Re: diglib: emulation versus migration

[Carol Hixson <chixson@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

Agreed. And the article does note that preservation strategies
will likely include both approaches. It also notes that there may
be economies of scale in migration that would lower the costs
of that approach.

Carol

At 08:50 AM 4/19/2005, Normandy Helmer wrote:
> My main concern about emulation is our demonstrated limitations on systems 
> investment (personnel, software and hardware). We are not going to be the 
> ones who develop emulators, we'll just adopt the affordable ones. In the 
> interim we are going to be forced to focus on migration, regardless of 
> whether we're really keen on the strategy.
>
> Normandy
>
> Carol Hixson wrote:
> > On one of our side discussions in yesterday's Digital
> > Content Coordinators meeting, we touched
> > briefly on the comparison of emulation versus migration
> > as preservation strategies. There is an article which
> > compares the costs of both approaches that appears
> > in this month's issue of RLG DigiNews. The title of
> > the article is: "A Comparison Between Migration
> > and Emulation in Terms of Costs." Here's a short
> > quotation from the article to whet your appetite:
> > "We argue that applying the emulation strategy may be
> > more efficient in terms of life cycle management (and thus costs)
> > than the migration strategy."
> > Here's the URL to the article. I heard one of the authors
> > speak at the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries last year
> > and was favorably impressed with their work and how
> > easy it was even for me to understand. The article makes
> > cogent arguments.  It's worth the time to read and it's an
> > important topic for this group as we move forward.
> > http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20571#article0
> > Carol