different versions of almost all digital objects while they are being made. Institutes are discouraged by the additional workload if the producer/maker allows this to happen, and if his personal archive is provided to the cultural heritage institute in a raw state. The heritage institute can do two things: 1. Persuade the producer to explain his working method, or 2. Accept the situation for what it is and invest in unravelling the transferred material (digital detective work or even digital archaeology). National heritage institutes Although the global community has come up with numerous solutions for the processing of digital cultural heritage, and although many methods and techniques are documented online, it remains difficult for a heritage institute without any experience in the digital domain to make an informed choice from the maze of possibilities. They would have to free up time to conduct research and develop systems, but the regular budget of many institutes does not even allow for the processing of the increasing analogue cultural heritage in a suitable way. Postponing the problems associated with processing born-digital cultural heritage is an understandable strategy under such conditions, but this will likely give rise to a ‘digital no man’s land’. Traditional acquisition practises can also impede the
collection of born-digital cultural heritage. Collections at heritage institutes are frequently organized according to conventional categories: photographs, paintings, utility wares… One of the characteristics of born-digital material is precisely that different types of objects can be combined and interrelated with great ease. This applies in particular to compound objects (see below) and results in a blurring of the boundaries between traditional categories, with possible consequences for the thoroughness with which an institute can acquire its objects. Consumer/user Users are assigned a central role in the OAIS model. The organization of the repository of a cultural heritage collection is dependent on the target group of the system, the so-called designated community. It makes a great deal of difference if clear requirements relating to the material can be made with respect to this target group that can then be rendered as unambiguous requirements for its storage. The philosopher Nelson Goodman once made the distinction regarding representation between repleteness and attenuation. A schematic representation is attenuated: not all the characteristics of the image are relevant. An oil painting is replete: all the qualities of the image have a potential meaning. Goodman’s ideas play a role
8•5