In a comment on a JHOVE bug, I said offhandedly that it’s approaching the end of its life. This caused a certain amount of concern in Twitter discussions. Andy said that software tools are one of the best ways to “preserve specific, reproducible knowledge about processes.” I don’t think dropping support of a rather dated tool is a big concern, though, as long as the code doesn’t vanish.
A software application is good for a certain number of years before it needs to be either left as legacy code or completely rewritten. Throwing out code and starting over takes a lot of effort, but it can result in much better code. I started on JHOVE in 2003 as a contractor to the Harvard University Libraries. After a few years it became clear that some of the design decisions weren’t ideal. Its all-or-nothing approach and its tendency to give up after the first error have long been obvious problems. The PDF module is a kludge built on a crock, and that’s without even talking about its profiles. The TIFF module, on the other hand, has a fair amount of elegance.
JHOVE2 was supposed to be the successor to JHOVE. Its creators learned from JHOVE and produced a better design. What they didn’t have was enough time and money to cover all the formats that JHOVE covered. I’ve continued to work on JHOVE because I know it inside and out. Someone else could pick up the work, but it might make more sense for a newcomer to the code to join the JHOVE2 effort instead. However, Maurice noted on Twitter that there hasn’t been much activity lately on JHOVE2 issues.
Both JHOVE and JHOVE2 were funded under grants. When the grant money ended, progress slowed down. The one-time grant model is the wrong way to fund preservation software. It’s an ongoing effort; new formats arise and old ones change, and there are always bugs to fix. What I’d like to see happen is for major libraries in the US to create an ongoing consortium for preservation work, similar to the Planets project in Europe. Or better yet, a consortium bringing together libraries all over the world. It wouldn’t take a lot from any individual institution. Its job would be to maintain information, preservation tools, test suites, and so on, on an ongoing basis. Instead of rushing to create a tool and then leaving it to freelancers like (formerly) me to maintain, it would support maintenance of tools for as long as it made sense and creation of new ones when it’s appropriate.
My voice isn’t enough to call anything like this into existence, but I can hope.
Mad File Format Science 
Tools come and go, effort must be ongoing
In a comment on a JHOVE bug, I said offhandedly that it’s approaching the end of its life. This caused a certain amount of concern in Twitter discussions. Andy said that software tools are one of the best ways to “preserve specific, reproducible knowledge about processes.” I don’t think dropping support of a rather dated tool is a big concern, though, as long as the code doesn’t vanish.
A software application is good for a certain number of years before it needs to be either left as legacy code or completely rewritten. Throwing out code and starting over takes a lot of effort, but it can result in much better code. I started on JHOVE in 2003 as a contractor to the Harvard University Libraries. After a few years it became clear that some of the design decisions weren’t ideal. Its all-or-nothing approach and its tendency to give up after the first error have long been obvious problems. The PDF module is a kludge built on a crock, and that’s without even talking about its profiles. The TIFF module, on the other hand, has a fair amount of elegance.
JHOVE2 was supposed to be the successor to JHOVE. Its creators learned from JHOVE and produced a better design. What they didn’t have was enough time and money to cover all the formats that JHOVE covered. I’ve continued to work on JHOVE because I know it inside and out. Someone else could pick up the work, but it might make more sense for a newcomer to the code to join the JHOVE2 effort instead. However, Maurice noted on Twitter that there hasn’t been much activity lately on JHOVE2 issues.
Both JHOVE and JHOVE2 were funded under grants. When the grant money ended, progress slowed down. The one-time grant model is the wrong way to fund preservation software. It’s an ongoing effort; new formats arise and old ones change, and there are always bugs to fix. What I’d like to see happen is for major libraries in the US to create an ongoing consortium for preservation work, similar to the Planets project in Europe. Or better yet, a consortium bringing together libraries all over the world. It wouldn’t take a lot from any individual institution. Its job would be to maintain information, preservation tools, test suites, and so on, on an ongoing basis. Instead of rushing to create a tool and then leaving it to freelancers like (formerly) me to maintain, it would support maintenance of tools for as long as it made sense and creation of new ones when it’s appropriate.
My voice isn’t enough to call anything like this into existence, but I can hope.
Share this:
Related