'We're Going Backward!'. Cerf, V. G. 59(10):7. !['We're Going Backward!' [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex [Excerpt] [...] As we move toward the present, the media of our expression seems to have decreasing longevity. Of course, newer media have not been around as long as the older ones so their longevity has not been demonstrated but I think it is arguable that the more recent media do not have the resilience of stone or baked clay. Modern photographs may not last more than 150-200 years before they fade or disintegrate. Modern books, unless archival paper is used, may not last more than 100 years. [] I have written more than once in this column about my concerns for the longevity of digital media and our ability to correctly interpret digital content, absent the software that produced it. [...] The earlier media seem to have a kind of timeless longevity while modern media from the 1800s forward seem to have shrinking lifetimes. Just as the monks and Muslims of the Middle Ages preserved content by copying into new media, won't we need to do the same for our modern content? [] These thoughts immediately raise the question of financial support for such work. In the past, there were patrons and the religious orders of the Catholic Church as well as the centers of Islamic science and learning that underwrote the cost of such preservation. It seems inescapable that our society will need to find its own formula for underwriting the cost of preserving knowledge in media that will have some permanence. That many of the digital objects to be preserved will require executable software for their rendering is also inescapable. Unless we face this challenge in a direct way, the truly impressive knowledge we have collectively produced in the past 100 years or so may simply evaporate with time.
@article{cerfWeReGoing2016,
title = {'{{We}}'re Going Backward!'},
author = {Cerf, Vinton G.},
date = {2016-09},
journaltitle = {Communication of the ACM},
volume = {59},
pages = {7},
issn = {0001-0782},
doi = {10.1145/2993746},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/2993746},
abstract = {[Excerpt] [...] As we move toward the present, the media of our expression seems to have decreasing longevity. Of course, newer media have not been around as long as the older ones so their longevity has not been demonstrated but I think it is arguable that the more recent media do not have the resilience of stone or baked clay. Modern photographs may not last more than 150-200 years before they fade or disintegrate. Modern books, unless archival paper is used, may not last more than 100 years.
[] I have written more than once in this column about my concerns for the longevity of digital media and our ability to correctly interpret digital content, absent the software that produced it. [...] The earlier media seem to have a kind of timeless longevity while modern media from the 1800s forward seem to have shrinking lifetimes. Just as the monks and Muslims of the Middle Ages preserved content by copying into new media, won't we need to do the same for our modern content?
[] These thoughts immediately raise the question of financial support for such work. In the past, there were patrons and the religious orders of the Catholic Church as well as the centers of Islamic science and learning that underwrote the cost of such preservation. It seems inescapable that our society will need to find its own formula for underwriting the cost of preserving knowledge in media that will have some permanence. That many of the digital objects to be preserved will require executable software for their rendering is also inescapable. Unless we face this challenge in a direct way, the truly impressive knowledge we have collectively produced in the past 100 years or so may simply evaporate with time.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14155901,~to-add-doi-URL,computer-science,conservation,digital-preservation,knowledge-freedom,reproducibility,research-management,semantics,technology-mediated-communication},
number = {10}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"fouPinrXof9AzYXPp","bibbaseid":"cerf-weregoingbackward","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Cerf, V. G."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"'We're Going Backward!'","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Cerf"],"firstnames":["Vinton","G."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2016-09","journaltitle":"Communication of the ACM","volume":"59","pages":"7","issn":"0001-0782","doi":"10.1145/2993746","url":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2993746","abstract":"[Excerpt] [...] As we move toward the present, the media of our expression seems to have decreasing longevity. Of course, newer media have not been around as long as the older ones so their longevity has not been demonstrated but I think it is arguable that the more recent media do not have the resilience of stone or baked clay. Modern photographs may not last more than 150-200 years before they fade or disintegrate. Modern books, unless archival paper is used, may not last more than 100 years. [] I have written more than once in this column about my concerns for the longevity of digital media and our ability to correctly interpret digital content, absent the software that produced it. [...] The earlier media seem to have a kind of timeless longevity while modern media from the 1800s forward seem to have shrinking lifetimes. Just as the monks and Muslims of the Middle Ages preserved content by copying into new media, won't we need to do the same for our modern content? [] These thoughts immediately raise the question of financial support for such work. In the past, there were patrons and the religious orders of the Catholic Church as well as the centers of Islamic science and learning that underwrote the cost of such preservation. It seems inescapable that our society will need to find its own formula for underwriting the cost of preserving knowledge in media that will have some permanence. That many of the digital objects to be preserved will require executable software for their rendering is also inescapable. Unless we face this challenge in a direct way, the truly impressive knowledge we have collectively produced in the past 100 years or so may simply evaporate with time.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14155901,~to-add-doi-URL,computer-science,conservation,digital-preservation,knowledge-freedom,reproducibility,research-management,semantics,technology-mediated-communication","number":"10","bibtex":"@article{cerfWeReGoing2016,\n title = {'{{We}}'re Going Backward!'},\n author = {Cerf, Vinton G.},\n date = {2016-09},\n journaltitle = {Communication of the ACM},\n volume = {59},\n pages = {7},\n issn = {0001-0782},\n doi = {10.1145/2993746},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/2993746},\n abstract = {[Excerpt] [...] As we move toward the present, the media of our expression seems to have decreasing longevity. Of course, newer media have not been around as long as the older ones so their longevity has not been demonstrated but I think it is arguable that the more recent media do not have the resilience of stone or baked clay. Modern photographs may not last more than 150-200 years before they fade or disintegrate. Modern books, unless archival paper is used, may not last more than 100 years.\n\n[] I have written more than once in this column about my concerns for the longevity of digital media and our ability to correctly interpret digital content, absent the software that produced it. [...] The earlier media seem to have a kind of timeless longevity while modern media from the 1800s forward seem to have shrinking lifetimes. Just as the monks and Muslims of the Middle Ages preserved content by copying into new media, won't we need to do the same for our modern content?\n\n[] These thoughts immediately raise the question of financial support for such work. In the past, there were patrons and the religious orders of the Catholic Church as well as the centers of Islamic science and learning that underwrote the cost of such preservation. It seems inescapable that our society will need to find its own formula for underwriting the cost of preserving knowledge in media that will have some permanence. That many of the digital objects to be preserved will require executable software for their rendering is also inescapable. Unless we face this challenge in a direct way, the truly impressive knowledge we have collectively produced in the past 100 years or so may simply evaporate with time.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14155901,~to-add-doi-URL,computer-science,conservation,digital-preservation,knowledge-freedom,reproducibility,research-management,semantics,technology-mediated-communication},\n number = {10}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Cerf, V. G."],"key":"cerfWeReGoing2016","id":"cerfWeReGoing2016","bibbaseid":"cerf-weregoingbackward","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2993746"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14155901","~to-add-doi-URL","computer-science","conservation","digital-preservation","knowledge-freedom","reproducibility","research-management","semantics","technology-mediated-communication"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:04.036Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14155901","~to-add-doi-url","computer-science","conservation","digital-preservation","knowledge-freedom","reproducibility","research-management","semantics","technology-mediated-communication"],"search_terms":["going","backward","cerf"],"title":"'We're Going Backward!'","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}