This document discusses the use of surrogates as a preservation strategy and examines how digital technology may impact this approach. It notes that surrogates, like microfilm, aim to protect original vulnerable materials by creating usable copies. However, only a small percentage of collections actually have surrogates. The document questions whether surrogates are still needed given digital options and clarity is needed on standards for digital surrogates to ensure long-term preservation. Centralized resources tracking available surrogates could also be investigated.

1. Preservation Surrogacy -
past practice, future intentions

2. Knowing the Need: next steps…
 Surrogacy should be re-examined as a preservation
strategy
 Clarity must be achieved on the application of surrogacy
as a preservation strategy
 Clarity must be achieved on the requirements for a digital
object to act as a preservation surrogate
 Existing centralised resources listing the availability of
surrogates should be investigated
2

3. What role does surrogacy play as a preservation strategy?
 Fundamentally a preservation tool – surrogacy protects &
preserves original items that are vulnerable by creating a copy
that is useable in its stead
e.g. preservation microfilming can be defined as the creation of microfilm to
high standards in order to produce a long-term surrogate to be used in the
place of fragile original material.
[National Preservation Office, Guide to preservation microfilming, 2000]
3

4. Why do we need preservation surrogates?
4

5. What are the alternatives?
 Increasing physical strength e.g. lining, lamination
 De-acidification (combined with cool storage)
 Boxing and safe handling
 Reduction in handling
5

6. Key attributes of a preservation surrogate
 A copy of an item which replicates as far as possible the
characteristics of the original as required by most users
 The surrogate must be able to be discovered by users, and
must be issued in lieu of the original item
 Crucially - the surrogate itself must be able to be preserved
for an agreed period of time (do it once do it right)
6

7. Surrogates of the past – traditionally microfilm
 clear and accepted
standards of production for
preservation purposes -
master negative, duplicate
negative, positive
 quick availability of the
positive
 cheap
 accepted longevity of the
medium – master negative, in
the appropriate storage, will
last for several hundred years
7

8. Surrogates of the past – traditionally microfilm
 British Library started microfilming in the 1950s, with
equipment donated to its newspaper repository at Colindale
by the Rockefeller Foundation
 Projects such as the Mellon Microfilming Project
introduced clear standards and encouraged/funded wide
spread microfilming projects
 At the height of production, the British Library unit had
over 20 cameras
 British Library, internally & externally, was producing over
2 million frames of preservation standard microfilm each year
8

9. Microfilm as a surrogate
 What counted as a faithful copy of the original?
 User experience
 Relationship to the original
 Preservation
9

10. An effective strategy?
 Only 6% of all surveyed items had a useable surrogate
 Of those with surrogates, there is no real correlation
between the condition of the original and the production of a
surrogate (items in good condition had a similar level of
surrogacy as items classified as unusable)
 Why?
10

11. Surrogacy in a digital age
Re-examining surrogacy as a preservation strategy
 Do we still need to create surrogates?
 For the same reasons?
 What does digital technology offer as an alternative to
microfilm?
11

12. Surrogacy in a digital age
What’s the difference?
 Digital copy created for access generally not expected to
have as long a life span as a digital copy created for
preservation purposes?
 Digital copy created for preservation – more rigorous
standards required?
 Preservation of the digital surrogate - commitment to
actively manage master files for a given period of time?
12

13. Surrogacy in a digital age
What’s the problem?
 Are we comfortable using digital objects as preservation
surrogates?
 If not, why not?
 Is it our definition of ‘a long time’?
13

14. Are we nearly there yet?
Does digital access lead to more or less use of the original?
 digital
Copyright
14

15. Surrogacy in a digital age
Clarity must be achieved on the requirements for a digital
object to act as a preservation surrogate
 lots of information out there
 do we need consensus?
 does everyone need to do the same thing?
 are there minimum requirements, or principles that it would
be beneficial to agree?
15

16. Centralised resources
16

17. Thank you
17