Content uploaded by Zack Lischer-Katz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zack Lischer-Katz on Dec 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1INTRODUCTION
16th International Conference on
Digital Preservation
Proceedings
Amsterdam // 16 – 20 September 2019
www.ipres2019.org
2INTRODUCTION
Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Digital Preservation.
2019, Marcel Ras, Barbara Sierman,
Angela Puggioni (editors).
iPRES2019 conference proceedings
will be made available under a Creative
Commons license. With the exception
of any logos, emblems, trademarks or
other nominated third-party images/
text, this work is available for re-use
under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Further details about CC BY licenses are
available at https://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
All external links were active at the time
of publication unless otherwise stated.
ISBN (PDF): 9789062590438
ISBN (epub): 9789062590452
These proceedings contain only the bundled peer reviewed
submissions of the 16th International Conference on Digital Pre-
servation. All other materials of the conference are published on
the Open Science Framework iPRES2019 Conference pages:
https://osf.io/6ern4/. These pages contain all submitted papers,
panels, posters, workshops, tutorials, ad-hoc proposals, hacka-
thons, as well as presenters’ slides and optional additionals and
the collaborative notes taken during the conference.
The three iPRES2019 Keynote presentations were recorded and
published on the YouTube channel of the Dutch Digital Heritage
Network: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHDarEQeREkR-
VLdzJSbKWw/videos.
Conference Photo albums are available on ickr:
https://www.ickr.com/photos/ipres2019/albums/.
A searchable Twitter Archive is available: https://hawksey.
info/tagsexplorer/arc.html?key=1xOqbbwS0W-xVy_qMezz3y-
wKqpPGjAYbdRCYqwXl-xL0&gid=400689247, also searchable
with a TAGSExplorer: https://hawksey.info/tagsexplorer/?-
key=1xOqbbwS0W-xVy_qMezz3ywKqpPGjAYbdRCYqwXl-xL0&-
gid=400689247
IPRES 2019 IS HOSTED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTNERS WORKING
TOGETHER IN THE DUTCH DIGITAL HERITAGE NETWORK
Proceedings
114
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SuppoRting viRtual Reality anD 3D in
acaDemic libRaRieS
Zack Lischer-Katz
University of Oklahoma, USA
zlkatz@ou.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4688-1275
Matt Cook
matt_cook@harvard.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1513-
0444
Nathan Hall
Virginia Tech, USA
nfhall@vt.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0676-9916
Abstract[1] – Academic libraries are increasingly
adopting virtual reality (VR) technologies for a variety
of research and teaching purposes, yet there is a lack
of clear guidance in the community on how to manage
these technologies in eective and sustainable ways. In
June 2018, the University of Oklahoma hosted the second
of three forums on the topic of using 3D and VR for visu-
alization and analysis in academic libraries, as part of
the IMLS-funded project, Developing Library Strategy
for 3D and Virtual Reality Collection Development and
Reuse (LIB3DVR). This project uses nominal group tech-
nique to collect data from the invited experts (from
diverse academic disciplines and institutional contexts)
at the Forum to identify common preservation and cura-
tion challenges in the visualization and analysis of 3D
data and the management of VR programs. This paper
describes the ndings of this project and outlines strat-
egies and techniques for curating and preserving 3D/VR.
Keywords – Virtual Reality, 3D Data, Libraries,
Preservation, Curation
Conference Topics – Exploring New Horizons; Building
Capacity, Capability and Community.
[1] This project was made possible in part by the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (LG-73-17-0141-17). The views,
ndings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this
program do not necessarily represent those of the Institute of
Museum and Library Services.
i. intRoDuction
Virtual reality (VR) has resurfaced as an engaging
and innovative technology, with a surge in the avail-
ability of low-cost hardware. Academic libraries are
increasingly adopting VR as a means of providing
enhanced access to collections of 3D models, new
research tools, and new immersive learning environ-
ments for students [1]. VR is useful for enhancing
visualization and analysis for big data applications
[2, 3] and scientic research, and for contributing
to increased engagement in the classroom [4, 5].
The demonstrated ecacy of VR for research and
teaching purposes, and the increasing aordability
of hardware, has inspired library administrators and
technologists to introduce VR to makerspaces and
other sites across university campuses, as well as to
provide for the checkout of VR equipment by library
patrons [6, 7].
The adoption of VR is part of a trend towards tech-
nological innovation now taking place in academic
libraries; however, there is a clear lack of guidance in
the library community on how to introduce, integrate,
and sustain these technologies in ways that serve
all library stakeholders. A multitude of institutions
Juliet Hardesty
Indiana University, USA
jlhardes@iu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7705-5937
Jamie Wittenberg
Indiana University,USA
jvwitten@indiana.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
5266-0508
Jennifer Johnson
Indiana University - Purdue
University Indianapolis, USA
jennajoh@iupui.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
3994-4538
Robert McDonald
University of Colorado Boulder, USA
rhmcdonald@colorado.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4258-0982
Tara Carlisle
University of Oklahoma, USA
tara.carlisle@ou.edu
115
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
are tackling the same issues, oftentimes replicating
similar work, indicating a need for leadership on the
part of early-adopters, including academic libraries,
to determine best practices for supporting VR
technologies across dierent types of institutions.
Practical considerations, such as designing systems
to reduce motion sickness and increase accessi-
bility, for example, have been tackled on an ad hoc
basis, making it dicult to scale up VR services for
widespread adoption. Similarly, preservation issues
have not been adequately addressed for 3D/VR. The
fundamental problem is that best practices have not
been systematically collated, analyzed, and pack-
aged for widespread dissemination and adoption
across the community.
To address these challenges and aid in the matu-
ration of 3D and VR as learning and research tech-
nologies, an interdisciplinary group of librarians and
researchers from Virginia Tech, Indiana University,
and the University of Oklahoma convened to develop
a series of three national forums on this topic, funded
by the Institute for Museum and Library Services
(IMLS), as a project titled Developing Library Strategy
for 3D and Virtual Reality Collection Development
and Reuse (LIB3DVR) [8]. Each forum was designed
to cover a particular phase of the lifecycle of 3D and
VR within academic contexts: The rst forum looked
at 3D/VR creation and publishing; the second forum
looked at 3D/VR visualization and analysis; and the
third forum looked at 3D/VR repository practice and
standards. This paper presents ndings from the
second forum, held in June 2018 at the University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
ii. liteRatuRe Review
3D and VR technologies oer new potential for
interactive engagement with and analysis of spatially
complex artifacts, spaces, and data, which enables
the possibility of new insights [9]. They are also
being used as immersive learning environments for
a range of elds, from anthropology to biochemistry
[10] to architecture and design [11]. Researchers
in a range of elds are already incorporating 3D
technologies into their scholarly practice in order
to enhance their methods of analysis [12, 13, 14,
15]. Research has shown that scientists are able to
make more inferences from 3D digital models than
from photos, while humanists can visually represent
texts, images, and material artifacts in VR spaces
for detailed analysis and to better understand their
cultural and historical context [16, 17, 18, 19]. In addi-
tion, the 3D representation of fragile or otherwise
inaccessible artifacts opens up access to a host of
archived objects for a wider audience of researchers,
students, and the general public [20, 21].
Studies on the preservation and curation of 3D/
VR have pointed out that as researchers increasingly
use these technologies, there will be a greater need
for archiving and preservation services [22, 23, 24,
25]. As emerging technologies, however, there is still
a lack of knowledge about how best to create and
curate the scholarly products of 3D/VR projects. 3D
data is being valued for its potential to be reused
beyond the original context of creation [26, 27],
which makes it important to ensure adequate data
curation procedures are in place. In recent years, a
handful of domain-specic research groups have
attempted to develop 3D data creation workows
and repository structures [28, 29], and metadata
guidelines (e.g., the Archaeology Data Service’s
Guide to Best Practices [30]). Technical groups (e.g.
the Khronos Group’s COLLADA and OpenXR initia-
tives [31]) have been working towards interopera-
bility standards for 3D/VR le formats, software, and
hardware. Early 3D/VR metadata projects, such as
Mourkoussis, et al. [32], have not seen their guide-
lines widely adopted. At the same time, more recent
projects have identied a lack of suitable metadata
standards, particularly with regards to preservation
metadata [33, 34], as a serious challenge to working
with 3D data. Bennet (2015) suggests, “3D data
archiving remains a multifaceted web of decision
points on le formats, their relational organization,
packaging, and nal storage” [35].
There have been some attempts to develop digital
repositories and common metadata guidelines for
3D data [36], when it is framed as “cultural heritage”
data. For example, the goal of the European-based,
3D-ICONS Project [37] was “to provide Europeana
with 3D models of architectural and archaeological
monuments.” This project also developed metadata
guidelines [38], which were released in 2013. It was
announced in early 2019 that Europeana [39], the
European Union’s digital library platform for cultural
heritage, would start introducing 3D materials into
its collections [40] with guidance from 3D-ICONS.
116
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
In 2017, the project team who established the
IMLS-funded project, Community Standards for
3D Data Preservation (CS3DP) surveyed an inter-
national community of researchers and librarians
involved in digital curation and 3D data acquisition
and research (112 total participants). They reported
that “72% said that they did not use best practices
or standards for preservation, documentation, and
dissemination of 3D data. Of those not using stan-
dards/best practices, 69% said that they did not use
them because they were unaware of such standards”
[41]. Cook and Lischer-Katz (2019) have dened three
important preservation areas in which libraries can
take the lead: Managing VR hardware and software
obsolescence; establishing le formats for archiving
3D content; and developing metadata standards
[42]. Moore and Skates Kettler (2018) also point to
the importance of metadata: “Creating a standard
for metadata and a set of best practice recommen-
dations would have immense impact on the overall
preservation and interoperability of 3D research”
[43]. One of the critical challenges to common stan-
dards is the diversity of approaches being carried
out as part of 3D and VR creation methodologies
[44].
At the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI),
Fall 2017 Plenary, Cliord Lynch noted that while
in many cases it is now possible to support the full
research lifecycle of a signicant range of 3D objects
at reasonable quality and cost, there remains a
signicant and important challenge to implement a
whole library apparatus, including the development
of good standards for storage and description; good
provenance metadata to tell us where 3D objects
came from; and suitable documentation specifying
whether they are produced by scanning real objects
in the world or are designed entirely on a computer
(e.g., architectural CAD designs) [45].
A report published in February 2019 by the Council
on Library and Information Resources argued that
libraries need to take the lead in supporting ”new and
complex technical workows, scholarly practices,
and data curation and digital preservation require-
ments,” if 3D/VR technology is to be widely used as a
set of scholarly and pedagogical tools [46]. In many
cases, academic libraries are already taking the lead
in adopting these technologies, providing support
and developing eective course integrations and
research support. However, Cook and Lischer-Katz
(2019) note, “the sustainability of VR as a legitimate
library resource depends on managing VR-related
data and digital tools throughout the research life
cycle” [47]. Meyerson (2019) has suggested that
establishing preservation guidelines for 3D and VR
can follow existing guidelines for other types of soft-
ware, with some modication [48].
The ndings and analyses in these reports
and articles unanimously point to a critical need
to establish 3D/VR creation and curation best
practices and standards, and they emphasize the
essential role played by community engagement
in establishing those best practices and standards.
They also acknowledge that because of the diver-
sity of approaches and contexts it is necessary to
look closely at how a broad cross section of stake-
holders is approaching this problem space in order
to establish guidelines that will be useful for all
involved.
iii. ReSeaRcH objective
The main research objective of this phase of
the LIB3DVR project is to determine how academic
libraries and other institutions with 3D/VR programs
are planning for the reuse and long-term sustain-
ability of 3D and VR resources. Identifying the chal-
lenges and strategies in current practice will help
establish a foundation for community-generated
best practices and standards.
iv. metHoDS
The project team assembled a two-and-a-
half day forum in Norman, Oklahoma with fteen
expert participants, including academic librar-
ians, researchers from a variety of disciplines, and
commercial game designers and software engi-
neers. Participants were selected by identifying
national experts in representative elds, with an eye
towards achieving institutional, disciplinary, racial,
and gender diversity. The project team shared the
participant list with an advisory board that provided
further input on the selection of participants. In
addition to the meeting of invited experts, a half-day
public forum was held in which local stakeholders
were invited to attend and discuss their experiences
working with 3D/VR.
117
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The project team used a nominal group tech-
nique to generate research data for this study [49].
Nominal group technique is a consensus-building
method for achieving general agreement on a topic
through face-to-face small group discussions. This
method was adopted in order to reveal key chal-
lenges related to the visualization and analysis of
3D and VR data and the design and management
of library programs to support those activities.
The agenda for the forum was divided into special
sessions on specic topics. Data were generated
through methods of community note taking, facili-
tated using shared Google Drive documents for each
forum session. At the end of each discussion session,
a group note taker summarized and presented the
views of each small group to the wider forum. Both
the raw community notes and the summarized
facilitator notes were collected and analyzed. Notes
produced from the smaller groups and from the
larger group form the basis of the ndings. We vali-
dated these ndings by disseminating an early draft
of this paper to participants, asking them to correct,
clarify, or elaborate on the paper’s ndings. The
authors incorporated all participant feedback into a
subsequent draft.
Data analysis consisted of grouping data from
the community note taking documents into higher
level categories based on the research objectives
and emergent themes, following an inductive anal-
ysis approach [50]. A central part of the data anal-
ysis process involved moving from grouping specic
examples of institutional practices and personal
perspectives in order to link them to more general,
community-wide phenomena. In this way, a set of
shared challenges and strategies could be identied
at the community level of analysis. One of the limita-
tions of this methodology is that it is limited to a small
group of experts, which could potentially leave out
other perspectives. Including a public forum, which
was open to more participants from a greater range
of institutions, helped to mitigate this limitation.
v. FinDingS
Participants were primarily concerned about the
practical implementation of VR in their institutions,
particularly the costs of maintaining VR equipment
over time. Beyond the ongoing costs of maintaining
and upgrading VR hardware and software, there are
a number of other issues identied by forum partic-
ipants that impact the management, use, and reuse
of valuable VR content. These include the devel-
opment of suitable documentation practices and
tools for tracking the 3D content creation process;
legal and ethical concerns, especially in the context
of cultural heritage content; and preservation and
curation concerns related to research transparency
and reproducibility.
A. The Importance of Documentation
Documentation was seen as essential by partic-
ipants because it can impact the accuracy and
reliability of the 3D models and the structure and
behaviors of the VR environment. Ensuring trans-
parency in the creation process of VR is essential so
that future users can interpret the accuracy of the
VR content, which impacts the types of inferences
that they can make from it. Strategies suggested by
participants for addressing documentation concerns
included using project management tools that can
document processes over time (i.e., producing
process-based project documentation), docu-
menting overall workows, and using journaling and
lab notebooks during the course of a project in order
to keep track of decisions made in the production
process. Another part of developing good documen-
tation practices is getting into the habit of storing VR
project les in open, well documented and widely
supported formats, which would enable future
users to be able to access the original source les
that went into creating the VR project le. If original
software is no longer supported, it becomes dicult
or nearly impossible to open up VR projects and see
how they were assembled, which makes it important
to document which software packages were used for
a given project.
B. Ethical and Legal Issues
The need for documentation is also related to
important legal and ethical questions raised by the
use of VR content. Working with cultural heritage
content in particular raises a number of concerns in
this area. While historical materials are often in the
public domain and not encumbered by copyright,
there were concerns raised by participants about
companies or organizations doing scanning projects
and then claiming copyright on the resulting digital
products. In addition, participants raised ques-
tions about how 3D scanning of a cultural heritage
118
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
object might impact the integrity of the object, with
consequences for the ownership and value of the
original object [51]. This is particularly important
when models are produced from culturally-sensitive
materials. In other cases, in order to prevent “digital
colonization,” a term brought up by one participant,
it is important for 3D and VR content creators to
respect the cultural protocols of indigenous commu-
nities. In contexts where personal information may
be captured via 3D or VR, data privacy was also seen
as a potential issue.
In addition to these ethical and legal concerns,
there are also intellectual property issues iden-
tied that could impact how VR content is used in
the future. VR projects that employ plugins, inter-
actions, models, or other components that involve
third-party licenses are at risk of having limited
options for reuse, or not being reusable at all if the
underlying licenses or digital rights management
(DRM) technologies place burdensome restrictions
on users. One participant was concerned that DRM
could restrict how 3D and VR content are reused,
for instance, that DRM might one day limit which
3D-printed models could be printed (the participant
was concerned that 3D printers might someday be
designed to only print certain models that were
authorized via restrictive DRM systems). Increasing
use of “software as a service” models, which are
built on “black box” systems and cloud storage, also
complicates how legacy VR content can be sustained
over time and how it can be used for research. This
issue is an example of a legal issue that has implica-
tions for research transparency and reproducibility,
which will be addressed in the next section.
C. Research Transparency & Reproducibility
Concerns
Being able to access research data and digital
scholarly products over time has become an
important aspect of research transparency and
reproducibility. Participants voiced concern that
if software relies on external servers and those
servers are shut down some day, then access to the
software may be lost. It may be nearly impossible
to replicate research ndings that relied on serv-
er-based software or proprietary software built
with non-transparent processes and algorithms.
Researchers in the forum were also concerned
about how 3D and VR scholarly outputs could be
cited as persistent scholarly objects if they rely on
“software as a service”-based systems. One partic-
ipant suggested that blockchain technology might
be useful as a means of keeping track of provenance
and the intellectual property chain. This is an area
that deserves further investigation, as it may help to
address some of the documentation and transpar-
ency challenges of managing 3D and VR over time,
but with the caveat that other research has shown
that blockchain may have limited utility as a preser-
vation tool [52, 53].
Grant-funding agencies, such as the National
Science Foundation, are making data manage-
ment plans (DMPs) a required component of grant
applications and preservation of research data
is an important component of a DMP. Being able
to preserve and access 3D/VR into the future is
important for a range of stakeholders in the research
community. The discussion around preserving 3D
and VR content revolved around questions of 1)
dening what elements of 3D/VR projects to save,
2) identifying the range of technological obsoles-
cence and interoperability challenges that are typi-
cally encountered, and 3) dening strategies for
preservation.
1.
Participants tried to come to some consensus on
what should be considered the most basic unit of a
3D or VR asset that might be reused in the future.
Some answers included preserving 3D models
along with the VR behaviors and “physics” of those
models, including the structures and interactions
between elements in the VR environment. In terms
of preserving 3D models, one challenge is to iden-
tify how much quality is necessary. There was some
discussion of preserving low-resolution models in a
VR environment for re-use and some participants
argued that preservation eorts should focus on the
high-resolution models that are produced through
3D capture processes such as LiDAR and photo-
grammetry. One participant introduced the concept
of the “smallest preservable unit” (i.e., the smallest
unit that can be exported and used to reconstruct
the VR environment or build new environments in
the future), which could be dened depending on
the particular use-case or the organization’s pres-
ervation intent. One example of this is the concern
over preserving the behaviors and interactions of
119
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
objects in the virtual space. In terms of behaviors
and physics, one participant pointed out that these
elements could not be saved separately from the
models or the VR environment because they are
generated by the game engine that was used to
create the VR environment, which can change as the
game engine is updated over time. For instance, the
Unity game engine, which is a commonly used plat-
form for producing VR content, is constantly being
updated and it is dicult to ensure that the behav-
iors of elements in a VR environment at one point in
time will interact consistently in the future. Only the
game engine design company has complete control
over how those elements will change. Because
of this, participants pointed out that this makes
preserving the actual performance of a VR envi-
ronment very dicult. While many of the elements
may be preservable individually, this still does not
capture how that VR environment behaves when
in use. For that reason, forum participants empha-
sized the importance of documenting behaviors of
VR environments using video recordings of users
engaging with them.
Obsolescence & Interoperability Challenges
Participants pointed out that because of the
complexity of VR technologies, the risk posed by
obsolescence to the long-term accessibility of VR
is very high. They pointed to the updating of rm-
ware, dependencies on third-party software, and
upgrading hardware as activities that could impact
how the VR system behaves and whether or not
older VR projects can be accessed in the future.
Older VR projects may need to be migrated over
time to new systems. For instance, one participant
presented a case study on the preservation initia-
tive to preserve the Virtual Harlem project (a project
developed by Dr. Bryan Carter, Associate Professor
in Africana Studies at the University of Arizona)
[54]. This involved moving the project to a new VR
platform every few years, which typically required
recreating most of the VR environment from scratch
because the dierent VR systems were not compat-
ible and did not have import or export capabilities.
This shows how even active and ongoing migration
of a project from one VR system to another is chal-
lenging and requires signicant resources. Another
preservation challenge of current VR technologies
is their dependency on server-based resources. The
software packages that run VR headsets also rely
on external servers for accessing user accounts. If
VR headsets do not have “oine” modes, users will
no longer be able to operate the VR hardware if the
company’s server (e.g., Oculus) goes down or the
company ceases operation.
Interoperability was also identied as an
important issue that had implications for preser-
vation and reuse of VR content. One of the biggest
challenges identied was the lack of concerted eort
at the level of university campuses to communicate
about VR projects and promote VR adoption in ways
that would mandate interoperability. Dierent units
on campus are creating VR content that may be
useful for other units, but lack common interoper-
ability standards and use an array of software and
hardware congurations that may not be compat-
ible. Thus, VR content may not be easily shared
across campus units, not to mention between
dierent institutions, if there is no coordination of
interoperable VR solutions. One suggestion provided
by participants to address this problem was to
develop a database that would help identify who is
using particular hardware/software congurations
across campus, which would make it easier to adopt
similar congurations and share content. The use of
containerization tools (e.g., Docker), which bundle
dependencies and system congurations together,
could be useful for ensuring that VR projects are
interoperable between units and institutions.
From these discussions, a set of considerations
emerged that need to be taken into account when
planning for preservation of 3D/VR. First, it was
acknowledged that involving a range of stakeholder
groups in preservation planning initiatives is essen-
tial for tackling preservation problems. In particular,
software engineers should be involved in preser-
vation planning in order to address the technical
preservation issues. Second, standardization and
adopting standards is critical. Developing common,
sustainable preservation practices requires the stan-
dardization of preservation and access formats for
VR and 3D. Third, preservation is closely connected
with questions of interoperability and the ability to
network and connect dierent virtual worlds. One
participant pointed out that preservation is not
enough and that virtual worlds also need to be inter-
connectable (i.e., use interoperable standards so
that content can be shared and reused, and users are
120
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
able to move between dierent worlds in VR), other-
wise they will remain isolated and unused, inevitably
becoming inaccessible. Finally, participants pointed
out that other elds have been tackling similar issues
around preserving complex congurations of visual
information and computer software and hardware,
such as audiovisual/moving image preservation
and software preservation communities. Looking to
strategies from these elds could also help the 3D/
VR preservation community.
3.
Participants identied a range of possible pres-
ervation strategies for dealing with these challenges
and preservation considerations. Selection and
documentation were seen as important activities
for ensuring the long-term preservation of 3D/VR
content. Selection criteria for 3D/VR content, partic-
ularly in terms of making decisions about archiving
low- versus high-resolution content was seen as
essential, and participants saw an urgent need for
best practices for appraising 3D/VR for archiving.
This is complicated by the earlier point about iden-
tifying the “smallest preservable unit,” because it is
not always clear what needs to be saved throughout
the lifecycle of 3D data (from capture to processing,
editing, etc.). Participants agreed that preserving
the “raw data” from the earliest phase of the 3D/
VR project is important for future-proong them,
because even if the nished projects become inac-
cessible due to system obsolescence, they can still
be rebuilt from their constituent elements.
What counts as “raw data” in research is still an
open question being debated in many elds [55], and
in the case of 3D data creation, participants pointed
out that some “raw data,” such as scanner data are
typically in proprietary formats that have signicant
long-term sustainability issues. Documentation
practices are also important throughout the lifecycle
of curating 3D/VR content and they complement
selection practices because they both provide infor-
mation about the processes that created the 3D/VR
content, how they interconnect, and the decision
making process underlying their archival appraisal.
Recent software released by Cultural Heritage
Imaging for documenting the creation process of
photogrammetry-based 3D projects was oered
as a model for how documentation systems can be
built into 3D/VR workows in order to seamlessly
capture key moments in the creation process [56].
In addition to these preservation strategies that
are particular to 3D/VR content, preservation of
3D/VR can also draw on more general digital pres-
ervation approaches, such as emulation and migra-
tion. The use of virtual machines was suggested for
running obsolete operating systems and VR soft-
ware, but participants cautioned that one of the
challenges would be supporting all of the drivers for
the complex network of VR peripherals (e.g., head
and hand tracking sensors, head mounted displays,
etc.). Migration was seen as a potentially sustainable
strategy for moving les out of obsolete systems
to more sustainable ones. Planning for migration
involves selecting VR systems that have the range of
import and export functions necessary for moving
les out of that system and into a new one at some
point in the future. Based on the case studies consid-
ered in this forum (e.g., the Virtual Harlem project),
if systems do not have export functions, migra-
tion will require rebuilding the virtual environment
from scratch. This strategy also connects with the
“smallest preservable unit” concept. As discussed
earlier, there are issues with behaviors and physics
tied to the game engine that limit the eectiveness
of a migration strategy.
One nal strategy discussed by participants was
maintaining hardware and software in a xed state
(i.e., preventing automatic updates and hardware
upgrades). While maintaining systems in a xed
state is only a short-term solution that is dicult to
maintain in the long-term or scale-up for wider use,
preserving software and hardware in this way could
provide important examples for future emulation
and migration projects. Because the hardware and
software congurations for VR systems are typically
very complex, having examples of running systems
(for instance, in a computer museum context) is
essential for understanding how they originally
behaved through user interaction, which is neces-
sary for developing future systems that accurately
emulate earlier ones.
iv. SummaRy anD DiScuSSion
The ndings drawn from the discussions and
presentations at this forum oer a broad view of
the current concerns of this diverse community. The
121
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
range of stakeholder groups is expansive and demon-
strates a growing interest in immersive visualization
technology across many elds and institution types.
From the ndings, we can identify and summarize a
set of common challenges facing libraries and other
information institutions that are implementing 3D/
VR technologies.
Participants engaged in a lengthy discussion on
issues associated with managing, using, and reusing
VR content. The main challenges participants identi-
ed in this area included the need to develop repro-
ducible workows and documentation tools and
procedures; concerns over research transparency
and reproducibility, which are related to documen-
tation concerns; and a complex array of ethical and
legal issues that require further investigation.
For supporting documentation eorts, partic-
ipants recommended the use of project manage-
ment tools; keeping a journal or lab notebook
to keep track of decisions made throughout the
creation process; and storing data in open, well-doc-
umented le formats. Documentation is an essential
component of ensuring research transparency and
reproducibility for all forms of research data, but it is
only part of the picture for 3D/VR. Participants also
identied a set of practices that could help address
the challenges of 3D/VR research data curation and
preservation:
• Specify which elements of 3D/VR projects to
save and at which levels of granularity.
• Dene the level of quality at which types of
3D/VR elements should be saved.
• Identify the range of technological obso-
lescence and interoperability challenges,
including: updating rmware and hardware;
dependencies on third-party software;
dependency on server-based resources
or credentialing mechanisms; migrating
older VR projects to newer systems; and
Interoperability between VR systems and
game engines.
From discussions on these challenges, partici-
pants dened a set of strategies and recommenda-
tions to address them:
• Involve diverse stakeholders in preservation
planning to ensure that preservation plans
will support the range of future uses.
• Involve software engineers in preservation
planning to advise on the technical aspects
of preserving hardware/software.
• Design and/or purchase systems with
interoperability in mind to increase chance
of long-term use.
• Actively monitor other elds, such as moving
image preservation, that also preserve
complex digital media.
• Adopt a lifecycle approach to managing and
preserving 3D/VR content.
Techniques for preservation dened by partici-
pants to support these strategies include: planning
from the beginning of a project for eventual migration
and emulation; maintaining hardware and software
in a xed state, as documentation to guide migra-
tion and emulation; and recording videos in order
to document fully-functioning VR environments.
Beyond documentation and preservation concerns,
management of 3D/VR content also involves nego-
tiating ethical and legal issues. Some of the key
areas identied that need additional work include:
concerns about scanning cultural heritage sites and
artifacts and claiming ownership of resulting les;
understanding the impact of 3D scanning on original
artifacts, and the owners or custodians of original
artifacts; and establishing protocols for protecting
culturally sensitive materials.
Many of these techniques and challenges are not
unique to 3D/VR, but overlap with digital preserva-
tion concerns for preserving other types of complex
digital objects. The eld of video game preserva-
tion is also concerned with exploring emulation
and migration as preservation strategies [57, 58,
59, 60]. For 3D/VR, emulation and migration strat-
egies appear to be more dicult because of the
complex array of hardware peripherals and drivers
that constitute a VR system. Migration to new soft-
ware/hardware environments may be particularly
dicult. For instance, the case of the Virtual Harlem
project, discussed earlier, suggests that migration
may be so dicult that researchers will choose to
entirely rebuild the virtual environment on a new
VR platform. One hope is that the building blocks of
VR environments will be interchangeable, following
shared technical standards, so that even if the virtual
environments need to be recreated in the future,
much of the underlying content will be reusable.
122
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
3D/VR also shares similar concerns with the eld of
time-based media conservation [61] in terms of the
need to document complex congurations of audio-
visual media technologies as they function in their
original context, via photography, video recordings,
diagrams, etc. In time-based media conservation,
the resulting documentation can help guide conser-
vators as they take steps to conserve and prepare
the work for exhibition in the future, as part of a crit-
ical discourse and investigation of the meaning of
media and performance-based art [62] or to match
emulated or migrated versions to the documented
originals [63]. Similarly, documentation can help
emulation or migration eorts for VR environments
to make them renderable in the future. Others in
the digital preservation eld have suggested that
the documentation of complex digital objects may
be more valuable to future archivists and historians
than preserving working versions of the original
software [64]. The nascent eld of 3D/VR preserva-
tion should look to these established elds for guid-
ance and collaboration.
v. concluSion
The overriding theme across the ndings from
the Forum is the importance of interinstitutional and
interdisciplinary collaboration. Conrming what we
had assumed going into this project, it is clear that
many of the challenges of 3D/VR can only be solved
through systematic and concerted eort across
multiple stakeholder groups and existing subelds
of preservation research and practice. Furthermore,
3D/VR is not limited to a niche area. As we can see
from the range of participants and the diversity of
uses they identied, there are wide applications and
growing mainstream acceptance in many contexts.
Further collaboration through future forums and
working groups could and should generate stan-
dards and best practices for application across the
broad 3D/VR community. These need to be specic
enough that they can oer real guidance to stake-
holders of varying capacities, but exible enough to
be useful for a range of applications and disciplinary
practices.
While the ndings from the Forum suggest a
variety of techniques and strategies for addressing
the challenges identied, there is still much more
work that needs to be done to establish standards
and best practices. In addition, developing tools for
supporting 3D/VR throughout the research or educa-
tional lifecycle is critical. Such tools should include:
• Project management and documentation
tools.
• Universal 3D viewers that are able to inte-
grate with diverse VR equipment and 3D
repositories.
• Sustainable, preservation-quality le
formats for 3D/VR.
• Open platforms for hosting and preserving
3D/VR content.
There are a number of other projects that are
addressing some of the most pressing challenges in
the eld of 3D and VR research and teaching, including
Community Standards for 3D Data Preservation
(CS3DP), discussed earlier; Building for Tomorrow,
an additional IMLS-funded project that is developing
guidelines for preserving 3D models in the elds
of architecture, design, architectural archives, and
architectural history; the 3D Digitization Project at
the Smithsonian Institution’s Digitization Program
Oce, which is developing software, workows,
and metadata guidelines for a variety of 3D creation
processes; and the Library of Congress’s Born to Be
3D initiative, which has started convening experts
in the eld to look at the preservation challenges of
“born digital” 3D data (e.g., CAD models, GIS data,
etc.). The LIB3DVR project team plans to continue
to collaborate with members of these projects, and
is condent that through these initiatives, useful
standards and best practices will emerge to help
librarians, digital curators, and other information
professionals address the complex challenges of
preserving and curating 3D/VR for academic use.
ReFeRenceS
[1] M. Cook and Z. Lischer-Katz, “Integrating 3D and VR into
research and pedagog y in higher education,” in Beyond
Realit y: Augmented, Vir tual, and Mixed Realit y in the Library,
K. Varnum, Ed. Chicago: ALA Editions, 2019, pp. 69-85.
[2] C. Donalek, et al., “Immersive and collaborative data visu-
alization using vir tual reality platforms,” in Proceedings of
a, pp. 609–14,
2014.
[3] G. Evagorou and T. Heinis, “Visual exploration and interac-
tion with scientic data in virtual reality,” in Proceedings of
Knowledge Discover y and Data Mining Conference, London,
United Kingdom, August 20th, 2018.
123
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
[4] J. Milovanovic, “ Virtual and augmented reality in archi-
tectural design and education” in Proceedings of the 17th
, Istanbul,
Turkey, July 2017,
[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319665970_
Virtual_and_Augmented_Reality_in_Architectural_Design_
and_Education_An_Immersive_Multimodal_Platform_to_
Support_ Architectural_Pedagogy
[6] M. Thompson, “Making virtual realit y a realit y in today’s
classroom,” , November 1, 2018,
[7] https://thejournal.com/Articles/2018/01/11/Making-Virtual-
Reality-a-Reality-in-Todays-Classrooms.aspx?Page=1
[8] J.F. Hahn, “Virtual reality library environments,” in Mobile
Technology and Academic Libraries: Innovative Services for
Research and Learning, Chicago: Association of College and
Research Libraries, 2017, pp. 237-248.
[9] R. Smith and O. Bridle, “Using virtual reality to create
real world collaborations,” in Proceedings of the IATUL
Conferences, 2018,
[10] https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2018/collaboration/5
[11] Grant proposal for Project LG-73-17-0141-17, Funded by the
Institute for Museum and Library Ser vices (IMLS), https://
www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/lg-73-17-0141-17
[12] Donalek, et al., 2014.
[13] Z. Lischer-Katz, M., Cook, and K. Boulden, “Evaluating the
impact of a virtual reality workstation in an academic
library: Methodology and preliminary ndings,” In
Proceeding s of the Association for Information Science and
Technology Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada, Nov.
9-14, 2018,
[14] https://shareok.org/handle/11244/317112
[15] E. Pober, and M. Cook, “The design and development of an
immersive learning system for spatial analysis and visual
cognition,” Conference of the Design Communication
Association, Bozeman MT, 2016, https://bit.ly/2TRziP6
[16] S. Zhang, et al., “An immersive virtual environment for
DT-MRI volume visualization applications: a case study,” In
IEEE, pp. 437-584. IEEE,
[17] http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.2001.964545.
[18] A. Seth, J.M. Vance, and J. H. Oliver, “Virtual reality for
assembly methods prototyping: a review,” Virtual Reality,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5-20, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/
s10055-009-0153-y
[19] C. Helbig, et al., “Concept and workow for 3D visualization
of atmospheric data in a virtual reality environment for
analytical approaches.” Environmental Ear th Sciences, vol.
72, no. 10, pp. 3767-3780, 2014,
[20] http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3136-6
[21] S. Jang, J.M. Vitale, R.W. Jyung, and J.B. Black, “Direct manip-
ulation is better than passive viewing for learning anatomy
in a three-dimensional virtual reality environment,”
Computers & Education, vol. 106, pp. 150-165, 2017, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.009
[22] T. Rowe, and L.R. Frank, “The disappearing third dimen-
sion,” Science, vol. 331, issue, 6018, pp. 712-714, 2011,
[23] http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1202828
[24] D. Viggiano, et al., “A low-cost system to acquire 3D surface
data from anatomical sample,” Eur. J. Anat, vol. 19, no. 4, pp.
343-349, 2015.
[25] E.D. Ragan, R. Kopper, P. Schuchardt, and D.A. Bowman,
“Studying the eects of stereo, head tracking, and eld
of regard on a small-scale spatial judgment task,” IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol.
19, no. 5, pp. 886-896, 2013,
[26] http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.163
[27] B. Laha, D.A. Bowman, and J. J. Socha, “Eects of VR system
delity on analyzing isosurface visualization of volume
datasets,” IEEE Transactions on V isualization and Computer
Graphics vol. 20, no. 4, pp 513-522, 2014, 513-522,
[28] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24650978
[29] F. Limp, A. Payne, K. Simon, S. Winters, and J. Cothren,
“Developing a 3-D digital heritage ecosystem: From object
to representation and the role of a virtual museum in the
21st century,” Internet Archaeolog y, vol. 30, 2011, http://
intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue30/limp_index.html
[30] B.J. Fernández-Palacios, D. Morabito, and F. Remondino,
“Access to complex reality-based 3D models using vir tual
reality solutions, no. 23, pp.
40– 48, 2017.
[31] D. Koller, B. Frischer, and G. Humphreys, “Research chal-
lenges for digital archives of 3D cultural Heritage Models,”
, vol. 2, no. 3,
pp. 7:1-7:17, 2009.
[32] Z. Lischer-Katz, K. Golubiewski-Davis, J. Grayburn, V.
Ikeshoji-Orlati, ”Introduction – 3D/VR creation and cura-
tion: An emerging eld of inquiry.“ In 3D/VR in the Academic
Library: Emerging Practices and Trends, CLIR Report 176,
February 2019,
[33] https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/02/
Pub-176.pdf
[34] J. Moore, H.S. Ket tler, and A. Rountrey, “CS3DP: Developing
agreement for 3D standards and practices based on
community needs and values,” in 3D/VR in the Academic
Library: Emerging Practices and Trends, J. Grayburn, Z.
Lischer-Katz K. Golubiewski-Davis, V. Ikeshoji-Orlati, Eds.,
CLIR Report 176, February 2019, pp.114-121,
[35] https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/02/
Pub-176.pdf
[36] J. Moore, and H.S. Kettler, (2018) “Who cares about 3D pres-
ervation?,” IASSIST Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1-14, 2018,
124
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
[37] https://doi.org/10.29173/iq20
[38] H. Chapman, E. Baldwin, H. Moulden, and M. Lobb, “More
than just a sum of the points: re-thinking the value of
laser scanning data. In e (pp.
15–31), London: Springer-Verlag, 2013,
[39] http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5535-5_2
[40] H. Richards-Rissetto, J. von Schwerin, “A catch 22 of 3D data
sustainability: Lessons in 3D archaeological data manage-
ment & accessibility,” in Digital Applications in Archaeology
, Volume 6, pp. 38-48 2017,
[41] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.005
[42] M. Doerr, et al., “A repository for 3D model production and
interpretation in culture and beyond,” in Proceedings of the
11th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeolog y
, 2010.
[43] M. Doerr, et al., “A framework for maintaining provenance
information of cultural heritage 3D-models,” in Proceedings
),
London, UK, pp. 267–274, 2014.
[44] Archaeology Data Service / Digital Antiquity, “Guides to
good practice,” accessed June 25, 2019, http://guides.
archaeologydataservice.ac.uk
[45] Khronos Group, “OpenXR initiative,” accessed June 25,
2019, https://www.khronos.org/openxr
[46] N. Mourkoussis, M. White, M. Patel, J. Chmielewski, and
K.Walczak, “AMS - Metadata for cultural exhibitions using
virtual realit y,” presented at the International Conference
on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Seattle, 2003.
[47] J. Doyle, H. Viktor, and E. Paquet, “Preservation metadata:
A framework for 3D data based on the semantic web,” in
Information Management, pp. 925–927, Nov. 2008.
[48] J. Doyle, H. Viktor, and E. Paquet, “Long-term digital preser-
vation: Preserving authenticity and usability of 3-D data,”
Int J Digit Libr, vol. 10, pp. 33–47, 2009.
[49] M.J. Bennett, “Evaluating the creation and preservation
challenges of photogrammetry-based 3D models,” UConn
Published Works, no. 52, 2015, http://digitalcommons.
uconn.edu/libr_pubs/52
[50] A. Felicetti and L. Matteo, “Metadata and tools for integra-
tion and preservation of cultural heritage 3D information,”
Geoinformatics FCE CTU Journal, vol. 6, 2011.
[51] A. Corns,
Final). Zenodo, Nov. 30, 2013, p. 6, http://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.1311797
[52] A. D’Andrea, and K. Fernie, 3D -ICONS: D6.1-Report on
, Zenodo, March 10,
2013, http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1311780
[53] Europeana Foundation, “Europeana collections,” accessed
June 25, 2019, https://www.europeana.eu/portal/en
[54] Europeana Foundation, “3D content in Europeana,”
accessed June 25, 2019, https://pro.europeana.eu/
project/3d-content-in-europeana
[55] Community Standards for 3D Data Preservation (CS3DP)
Project, “Background,” 2017,
[56] https://osf.io/ewt2h/wiki/Background/
[57] Cook and Lischer-Katz, 2019.
[58] Moore and Ket tler, 2018, p. 11.
[59] P. Alliez et al., “Digital 3D Objec ts in Ar t and Humanities:
challenges of creation, interoperability and preservation,”
PARTHENOS, White Paper, May 2017,
[60] https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01526713v2/document
[61] C. Lynch, “Resilience and engagement in an era of
uncertainty,” Presentation at Coalition for Networked
Information, Fall 2017 Meeting, (37:35 - 41:09),
[62] https://www.cni.org/events/membership-meetings/
past-meetings/fall-2017/plenary-sessions-f17-2 .
[63] J. Grayburn, Z. Lischer-Katz, K. Golubiewski-Davis, and
V. Ikeshoj i-Orla ti. 3D/VR in the Academic Librar y: Emerging
Practices and Trends, CLIR Report 176 (2019 February),
p. 122, https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/
sites/6/2019/02/Pub-176.pdf
[64] J.-P. von Arnhem, C. Elliott, and M. Rose, Augmented and
Virtual Realit y in Libraries Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littleeld, 2018.
[65] J. Meyerson, “3D/VR preservation: Drawing on a common
agenda for collective impact,” in 3D/ VR in the Academic
Library: Emerging Practices and Trends, J. Grayburn, Z.
Lischer-Katz, K. Golubiewski-Davis, and V. Ikeshoji-Orlati,
Eds., CLIR Report 176, 2019 February, p. 100.
[66] S.S. McMillan, M. A. King, and M. P. Tully, “How to use the
Nominal Group and Delphi Techniques,” International
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, vol. 38, 2016, 655–662
[67] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
[68] M.D. LeCompte, and J.J. Schensul, Analyzing and Interpreting
Ethnographic Data, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1999,
p. 46.
[69] E. Shein, “Who owns 3D scans of historic sites”?
Communications of the ACM, January 2019, vol. 62, no. 1,
pp.15-17,
[70] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/1/233513-
who-owns-3d-scans-of-historic-sites/
fulltext
[71] M. Nelson, “Blockchain can not be used to verif y replayed
archived web pages,” Coalition for Networked Information,
Fall 2018 Meeting, https://www.cni.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/01/CNI_Block_nelson.pdf
[72] D. Rosenthal, “Blockchain: What’s not To like,” Coalition for
Networked Information, Fall 2018 Meeting,
[73] https://www.cni.org/topics/information-access-retrieval/
125
LONG
PAPE R
16th International Conference on Digital Preservation
iPRES 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Copyright held by the author(s). The text of this paper is published
under a CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
blockchain-whats-not-to-like
[74] A. Johnson, J. Leigh, B. Carter, J. Sosnoski, and S. Jones,
“Virtual Harlem,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
vol. 22, no. 5, 2002, pp. 61-67.
[75] C.L. Borgman. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in
the Net worked World, MIT Press, 2015.
[76] Cultural Heritage Imaging, “Digital Lab Notebook,”
accessed June 25, 2019, http://culturalheritageimaging.org/
Technolog ie s/Digital _La b_Notebook/
[77] P. Gooding and Melissa Terras, “‘Grand theft archive’:
a quantitative analysis of the state of computer game
preservation,” International Journal of Digital Curation, vol.
3, no. 2, 2008, http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/
download/85/56
[78] M. Hedstrom and C. Lampe, “Emulation vs. migration:
Do users care?” RLG Diginews, vol. 5 no. 6, 2001, http://
worldcat.org/arcviewer/1/OCC/2007/08/08/0000070511/
viewer/le2448.html#feature1
[79] M. Hedstrom, C. Lee, J. Olson, and C. Lampe, “‘The old
version ickers more’: Digital preser vation from the
user’s perspective.” The American Archivist vol. 69, no.
1, pp. 159-187, 2006. https://americanarchivist.org/doi/
pdf/10.17723/aarc.69.1.1765364485n41800
[80] J. McDonough, et al., Preserving Virtual Worlds - Final
Report, 2010, http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/
handle/2142/17097/PVW.FinalReport.pdf
[81] P. Laurenson. “The management of display equipment in
time-based media installations,” Studies in Conservation,
vol. 49, no. sup2, pp. 49-53, 2004, https://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1179/sic.2004.49.s2.011
[82] J. Santone. “Marina Abramović’s Seven Easy Pieces: Critical
documentation strategies for preserving art’s history,”
Leonardo vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 147-152, 2008, https://www.
mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon.2008.41.2.147
[83] P. Laurenson, “Old media, new media? Signicant dier-
ence and the conservation of software-based art,” in New
Collecting: Exhibiting and Audiences Af ter New Media Art, pp.
73-96, Routledge, 2016, http://www.academia.edu/down-
load/44565452/Laurenson_OldMediaNewMedia.pdf
[84] T. Owens, “Preservation intent and collection develop-
ment,” in The Theor y and Craf t of Digital Preservation,
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Universit y Press, 2018, pp.
81-102.
