Hoi,
Remember the archive of Cologne? It collapsed. When we have as a policy to
have the exact files on Commons as provided by a GLAM, we prove provenance
because our best practice is to include the material in our archive as
provided by a GLAM. When we decide for all kinds of reasons to transcode it
to another format we can and should when it makes sense. It makes sense as
long as we keep the original.
Your point that we do not need to have the original copy is wrong. Keeping
the original files as a best practice and an important practice was
confirmed in all the dealings I have had with many GLAMS.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/9/13 John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
John you are right. TIFF can be everything you describe. The question I
am
left with what is your point to this? Material is
scanned without
compression by GLAM, we get it per standard as TIFF files, we restore
them.
When the material is compressed, we do not
restore them. We need to
retain
the original to demonstrate provenance. It is
problematic to have files
nobody can see in a standard way. This is why we need TIFF support,
because
otherwise we are likely find an admin who starts
deleting this essential
material.
My point is that we *can* _losslessly_ transcode TIFF files to PNG/MNG.
Provenance requires that we know where the original digitised copy is
(an identifier), but we don't need to have a copy of the original TIFF
if we have an PNG with the same quality.
TIFF support means we don't need to worry about transcoding, or have
fights about TIFF vs PNG vs PDF/A. That will be good, as it is a
hurdle with working GLAMs, but it is not preventing high quality
images or working with GLAMs, as transcoding is not a difficult
process.
The main problem at the moment is the upload limit.
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l