Greetings Everyone! Thank you all for your responses so far! This is an exciting thread - Thank you, David! To build on Melanie's response regarding discoverability, this is one of the primary goals of the Software Preservation Network <https://osf.io/a7uea/>, particularly our Metadata Working Group <http://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/working-groups/metadatastandards/>, which includes archivists, metadata coordinators, and information studies researchers embedded in research library settings. We are collaborating closely with the Software Heritage. <https://www.softwareheritage.org/> whose efforts have thus far been focused on source code for open source software, but is not limited to open source moving forward. SPN hosted a forum in August 2016 and participated on a panel on software sustainability at iPRES 2016 that included representatives from UNESCO's PERSIST program as well. In August 2016, Henry Lowood,*Curator, History of Science & Technology Collections **Curator, Film & Media Collections for Stanford University Libraries*, software preservation trailblazer and SPN advisor, shared an extensive account of past software preservation efforts as well as recommendations for cultural heritage practitioners/collecting repositories <http://refractory.unimelb.edu.au/2016/08/30/henry-lowood/> that address a spectrum of research use cases that loosely map on to David Bearman's original listing of possible user groups (From SPN's lit review: *Limited research interest in software at the time led Bearman to conclude that the development of a software archives and the growth of a dedicated “user community” would be co-determined (Bearman, 1987, p.41). Additionally, Bearman describes several possible user groups, each with their own implications for archival and curatorial work: 1) scholarly research on distribution, legal protections, and the social norms of developer communities; 2) researchers interested in causal explanations of why certain applications succeeded or failed; 3) “internalist” historians of science or intellectual history; and 4) “system designers” who can not fully understand a system by merely examining its constituent parts (Bearman, 1987, p.41-46)*. In his conclusion, Henry looks ahead and says, "*It is unlikely that any one institution can respond to every one of these use cases. Instead, the more likely result is a network of participating repositories, each of which will define priorities and allocate resources according to both their specific institutional contexts and an informed understanding of the capabilities of partner institutions." *This observation/conclusion (and the acknowledgment that we are part of a ~30+ yr effort to address the software-dependent nature of digital cultural heritage) is the premis on which the Software Preservation Network was formed, and we invite the readership/participants on this list to share their experiences, use cases, suggestions, advice and ideas so that we can continue to move forward together - building on past and current efforts, and reflecting the needs/challenges of institutions/organizations charged with providing long-term access to digital materials, and most importantly their researchers/users. Please do feel free to contact us with your thoughts and/or subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates <http://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/contact/>! We are *always learning* and we are *always looking for collaborators*! Sincerest thanks to all those that have enabled and continue to enable the work that institutions in the Network are currently doing! Check out the latest post by our Curation-Readiness Working Group <http://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/working-groups/250-2/>, that explores a spectrum of use cases: http://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/exploring-curation-ready-software... Friendly Regards, Jessica Meyerson Digital Archivist - University of Texas at Austin On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Melanie Swalwell < melanie.swalwell@flinders.edu.au> wrote:

Hi David,

That’s a big question. Just “actively collecting”? What does that mean?

I have tended to try to put together projects with institutions, which will see them collect software/born digital artefacts within a particular frame, but then they might not go on to do more collecting (or not til the next project). So the “Play It Again” game history and preservation project I ran saw several cultural institutions take 1980s microcomputer games, for instance, and I’m working to get a successor project up, as well as a media arts project at the moment, which will involve a consortia of cultural institutions. But I’m not sure that the institutions are necessarily “actively collecting”. I wish it were different, but that’s the way it is at the moment, here at least. I suspect it’s also the case in other jurisdictions?

Funny thing is, it’s actually hard to know which cultural institutions have software in Australia, because you can’t search and browse for software in the union catalogue of libraries, for instance, because there’s no format type that fits (ie. it’s not a manuscript or a book or a map). Discoverability is thus a real problem. The exception is if you already know what you’re looking for, then a title search will reveal software holdings, often in some quite unexpected places. But it’s pretty well impossible to find anything that you don’t already know about.

My collaborator and I wrote an article on this a few years ago: “Collecting and Conserving Code: Challenges and Strategies”, http://scan.net.au/scn/journal/vol10number2/Melanie-Swalwell.html

As we detail in that paper, some Australian state libraries have legal deposit legislation which covers electronic publications, so lodgement is actually required by law, as is preservation in perpetuity. However, not all publishers are unaware of their responsibilities, so…

Regards,

Melanie

--

Assoc. Prof. Melanie Swalwell

ARC Future Fellow

Screen and Media,

Flinders University

GPO Box 2100

Adelaide SA 5001

Ph: +61 8 8201 2619 <+61%208%208201%202619>

278 Humanities Bldg

www.flinders.edu.au

http://www.flinders.edu.au/people/melanie.swalwell

@melswal

Fans and Videogames: Fandom, histories, archives <https://www.routledge.com/Fans-and-Videogames-Histories-Fandom-Archives/Swalwell-Ndalianis-Stuckey/p/book/9781138679672>

Researching Creative Micro-computing in Australia <https://youtu.be/hR8-10qjoiI>

Popular Memory Archive <http://playitagainproject.org/>

Play It Again blog <http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/play-it-again/>

Digital Heritage blog <http://blog.ourdigitalheritage.org/>

CRICOS Provider: 00114A

This email and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

*From:* Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] *On Behalf Of *David C. Brock *Sent:* Thursday, 20 April 2017 1:14 AM *To:* members@SIGCIS.org *Subject:* [SIGCIS-Members] Institutions actively collecting historical programs/software for long-term preservation

Dear List:

I wanted to compile a list of institutions and organizations that are today actively collecting historical programs/software (including games and art objects qua software) for long term preservation.

Can you help?

Best wishes,

David

+++++++++++++++ David C. Brock dcb@dcbrock.net

Director

Center for Software History

Computer History Museum

www.computerhistory.org

40 Russell Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 Mobile: 413-522-3578 <(413)%20522-3578> Skype: dcbrock Twitter: @dcbrock

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org