestudiesfromestablishedrepositories AT hollywright archivingarchaeologicaldataunderstandingcurrentpracticethroughcasestudiesfromestablishedrepositories |