Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday May 08 2015, @08:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-FITS-our-needs dept.

The UK's V3 news site reports that the Vatican library considers open source file formats to be the only reliable way for humanity to preserve its history in the digital age.

Vatican Library CIO Luciano Ammenti said that, in order for the manuscripts to be readable, the Vatican Library opted for open source tools that do not require proprietary platforms, such as Microsoft Office, to be read.

"We save it as a picture as it's longer life than a file. You don't rely on PowerPoint or Word. In 50 years they can still just look at it," he said.

"Normally people try to use the TIFF format [when archiving]. This has several problems. It's not open source and it doesn't update. The last time was in 1998.

"On top of this it's 32-bit and not ready for 3D imaging, which limits the information it can preserve - what the script's made of etc. So instead we use the FITS format. FITS is open source, 64-bit, 3D ready and updated regularly. It gives all the information you need on the image."

What formats have you found best for archiving? Which have given you problems?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by acharax on Friday May 08 2015, @09:55AM

    by acharax (4264) on Friday May 08 2015, @09:55AM (#180255)

    I'd always go with DJVU, same quality as PDF when properly configured but using a fraction of the size and without all the redundant features and general bugginess* (and the viewer software is superior and more light-weight), it's an open format too.

    * You'd be surprised how many PDF encoding libraries and plugins produce files that have all kind of errors in their structuring that can lead to problems down the road.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday May 08 2015, @06:18PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Friday May 08 2015, @06:18PM (#180408)

    The only time I've ever seen that file format used was some old Russian nixie tube datasheets I downloaded. I just kind of figured it was some obscure format that caught on in Russia for whatever reason, or something. Didn't give it much thought. From what you say, pity it's not more popular. I'll have to read up more on it.

    Also, yes, PDFs are crap.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
  • (Score: 1) by Translation Error on Friday May 08 2015, @06:27PM

    by Translation Error (718) on Friday May 08 2015, @06:27PM (#180414)
    I feel like I've used that format before but can't place a specific instance.
  • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday May 08 2015, @08:10PM

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 08 2015, @08:10PM (#180458)

    For archiving documents, reducing file size is (perhaps counter-intuitively) not the aim. Redundant features are good - redundancy increases longevity.

    PDF/A, the archiving PDF standard, ( http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000125.shtml [digitalpreservation.gov] ) in fact bloats files a _lot_ precisely because it insists on lots of redundancy, all needed fonts are required to be embedded in every document for example.