Quality criteria for electronic source editions
Up to Quality Criteria
Draft of Quality criteria for electronic source edtions
Posted by
edi
at
August 29. 2008
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR ELECTRONIC SOURCE EDITIONS
Introduction
At the Porta Historica meeting in Vienna in December 2007, the decision was made to draw up standard quality criteria for electronic source editions. This was prompted by a British report that was discussed in December 2007 at the Porta Historica meeting in Vienna (http://www.history.ac.uk/digit/peer/index.html).
This report was to be used as the point of departure for a proposal to be prepared in consultation between the Porta Historica members and subsequently adopted at the general meeting in London (December 2008).
It was
agreed that the ING would take the initiative in consultation with the IHR.
There are a number of other reports or checklists relating to the requirements to be met when making historical source material available. A few have been consulted.[1]
Aim
The aim to draw up stand quality criteria is twofold.
In the first place to develop common standards as a way for Porta Historica to present itself, for instance on its website. With a common basis, it will be easier for comparable institutes to understand where Porta Historica stands for. It’s a kind of showing the flag.
In the second place quality criteria are connected of course very closely to the main purpose of Porta Historica, namely the exchange of experience and the improvement of the quality of source publications. Taking into the account the enormous expansion in the number of digital historical sources on the internet and the questions which raise about the authenticity, reliability, processing and future availability of many of these sources, Porta Historica can have a role in furthering the level of the quality of digital source publications.
Requirements to be met by the product
The working group can develop a minimum quality standard which can be used as a statement of Porta Historica on at least its website. To meet that goal it must be short, simple and acceptable for all members of Porta Historica but actually for all European institutions working in this field as well. This minimum standard should be approved by the December meeting of Porta Historica. In addition the working group could make recommendations how to go on with the subject of quality criteria.
A
provisional list of quality criteria has been drawn up as a first step. It is
enclosed.
Donald Haks
(in collaboration with Jane Winters)
[1] Minimum standards for electronic editions, August 2002, drawn up by the Committee on Electronic Standards of the Association for Documentary Editing: http://www.documentaryediting.org/resources/about/standards.html (relates to digital source editions produced by the American network of publishers of source editions); Kriterienkatalog vertrauenswürdige digitale Langzeitarchive, June 2006, drawn up by the nestor-Arbeitsgruppe Vertrauenswürdige Archive – Zertifizierung: http://www.langzeitarchivierung.de (relates to libraries, archives and museums; also relevant for research institutions); Datakeurmerk.nl. Kwaliteitsrichtlijnen voor digitale onderzoeksdata in Nederland, drawn up by DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services): http://www.dans.knaw.nl (relates to the storage of data in data archives, drawn up by the Netherlands data archive).
Quality criteria for electronic source
publications DRAFT
1. Aim and requirements to be met by the criteria
- these quality criteria are a minimum standard forming the basis for electronic source editions, with which all source editions should aim to comply
- in accordance with the definition of ‘source edition’ by Porta Historica, the quality criteria are concerned with source editions in the true sense, and repertoria and reference works as well
- starting from the minimum standard, the quality criteria can be expanded and deepened, for example in terms of academic principles, how digital source editions can be presented or practical tips for setting up source editions
2. Academic principles
- digital source editions must comply with the general requirements for academic research, such as meticulousness, reliability, verifiability, impartiality and independence
- digital source editions must be created in accordance with accepted academic principles as these have been formed over a long tradition of (printed) source editions
- these principles relate to: heuristics, selection, text processing, annotation, accesses, references and acknowledgement of sources
- the digital source edition must contain an explanation of the academic significance of the edition, the intended target group, the academic practice followed in respect of the source edition, the conditions applicable to the research and the edition and details of the people responsible for the edition
3. Presentation
- the way in which digital data and text files are structured should be based on content-related decisions that form part of the academic processing
- access to the data and text files should satisfy the academic questions that a user may raise
- the search options should be explained clearly and concisely
- each digital source edition should have citation instructions according to accepted standards
- changes and additions to the content of a digital source edition should be accounted for
- the date of the first and most recent processing should be given
- it should be possible to put forward corrections or additions, for example via a reply button, discussion area or annotation
4. Openness and availability
- the aim is to provide open access to the digital source edition
- it should be possible to print parts of the text and data files
- downloading text and data files should be permitted in principle
- interoperability with similar data files should be taken into account
- information must be provided on how the text and data file will be managed and maintained in the long term and by which institution
- the technical data in respect of the software, storage etc. must be documented.
Re: Draft of Quality criteria for electronic source edtions
Posted by
edi
at
August 29. 2008
Dear Donald,
Thank you for compiling and sending the provisional list of quality criteria for electronic source editions to be discussed at our December‑meeting in London. Being intended as a minimum standard there is no need to specify the points more explicitly at this stage, however we should take into consideration some general issues:
1) We should also take into account Level 1‑editions (PDF‑versions of existing printed volumes, probably especially with regard to certain types of sources, e.g. old repertoria and reference works). In other cases, electronic editions will exist alongside a printed edition (either as an "electronic version" of the book or as a first step towards a searchable electronic edition). In other cases, a Level 1‑edition will be simply combined with a photograph of the original (charter, autograph, etc.).
2) New (searchable) editions in digital form will require courageous decisions and a very strong institutional background, especially in respect of the maintaining and technical attendance of the site. So, some of the questions involved (e.g. open access and availability) are a desideratum, but in the end will be decided by the institutions responsible for the edited material respective responsible for the edition. These institutions and their interests can be manifold. ‑ In Austria, decisions taken by one archive, even if it is the "public record office" (Staatsarchiv), are not obligatory for other archives (of a province, of a diocese, of a monastery). Maybe at our December‑meeting we should also think of/discuss such different premises for electronic editions in our countries.
Best wishes,
Andrea Rzihacek/ Renate Spreitzer/ Bernhard Zeller
Re: Draft of Quality criteria for electronic source edtions
Posted by
edi
at
August 29. 2008
Dear Renate,
thank you very much for your comments.
You are completely right that there all kinds of mixed editions - printed and electronic editions which sometimes complete each other and you are right that we have to take these into account.
Your second remark is important as well. The quality criteria have to be considered as a goal, an aim. The relation between aim and practice will be a point of dicussion.
As you know, on 8 September we will discuss the draft together with your remarks. Afterwards I will report about the outcome and how to proceed. I hope we can decide on this minimum standard in London.
So, thank you for your contribution and I will contact you in the course of September.
Best wishes,
Donald Haks
Forgot your password?
