I attended the Digital Documentation Process (DDP) workshop with Laura Morreale from Fordham University at NYCDH last week. The DDP exists as a method to standardize documentation for digital projects which can aid both in preservation and cataloguing. Our presenter encouraged us to think of DH projects and exhibits as performances rather than “products,” in that they can be more like events or shows that are being presented that have some type of artifact of their having happened such as a playbill or cast recording or staff credit sheet. Therefore the DDP does not replicate the viewer experience of the project itself but serves as an official record of its existence.
There are three documents that make up the “ingredients” of the DDP: the catalog record, the persistent identifier, and the archiving dossier narrative. The catalog record is a document that contains all of the metadata associated with the project for the purposes of cataloguing it into a searchable database such as Google Scholar (if self-archiving) or a library catalog (if associated with an institution). The persistent identifier contains all of the project’s files in their most durable file formats in a repository that is accessible by a DOI (digital object identifier), and therefore can be searched by others. The archiving dossier or dossier narrative acts like a bio for the project and its collaborators, listing their involvement, the story and scope of the project, along with its URLs and other narrative details.
The persistent identifier DOI (digital object identifier) was a bit challenging for me to understand but we walked through the process of obtaining one for self-archiving purposes using the digital archival tool, Zenodo. In Zenodo, we were able to reserve a D.O.I. because they “give them out for free,” and as a group we briefly speculated about how and why they are able to do this. One leading theory was that since Zenodo is an EU state-funded project that they have the resources to issue them. I checked DOI.org after the workshop and they also listed many additional registration agencies in the event that Zenodo is not an option in the future.
When we archived the sample project using Zenodo and associated the DOI with the project files, we would then be able to access the project through the DOI in the future. This process was useful for self-archiving (ie a project without institutional support). It was also recommended to archive in multiple repositories online as a best practice in digital archival methods such as Humanities Commons and OpenDOAR. If a project is institutionally supported or adjacent, it was also suggested that one should send the files to the institutional archive. In any repository, the project files should be archived in their most durable file formats, whatever those may be.
The dossier narrative was a persistent part of the discussion, as it adds collaboration details for DH projects which can otherwise be confusing to those not as familiar. With a dossier, the collaborator who worked on data for example can be credited with that work uniquely, as can the collaborator who wrote text descriptions or more traditionally “scholarly” outputs. The dossier can also be an area where the scope of work can be explained to those not as familiar with the unique methods and constraints of digital projects. These characteristics have impacts on searchability, fellowships, and which collaborators have access to tenure, etc, so the dossier narrative becomes a critical addition to the DDP.
This simple three document process began to seem overwhelming with its many potential fields to consider & fill out, so I was very pleased to receive both the slides, as well as a link to the DDP website that details the process. This site has a few “wizard” style forms that can aid the DDP process from the inception of a digital project to the archival of an inactive project, which others may find useful as well.
