Here's my question: Do you prefer a packaging format other than WARC? What other justifications should I take into account? Could you share additional resources for my consideration ( in addition to those below?) And I'll elaborate:
We generally agree that digital permanent records should be kept in open and supported format (tools and communities). We even have a broad selection of formats to chose from (from TIFF/JPEG2000 through PDF/A to XML). What remains, in my view, is a similar broad agreement on the package format that house the above content and linked metadata. The target here is the format of the container, wrapper, or capsule.
There are many requirements that this container should meet, and by far, I like that the container be extendable whereby one can add more content, additional metadata, user contributed context, etc.
Sofar though, .zip container has more or less led the charge, though other formats such as .warc are emerging from studies and comparaisons and showing more promise, which prompts me to ask:
Do you prefer a packaging format other than WARC? What other justifications should I take into account? Could you share additional resources I could consider in addition to these below?
-
Recommendations/studies supporting WARC
- For web objects: http://www.getpocket.com/a/read/777166755
- For all objects: https://fedora.phaidra.univie.ac.at/fedora/get/o:293682/bdef:Content/get
-
Standard using ZIP as container/wrapper/capsule:
- Victorian Electronic Records Strategy / VERS Encapsulated Object (VEO) : http://prov.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/VERSStdRevisionProposal-v1-0.pdf
-
Standard-to-be considering SIRF or an unspecified format (needs proof of concept)
- Storage Industry Networking Association's SIRF (Self-Contained Information Retention Format ( http://www.snia.org/SIRF ; )
Answers, links and comments will be well received!
