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?
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday May 08 2015, @08:10PM
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.