@misc{OPUS4-7483, title = {KOBV Jahresbericht 2010}, volume = {2010}, organization = {Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV)}, issn = {0934-5892}, pages = {1 -- 36}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Der KOBV-Jahresbericht informiert r{\"u}ckblickend im 2-Jahres-Rhythmus {\"u}ber die bibliothekarisch-fachlichen Entwicklungen im Verbund und die Projekte des Kooperativen Bibliotheksverbunds Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV).}, language = {de} } @article{OltmannsHaslerPetersKottigetal.2019, author = {Oltmanns, Elias and Hasler, Tim and Peters-Kottig, Wolfgang and Kuper, Heinz-G{\"u}nter}, title = {Different Preservation Levels: The Case of Scholarly Digital Editions}, volume = {18}, journal = {Data Science Journal}, number = {1(51)}, doi = {10.5334/dsj-2019-051}, pages = {9}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Ensuring the long-term availability of research data forms an integral part of data management services. Where OAIS compliant digital preservation has been established in recent years, in almost all cases the services aim at the preservation of file-based objects. In the Digital Humanities, research data is often represented in highly structured aggregations, such as Scholarly Digital Editions. Naturally, scholars would like their editions to remain functionally complete as long as possible. Besides standard components like webservers, the presentation typically relies on project specific code interacting with client software like webbrowsers. Especially the latter being subject to rapid change over time invariably makes such environments awkward to maintain once funding has ended. Pragmatic approaches have to be found in order to balance the curation effort and the maintainability of access to research data over time. A sketch of four potential service levels aiming at the long-term availability of research data in the humanities is outlined: (1) Continuous Maintenance, (2) Application Conservation, (3) Application Data Preservation, and (4) Bitstream Preservation. The first being too costly and the last hardly satisfactory in general, we suggest that the implementation of services by an infrastructure provider should concentrate on service levels 2 and 3. We explain their strengths and limitations considering the example of two Scholarly Digital Editions.}, language = {en} } @misc{GoltzFellgiebelRuschBiernackaetal.2019, author = {Goltz-Fellgiebel, Julia Alexandra and Rusch, Beate and Biernacka, Katarzyna and Brandtner, Andreas and Christof, J{\"u}rgen and Czechowska, Dr. Ilona and Degkwitz, Andreas and Euler, Prof. Dr. Ellen and Freyberg, Linda and Geukes, Dr. Albert and Happel, Hans-Gerd and Helbig, Kerstin and H{\"u}bner, Andreas and Mohnke, Janett and Mutter, Moritz and Seeliger, Frank and Stanek, Ursula and Voigt, Michaela and Winterhalter, Dr. Christian and Zeyns, Andrea and Kaminsky, Uta and Boltze, Julia and Conrad-Rempel, Steffi and Gerlach, Viktoria and Heidingsfelder, Nicole and Kant, Oliver and Lohrum, Stefan and M{\"u}ller, Anja and Peters-Kottig, Wolfgang and Schwidder, Jens and Weihe, Signe and Bauknecht, Anne-Beatrix and Krauß, Frieder}, title = {KOBV Jahresbericht 2017-2018}, number = {2017-2018}, issn = {1438-0064}, pages = {1 -- 63}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Der KOBV-Jahresbericht informiert r{\"u}ckblickend im 2-Jahres-Rhythmus {\"u}ber die bibliothekarisch-fachlichen Entwicklungen im Verbund und die Projekte des Kooperativen Bibliotheksverbunds Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV).}, language = {de} }