 |
||
|
Documents presented in PDF (Portable Document Format) format (ISO 32000:1 and ISO 32000:2) and other data wrapped inside them, other than PDF/A but including all other variants and versions. |
||
|
Group: Formats |
Trend: No change |
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2017 |
Last update: 2018 |
Previous category: Of Concern |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within five years, detailed assessment within three years. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world.. |
Effort to Preserve It would require a small effort to address losses in this group, requiring the application of proven preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples PDF 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 (excluding PDF/A as a subset), 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 and 2.0. PDF/X and PDF/E |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Loss of context; loss of authenticity or integrity; external dependencies; poor storage; lack of understanding; significant diversity of data; poorly developed digitization specifications; lack of integrity checking; poorly developed migration or normalizations specifications; lack of virus control; poor storage or replication; lack of validation at the point of creation; encryption. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Well managed data infrastructure; preservation planning; authenticity managed; use of persistent identifiers; reduction of dependencies; application of records management standards; recognition of preservation requirements beyond formats; strategic investment in digital preservation; preservation roadmap; participation in digital preservation community; format validation. |
||
|
2019 Review The judges have introduced this entry as a subset of a previous entry for ‘PDF’, emphasizing the different threats faced by different types of PDF. PDF/A explicitly reduces dependencies and thus curtails preservation risks for certain types of content: PDFs of other types do not. PDF and PDF/A have sometimes been misunderstood as a generic solution to digital preservation requirements. In the eyes of the judges it can only offer a preservation solution when embedded within a wider preservation infrastructure. |
||
|
Additional Jury Comments See also: Fanning, B (2017) Preserving with PF/A (Second Edition), DPC Technology Watch Report 17-01 online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7207/twr17-01 |
||