Formats Over Time: Exploring UK Web History
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Formats Over Time: Exploring UK Web History

on

  • 2,112 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,112
Views on SlideShare
2,071
Embed Views
41

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
21
Comments
0

5 Embeds 41

http://www.scape-project.eu 26
https://twitter.com 9
http://tweetedtimes.com 3
https://si0.twimg.com 2
http://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Formats Over Time: Exploring UK Web History Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Formats over Time Exploring UK Web HistoryAndrew JacksonUK Web Archive, The British Library iPres 2012 | 04-10-2012 | Toronto
  • 2. Formats over TimeDEBATING OBSOLESCENCE
  • 3. Rothenberg & Rosenthal On Format Obsolescence  Jeff Rothenberg:   “Digital Information Lasts Forever – Or Five Years, Whichever Comes First.” (1997)   “…still apt…” (2012)  David Rosenthal:   “when challenged, proponents of [format migration strategies] have failed to identify even one format in wide use when Rothenberg [made that assertion] that has gone obsolete in the intervening decade and a half.” (2010)   That network effects inhibit obsolescence  Where is the evidence?
  • 4. Formats over TimeAN EXPERIMENT
  • 5. UK Web Domain Dataset (1994-2010)  UK Web Domain Dataset (1994-2010)   From the Internet Archive   Millions of websites   > 2.5 billion resources   > 400,000 ARC/WARC files   > 35TB  Execution at Scale   Stored on HDFS   Map-Reduce
  • 6. Identification Tools  DROID   Well-known in digital preservation community   Format version level identification   Minor problem concerning file handles   Only binary signature part (DROID-B) could be embedded  Apache Tika   Widely used identification and data extraction tool   Identifies many formats at the MIME type level   Easy to embed and extend   Added ability to extract e.g. software identifiers   Minor bug concerning identification buffer size
  • 7. A Common Language For Format Identifiers  Comparison and combination requires a common model   Map PRONOM IDs to extended MIME Types   fmt/18 becomes application/pdf; version=1.4   Allows easy comparison at sub-type level   Can easily extend to cover other properties:   text/plain; charset=UTF-8   application/pdf; software=“Adobe Acrobat 6.0”   Also extended Tika to output details from PDFs
  • 8. Format Profile Dataset  Server, Tika & DROID-B format profiles, over time: image/png image/png image/png; version=1.0 2004 102 ! application/pdf !
 application/pdf; version=1.2; software="Acrobat Distiller 4.0 for Windows"; 
 source="Adobe PageMaker 6.0" !
 application/pdf; version=1.2 !2004 !1  CC0 – free to download and reuse   http://data.webarchive.org.uk/opendata/ukwa.ds.2/fmt/   Please cite us and/or let us know if you use it  Source code of all tools and modifications also available   https://github.com/openplanets/nanite
  • 9. ResultsCOMPARING TOOLS
  • 10. Percentage)of)resources) uniden0fied) 0%# 1%# 10%# 19 100%# 96 19 # 97 Coverage & Depth 19 # 98 19 # 99 20 # 00 20 # 01 20 # 02 20 # 03 Year) 20 # 04 20 # 05 20 # 06 20 # 07 20 #No format-version-level information from Apache Tika. 08 20 # 09 20 # 10 DROID1B#v.59# # Apache#Tika#1.1#
  • 11. Inconsistencies  Gaps   37 formats spotted by DROID-B but not Tika   Notably includes earlier Office formats   129 formats spotted by Tika but not DROID-B   But at least 20 are due to not using the full DROID  Conflicts   Failed MIME type mapping, e.g. PDF 1.7 (since fixed)   ‘Soft’ signatures – e.g. PICT matching 3M JPG (gone)   DROID strictness – 9M GIF, 4M JPG, 1.3M PDF…  Both tools bad at non-HTML/XML text formats   CSS, scripting languages like JS, CSV, TSV, etc.
  • 12. ResultsFORMATS OVER TIME
  • 13. Image Formats Over Time 100.00000%% 10.00000%%Percentage)of)crawl) JPEG% 1.00000%% 1996% 1997% 1998% 1999% 2000% 2001% 2002% 2003% 2004% 2005% 2006% 2007% 2008% 2009% 2010% GIF% 0.10000%% PNG% 0.01000%% ICON% 0.00100%% XBM% 0.00010%% TIFF% 0.00001%% Year)
  • 14. HTML Versions Over Time 100%%Percentage)of)HTML)Resources) 90%% 80%% XHTML%1.0% 70%% 60%% HTML%4.01% 50%% HTML%4.0% 40%% HTML%3.2% 30%% 20%% 10%% HTML%2.0% 0%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year)
  • 15. Percentage)of)PDF)Resources) 0%$ 10%$ 20%$ 30%$ 40%$ 50%$ 60%$ 70%$ 80%$ 90%$ 100%$ 19 96 $ 19 1.0$ 97 $ 19 1.1$ 98 $ 19 99 $ 20 00 PDF Versions Over Time $ 20 01 1.2$ $ 20 02 $ 20 03 $Year) 20 04 $ 1.3$ 20 05 $ 20 06 $ 20 07 $ 1.4$ 20 08 $ 20 1.5$ 09 $ 20 1.6$ 10 $
  • 16. Format Usage Versus Time 10,000,000,000"NumberofResourcesinArchive 1,000,000,000" 100,000,000" 10,000,000" 1,000,000" 100,000" 10,000" 1,000" 100" 10" 1" 0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" Timespan[Years]
  • 17. ResultsIMPLEMENTATIONS
  • 18. PDF Software Over Time 100%(Percentage)of)PDF)Resources) 90%( 80%( Acrobat( Acrobat( 70%( PDFWriter( 60%( 50%( 40%( 30%( 20%( 10%( Acrobat(Dis,ller( 0%( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 96 99 00 01 02 03 05 06 09 10 97 98 04 07 08 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 20 20 20 Year) Over 2100 Distinct PDF Software IDs
  • 19. JPEG Hardware Over Time 100%$Percentage)of)Harware)IDs) 90%$ NIKON$D40$ 80%$ 70%$ 60%$ MX1700$ 50%$ 40%$ 30%$ 20%$ E990$ 10%$ DS5$ CYBERSHOT$ 0%$ 19 $ 19 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 95 96 99 00 01 02 03 05 06 09 10 94 97 98 04 07 08 19 Year) Over 2100 Distinct JPEG Hardware IDs
  • 20. Formats over TimeCONCLUSIONS
  • 21. Summary  Format obsolescence is complex   Network effects do appear to stabilize formats   But once popular formats are fading nevertheless   More sophisticated approach required  Please re-use our data, or ask for more  Firmer conclusions need:   Richer, more detailed results   From a wider range of corpora  This approach only gives creator information   A different approach will be needed to understand resource consumption (e.g. PPT 4, RealAudio 1)
  • 22. Questions? webarchive.org.uk