but LOCKSS rules!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22china+digital+museum%22

There are some other projects working on replication and federation as well, but I’m not following the DSpace project too closely so I can’t really say for sure–I just thought you might be interested. Here’s a general overview:

http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2160/281/11/Federating+DSpace.pdf

From what I can gather the primary objective of DSpace is being able to find and access objects. Though I don’t think there’s anything stopping the architecture from supporting a replication scheme in its storage model.

http://www.google.com/search?q=dspace+srb

The Handle system also doesn’t restrict what is returned when the handle is resolved, so if the object(s) is store in multiple locations (even in multiple formats) it would be possible to return multiple instanaces of “typed data” and the client can do whatever it wants:

http://www.handle.net/overviews/overview.html

The latest version of that rumor is in the Transformers movie trailer. woot!

David

Thanks for the tip on DSpace. I quickly scanned the DSpace website and FAQ the possibly faulty impression I got is that DSpace is a repository for preserving documents for a single organization, where LOCKSS is a strategy and software to ensure that documents are preserved against loss through multiple copies. Some overlap, but two different approaches. Another resource is the The National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program at the Library of Congress.

se,

I agree that LOCKSS is really a solution for “completed” documents, not “work-in-process”. The whole versioning discussion is a very big can of worms that I will beg off opening now.

Miro,

The WaPo article suggested that since the moon landing was such a huge PR success, and there was no demand for better footage, that the original tapes were never reviewed, except, perhaps, by personnel at the tracking stations who knew of their existence. That feels about right to me, given that the “moon race” of the 1960s was a political tool and an engineering tour-de-force, not a science experiment.

PJ,

I wish you were correct. The WaPo article is dated January 31, 2007, while the Cosmos Magazine article is from November 2006.

A careful reading of the Cosmos link uncovers a number of qualifications. Yes they did find a number of “lost” NASA tapes - but none of them were the high-quality videos of the man’s first steps on the moon. The Cosmos article states:

The data are a daily record of the environmental conditions and changes taking place at the lunar site after the Eagle landed safely in the Sea of Tranquility.

Useful stuff, to be sure, but not the moonwalk videos. Same goes for the other links that a Google search finds: useful stuff; not the videos whose degraded image 600 million people watched that July day in 1969.

Wish you were right though!

Robin

What, they didn’t make any copies while they were studying the tapes after the mission - they worked with the originals? Right…

Lost for the public - probably.

These tapes were most likely marked confidential/top secret with limited access to them. To move them someone would have to sign a few forms here and there.

If there is no ‘traces’, ’somebody’ took care of that - if you know what I mean.

What is the reason is other story - these tapes are priceless.

http://www.dspace.org/
http://www.google.com/search?q=dspace