Will FotoML still be readable in 100 years time?

[Sam Dellit]

Hello Listers

Preserving and annotating all my genealogy-related digital photos is very
important to me and I would like to have some confidence that they will be
readable 100 years from now.

I believe that the JPEG format has become so widespread now, that future
readability is assured.

For the same reasons, I try to keep my annotations within the WinXP filename
itself and organise the files with a simple folder tree structure and the
odd folder shortcut. However there are limits to filename size (100
characters in DVD?) and often more extensive information is needed.

I have been looking at the Fototagger program which uses the FotoML
specification to store the annotations within the JPEG file itself :

http://www.fototagger.com/

Is the FotoML open source and / or widely supported, if not, what are the
alternatives?

Don't really want to spend man-months working on this extra detail unless
there is a reasonable prospect for readability a century from now.

TIA

Sam Dellit, Canberra, ACT, Australia

[Allen]

Sam Dellit wrote:

Hello Listers

Preserving and annotating all my genealogy-related digital photos is very
important to me and I would like to have some confidence that they will be
readable 100 years from now.

I believe that the JPEG format has become so widespread now, that future
readability is assured.

For the same reasons, I try to keep my annotations within the WinXP filename
itself and organise the files with a simple folder tree structure and the
odd folder shortcut. However there are limits to filename size (100
characters in DVD?) and often more extensive information is needed.

I have been looking at the Fototagger program which uses the FotoML
specification to store the annotations within the JPEG file itself :

http://www.fototagger.com/

Is the FotoML open source and / or widely supported, if not, what are the
alternatives?

Don't really want to spend man-months working on this extra detail unless
there is a reasonable prospect for readability a century from now.

TIA

Sam Dellit, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Who knows? Perhaps in a hundred years JPEG will still be a viable
format. But what are thet stored on? Remember 8 inch floppies that were
around 20 years ago? Has the data survived on them? Can you find a
device that can read them? Will you still be able to find such a device
in another 80 years? It's more than data formats; it's also survival of
the medium holding the data and devices to read it.
Allen

[singhals]

Allen wrote:

Sam Dellit wrote:

Hello Listers

Preserving and annotating all my genealogy-related digital photos is
very important to me and I would like to have some confidence that
they will be readable 100 years from now.

I believe that the JPEG format has become so widespread now, that
future readability is assured.

For the same reasons, I try to keep my annotations within the WinXP
filename itself and organise the files with a simple folder tree
structure and the odd folder shortcut. However there are limits to
filename size (100 characters in DVD?) and often more extensive
information is needed.

I have been looking at the Fototagger program which uses the FotoML
specification to store the annotations within the JPEG file itself :

http://www.fototagger.com/

Is the FotoML open source and / or widely supported, if not, what are
the alternatives?

Don't really want to spend man-months working on this extra detail
unless there is a reasonable prospect for readability a century from now.

TIA

Sam Dellit, Canberra, ACT, Australia


Who knows? Perhaps in a hundred years JPEG will still be a viable
format. But what are thet stored on? Remember 8 inch floppies that were
around 20 years ago? Has the data survived on them? Can you find a
device that can read them? Will you still be able to find such a device
in another 80 years? It's more than data formats; it's also survival of
the medium holding the data and devices to read it.
Allen

Which is why paper is still popular. (g) Not to mention stone tablets?

Seriously, Allen's right. Don't sweat the format because the
media-access is your bug-bear. Three years ago, I was trying to talk a
committee into publishing something on a CD because it was the newest
thing. A few months later DVD popped into the mass-market.

SOME photoware will allow you to insert a META-tag into the image. Using
that approach requires (a) the right photoware; (b) some surety that the
right photoware will operate on the next OS; (c) some way of passing on
the fact that the info exists; and (d) a commitment to data-migration.
Putting captions on the photos and then printing off numerous copies and
storing them in a archival environment is the least technology-dependent.

As has been suggested several times here and otherwhere, when you're
gone, and your children are gone, and your great-grandkids are cleaning
out the family home -- are they going to know what a CD or DVD is? Are
they even going to recognize it as something technology related that
MIGHT have something on it they want? That's their first step in
finding a way to access it.

Cheryl

[Lesley Robertson]

"Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Sam Dellit wrote:

Hello Listers

Preserving and annotating all my genealogy-related digital photos is very
important to me and I would like to have some confidence that they will
be readable 100 years from now.

I believe that the JPEG format has become so widespread now, that future
readability is assured.

For the same reasons, I try to keep my annotations within the WinXP
filename itself and organise the files with a simple folder tree
structure and the odd folder shortcut. However there are limits to
filename size (100 characters in DVD?) and often more extensive
information is needed.

I have been looking at the Fototagger program which uses the FotoML
specification to store the annotations within the JPEG file itself :

http://www.fototagger.com/

Is the FotoML open source and / or widely supported, if not, what are the
alternatives?

Don't really want to spend man-months working on this extra detail unless
there is a reasonable prospect for readability a century from now.

TIA

Sam Dellit, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Who knows? Perhaps in a hundred years JPEG will still be a viable format.
But what are thet stored on? Remember 8 inch floppies that were around 20
years ago? Has the data survived on them? Can you find a device that can
read them? Will you still be able to find such a device in another 80
years? It's more than data formats; it's also survival of the medium
holding the data and devices to read it.
Allen

If you want it to last 100 years and be readable, keep to the simplest
technology. At them moment, the only thing that's guaranteed to last that
long, and simple enough to be used no matter what the technology is
monochrome archival film which must then be stored in a cool, dry place.
Anything that requires an electronic reader is doomed to become obsolete.
Moreover, some of the storage media are instable - I have cds made only in
summer 2005 that were useless within 12 months.
Lesley Robertson

[Lars Erik Bryld]

Scripsit Sam Dellit:

Is the FotoML open source and / or widely supported, if not, what
are the alternatives?

The most widely and (regrettably more important) Adobe-supported
picture metadata annotation standard is XMP arguments in favour of
this can be read at several places such as:

http://www.pixvue.com/support/faq.html

FotoML is in principle an open XML-based standard, but so far to the
best of my knowledge not supported by any other company than the
inventor's own. It's a shame, because tagging specific areas of a
given photo would be very useful.


--
Regards
Lars Erik Bryld

[Robert S. Shaw]

I think you're wise to just use "plain" JPEG and filenames. I suggest
you continue that philosophy of simplicity and use a separate text file
in the same folder as the image file. Thus if you have:
John Doe 1939 Wedding.jpg
add a file
John Doe 1939 Wedding.txt
with the details in it.

As others have noted, the media issue is perhaps at least as large a
problem. For yourself and those you influence, keeping a copy "online"
on your current computing device (and moving it when upgrading) is the
most likely to preserve the data. Much more difficult is preservation
into later human (and digital) generations.

[Hugh Watkins]

Robert S. Shaw wrote:

I think you're wise to just use "plain" JPEG and filenames. I suggest
you continue that philosophy of simplicity and use a separate text file
in the same folder as the image file. Thus if you have:
John Doe 1939 Wedding.jpg
add a file
John Doe 1939 Wedding.txt
with the details in it.

As others have noted, the media issue is perhaps at least as large a
problem. For yourself and those you influence, keeping a copy "online"
on your current computing device (and moving it when upgrading) is the
most likely to preserve the data. Much more difficult is preservation
into later human (and digital) generations.

a bit map is even more basic

Hugh W

--

new phone = new daily blog
http://upsrev622.blogspot.com/

family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com

[T.M. Sommers]

Lesley Robertson wrote:

If you want it to last 100 years and be readable, keep to the simplest
technology. At them moment, the only thing that's guaranteed to last that
long, and simple enough to be used no matter what the technology is
monochrome archival film which must then be stored in a cool, dry place.

Who's to say that that microfilm readers will still be available
100 years from now? Of course, you could always build your own.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- [email protected] -- AB2SB

[Lesley Robertson]

"T.M. Sommers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Lesley Robertson wrote:

If you want it to last 100 years and be readable, keep to the simplest
technology. At them moment, the only thing that's guaranteed to last that
long, and simple enough to be used no matter what the technology is
monochrome archival film which must then be stored in a cool, dry place.

Who's to say that that microfilm readers will still be available 100 years
from now? Of course, you could always build your own.

Since I've just fed old microfilm through a film scanner and got decent

images, I expect that something that only requires light to be shone through
it and magnified will be readable in some form. This is the method being
used by the Dutch National Library and other major archives to preserve
fragile material. I have, in my fireproof safe in my archive, b/w film from
the 1920s that's still perfectly printable.
If you want something that's been tried and tested, I can recommend
old-style glass negatives. We've also been scanning them - going back to the
1880s - and they're giving perfect prints. IOf course, finding the materials
to do it won't be simple.
Lesley Robertson

[T.M. Sommers]

Lesley Robertson wrote:

"T.M. Sommers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Lesley Robertson wrote:

If you want it to last 100 years and be readable, keep to the simplest
technology. At them moment, the only thing that's guaranteed to last that
long, and simple enough to be used no matter what the technology is
monochrome archival film which must then be stored in a cool, dry place.

Who's to say that that microfilm readers will still be available 100 years
from now? Of course, you could always build your own.

Since I've just fed old microfilm through a film scanner and got decent
images, I expect that something that only requires light to be shone through
it and magnified will be readable in some form. This is the method being
used by the Dutch National Library and other major archives to preserve
fragile material. I have, in my fireproof safe in my archive, b/w film from
the 1920s that's still perfectly printable.

Sure, the film itself will probably survive, but reading it is
another matter. Light would probably not be a problem, but
getting an appropriate lens might be.

If you want something that's been tried and tested, I can recommend
old-style glass negatives.

A bit fragile, I would think.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- [email protected] -- AB2SB