Tod Shacklett
LIBR 289
16 April 2001
Return to Academic Résumé
Topic #3
In "Why Digitize?" a 1999 report published by the Council on Library and Information Resources, Abby Smith writes:
"Digital conversion of library materials has advanced rapidly in the past few years. It promises to continue to expand its reach and improve its capabilities with extraordinary speed. Digitization has proven to be possible for nearly every format and medium presently held by libraries, from maps to manuscripts, and moving images to musical recordings. The use of hardware and software for capturing an item and converting it into bits and bytes, matched by a quickly developing set of practices for describing and retrieving digital objects, is giving form to the talk of a "library without walls." But such a virtual library has a very real price. Managers of cultural institutions and those responsible for policy matters related to digitization often find themselves struggling not only to understand the new technologies, but also, and more importantly, to grasp the implications of those technologies and to understand what digitization of their collections means for their institution, its patrons, and the public."
Your essay should address the following questions:
Style Manual:
American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2000). Electronic reference formats recommended by the American Psychological Association. [Web site]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 6, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/journals/webref.html
Digital Archives: Preservation or Access?
Digital conversion of library materials has advanced rapidly in recent years, prompting some casual observers to believe that everything of importance can be found on the World Wide Web in digital form. But instant access to all the world’s wisdom is still more than a mouse click away. It is important to resist the urge to digitize everything in a library or archival collection and destroy the originals in a mad rush to save space or occupy a place on the cutting edge. Digitization is an excellent way of providing access to archival materials, but the technology, in its current state of development, is not adequate for archival preservation. This paper will provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of digitization in an archival environment, explore the advantages and disadvantages of mounting digital archival materials on the World Wide Web, and explore some of the many issues involved in selecting and developing a digital archival collection.
Digitization in an Archival Environment
In its most basic sense, the term "digitization" refers to the conversion of materials that were originally created in another format into an electronic form. Conversely, this definition excludes materials that were initially created digitally, such as email communication. Technically, the process of digitization involves converting an analog image into its corresponding numeric values. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 9) The word "image" is literally true because the digital scanner creates an image of the original analog item, whether that item is a photograph, a word-processed document, or a handwritten letter. (It is possible to create a searchable text document from a digital scan by using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software, but that particular can of worms is beyond the scope of this paper). The digital image created by the scanner is stored in numeric form,
For example, when a photograph is digitized for viewing on a computer screen, the original continuous tone image is divided into dots with assigned values that are mapped against a grid. The pattern of the dots is remembered and reassembled by the computer upon command. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 9)
The digital data comprising the image may be compressed for storage and, relative to the analog form, the digital image will take up very little space indeed. Abby Smith (1999) points out that "voluminous encyclopedias that take up yards of shelf space in analog form can fit onto a miniscule space on a computer drive" (¶ 10).
Digitization of materials may occur in both library and archival environments. In the case of archives, candidate materials for conversion often include unpublished materials such as correspondence or corporate records, as well as items as diverse as photographs, film and videotape, advertising flyers, train tickets, and handwritten manuscripts. In the discussion that follows the terms "library" and "archives" may occasionally be used interchangeably depending upon the source material to which reference is being made, but the primary focus of this paper is on archival digitization.
In writing the article "Why Digitize?" Smith (1999) does display some bias in favor of furthering the development of digital technology. This is not surprising since the article is published by the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), an organization that is "actively engaged in fostering the development of digital technologies in libraries" (¶ 2). However, Smith does not paint a picture of pure digital bliss. In her review of the use of this new technology in various institutions, she concludes that, despite expectations to the contrary, digitization is not an adequate medium for preservation (at least in its present state of development).
What we have found is that digitization often raises expectations of benefits, cost reductions, and efficiencies that can be illusory and, if not viewed realistically, have the potential to put at risk the collections and services libraries have provided for decades. One such false expectation—that digital conversion has already or will shortly replace microfilming as the preferred medium for preservation reformatting—could result in irreversible losses of information. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 3)
The worst of these potential losses could be self-inflicted. An uninformed policy of digitization for the purpose of preservation could well result in the destruction of the original documents, either by forcing fragile materials onto flatbed scanners, or through a deliberate policy of destroying originals to save shelf space. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 22) The problem in this scenario is that the seemingly perfect digital surrogate is probably far more ephemeral than the frailest paper original.
The ultimate goal of preservation is, of course, to make the item itself or at least the intellectual content of the item last for as long as possible. The ideal is to preserve the original, but when the inevitable deterioration becomes acute, that original must be reproduced in some fashion. Preferably, this reproduction will be created on a stable media with a long life expectancy. (Gertz, 2000, p. 97) Properly stored paper copies and preservation-quality microfilm will last for hundreds of years, but so far there is no proof that digital copies will remain usable for more than a few decades, "despite much talk about migration and emulation, especially considering the repeated intervention these will require" (Gertz, 2000, p. 97).
Clearly, digitization is not ready to be used as a method of preservation. Some confusion arises on this point because digitization is a type of reformatting, similar to microfilming, and as such is perceived by some to be as effective as preservation microfilming. But Preservation of library & archival materials: A manual, the professional text published jointly by the American Association of Museums and the Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC), states "that digital storage is not yet considered archival; nor are there preservation standards governing the technology" (Ogden, 1994, p. 170). Digital imaging also lacks the "permanence and authenticity" of microfilm. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 15) Silver halide microfilm, stored in a stable environment, has an estimated life span of several hundred years. The technology for viewing microfilm is also relatively simple; all that is required is a light source and a lens. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 16) Conversely, viewing digital computer files requires both hardware and software. The hardware and software created by one manufacturer is often not compatible with that of another. Further, future generations of hardware and software created by the same manufacturer are often not even capable of reading files created on the earlier versions. In fact, the media itself often changes, rendering earlier versions obsolete. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 16)
At present, the retrieval of information encoded in an obsolete file format and stored on an obsolete medium (such as 8-inch floppy diskettes) is extremely expensive and labor-intensive, when at all possible. Often the medium on which digital information is recorded is itself inherently unstable. Magnetic tape is one example of a common digital medium that requires special care and handling and has been known to degrade within a decade, beyond the point where information can be recovered. Magnetic forms of analog recording, such as video and audio tape, are equally fragile and unreliable for long-term storage. In its inherent physical fragility, magnetic tape is not different in essence from the acid paper so widely produced in the last 150 years, but its life span is often dramatically shorter than that of poor quality paper. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 16)
The process involved in retrieving an obsolete file is indeed labor intensive. Either the antique hardware and software must be maintained in working condition, emulation software must be developed and stored with the original recording, or electronic documents must be recorded in some universal code that will always remain readable. (Rothenberg, 1995, p. 10-12) Jeff Rothenberg (1998) has high hopes for the emulation solution, which involves storing a non-platform specific version of the software required to access each digital document along with that document, but the technology for such a solution is still years away. (ch. 8-10) It seems that either microfilm or photocopies on acid free paper are still the most viable solution for long term preservation reformatting.
Even if the emulation solution can be worked out, there are still concerns with the longevity of the physical storage medium itself. This may change in the near future, as manufacturers are working to develop recordable compact disks (CD-Rs) into an acceptable medium for archival storage and preservation. So far, the results of tests conducted by various CD-R manufacturers are inconclusive. TDK rates "the archival lifespan of its cyanine-based CD-R discs at 70 years" (TDK, ¶ 1). Kodak claims of its Writable CD and Photo CD Media "that 95% of properly recorded discs stored at the recommended dark storage condition (25ºC, 40% RH) will have a lifetime of greater than 217 years" (Stinson, Ameli, & Zaino, 1995, abstract). Another manufacturer, Mitsui Toatsu Chemicals (MTC) determined that their own "MTC CD-R media is particularly well-suited for archival applications because the media life is over 300 years on the average, with a 95 percent upper confidence level that data can be read after 145 years. (Leek, 1995, ¶ 23) The wide range of these longevity estimates suggests that it is too soon to decide which of these media are preservation quality, if any. And none come close to the estimated 500 year life expectancy of polyester based microfilm. (Ogden, 1994, p. 169) Only time will tell if the goal of preservation quality digitization is achievable.
Though digitization alone is not an adequate preservation tool, it may be combined with traditional preservation techniques to form a sort of access/preservation "hybrid approach" (Gertz, 2000, p. 97-98; Ogden, 1994, p. 170).
We now have the option to microfilm an item, then scan the film (Conway 1996a); scan the item then produce computer output microfilm or print out to acid-free paper instead of making photocopies or copyflo (Kenney 1997); or we can scan the original item, retain it, and use the online version as a facsimile or surrogate to protect the original from unnecessary handling. All of this forms part of a continuum with preservation at one end and digitization purely for access purposes at the other. The issue for selection is deciding when best to employ digitization. (Gertz, 2000, p. 97-98)
None of the hybrid approaches involve relying solely on the longevity of the digital surrogate; a microfilm or paper copy is always generated. In the case of preservation copies (film or paper) that are made from a scanned digital source, "some would argue that the image itself, having been generated digitally, has lost some essential information—or has at least lost its fundamental analog character—and cannot therefore claim to be as desirable for preservation as film made by photographing the original source" (Smith, 1999, ¶ 23).
While digitization is currently not adequate as a preservation medium, it does provide superior access to archival materials. Typically, access to traditional archival materials has been limited. Researchers interested in a specific topic must make an educated guess as to whether a given series of records contains information which meets their needs, and then physically travel to the archives and, with the aid of the staff, manually search for that material. In other words, access to archives in traditional form is cumbersome, difficult, and inconvenient. However, digitization makes it theoretically possible to make all, or at least a significant representative portion, of an archives’ content available on the World Wide Web. In this electronic environment, it would be possible for a researcher to access the collection remotely, without having to go through the process of having staff members retrieve fragile documents that may or may not be relevant. (Fox & Wilkerson, 1998, p. 40) Providing researchers and other potential users of the archives with this increased access helps the institution
to broaden their clientele, to reach out to students and other constituencies who may be less familiar with archives and the use of primary resources. More and more, archivists are being asked to deliver electronically not only the descriptive information about their collections, but also the documents themselves. (Fox & Wilkerson, 1998, p. 40)
In other words, providing more access has a two-fold purpose, to open up the collection to existing and potential new users and to provide increased public visibility for the institution, its holdings, and its purpose.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Digitizing, and Making
Available via the World Wide Web, Archival Materials
One major disadvantage of a misguided "digitize and destroy" preservation policy would be the loss of information contained in the original item’s physical materials. The paper and ink, binding in the case of a book or emulsion in the case of a photograph, all provide historical information about the item and the time period in which it was created. This is one more reason not to destroy originals after digitization. Hopefully no one would ever initiate such a policy and this point is moot.
The greatest advantage of digitizing and making archival materials available on the World Wide Web is the extraordinary access to the information that this would provide. Digital documents do not require the special handling that rare, crumbling primary historical sources need. Also, document surrogates may potentially be culled from disparate archives and assembled into one comprehensive collection based on the subject as a whole and not just the holdings of a single institution. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 25) While a digital surrogate is not intended to replace the original, it is often adequate for most research needs.
The easy access to reference surrogates—images that provide a great deal of the information contained in the original, even if at fairly low resolution—is a boon to researchers when developing efficient and effective research strategies. Through the use of thumbnail images, which do not require high resolution, one can at a minimum acquaint oneself with the source enough to know whether or not one needs to consult the original. Very often one can make do with the digital surrogate because it provides all the information required. An image of the 1612 map of Virginia by John Smith may provide a scholar enough information to determine how far inland Smith actually traveled. The black crosses he laid down on paper to mark the furthest points he reached on various treks are clearly legible even on a low-resolution image. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 25)
Researchers may be able to find what they need more quickly by scanning thumbnail images, although they will still be free to search archives the old fashioned way, through finding aids and deductive reasoning. In addition, casual users who are just interested in browsing collections to look at interesting things and who may not have the credentials to gain access to the physical collection will be afforded access to the digital collection, thereby providing the institution with increased public visibility.
While it may be possible to do archival research using digital surrogates exclusively, there are good reasons to consult the original documents as well. For example, the computer screen "mediates" the experience by flattening the digital images, and the usual procedure of viewing digital images one at a time instead of in related groupings tends to remove those images from any meaningful context. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 30) Also, the computer screen necessarily displays a lower density image than would be witnessed by viewing the analog original. In some situations, the study of artworks for example, this difference in image quality would be critical. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 30)
Beside changes introduced in the surrogates by technical limitations, digital files can also be intentionally manipulated after the initial creation of the image. This is potentially both an advantage and a disadvantage.
Images can be enhanced in size, sharpness of detail, and color contrast. Through image processing, a badly faded document can be read more easily, dirty images can be cleaned up, and faint pencil marks can be made legible. The plan of the District of Columbia prepared by Pierre-Charles L'Enfant for George Washington in 1791 is so badly faded, discolored, and brittle that it resembles a potato chip. It cannot be used by researchers and yields little detailed information to the unaided eye. Digitized several years ago, the map now can be displayed to allow us to make out all the subtle contours of the architect's plan and to read the numerous annotations made by Thomas Jefferson. Like successful archaeologists, we have, with our digital picks and brushes, excavated important historical evidence that has changed the way we understand the planning of the nation's capital. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 27)
While the digital image may be enhanced, providing more access to the true content of the original item, the potential for image manipulation may also precipitate forgery and fraud because there is currently no effective way to ensure that the digital surrogate is an authentic representation of the original. Files may be tampered with, and documents may be altered seamlessly. If there is no documented original with which to compare the surrogate, the falsification is virtually undetectable. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 18) A researcher using a digital collection on the World Wide Web would have to rely on the integrity of the parent institution.
We transfer the confidence we experience in the reading room of that library to our work station, wherever it may be. We go to the New York Public Library Web site with the full expectation that the library "guarantees" the integrity of the images they mount. But it would be very hard indeed for a researcher in Alaska looking at New York Public Library's Digital Schomburg site to verify independently that any given image is indeed a faithful representation of the original. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 20)
Perhaps digital surrogates should only be used as finding aids, providing researchers with visual representations of items in the collection. Researchers that draw conclusions based on digital surrogates may be doing so at their own risk.
Legal, Ethical, Technical, and Professional Considerations
Involved in Developing a Digital Archival Collection
The vision of a comprehensive digital archive is, of course, an ideal. Studies need to be done to determine how existing digital archives are being utilized and to what extent those archives contribute to the public interest. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 29) There is also a need for coordination among those institutions engaging in digitization. The total costs of implementing this technology may be minimized if institutions share as many resources as possible instead of duplicating the work of others by digitizing items that already exist in electronic form. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 29)
Another thing to consider when making the decision to digitize an archival collection is the amount of preparation that is required. It is likely that the existing materials are not cataloged individually, therefore someone will have to go through the collection and decide which items will be digitized. Once items are selected, those items must be physically prepared for digital scanning (including any necessary preservation work), and research must be done so that the digitized image may be adequately described.
A collection of daguerreotypes that may have been in reasonably good physical condition but not very well cataloged may undergo extensive conservation review and treatment before it is scanned, and labor-intensive searches into the identities of faces that have been anonymous for decades may precede the cataloging and description of the digitized images. While these searches may be viewed as extraneous, or at least discretionary, editorial expenses, in fact they are more commonly incurred than not. The collections that are on the Web are, in a real sense, publications, accompanied as they are by a great deal of descriptive information created in order to make the items understandable in the context of the Internet. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 31)
If the goal were preservation, it might be enough to simply scan the entire contents of a folder and place those scanned images into the electronic equivalent of that folder. But since the primary goal is to provide access, the intellectual work is necessary.
Providing increased access through Web publication introduces a new problem for the archives. Collections often include unpublished materials, many of which may be sensitive. These materials may "deal with historical events or previously popular attitudes that may be offensive to us now and that must be understood in the larger context" (Smith, 1999, ¶ 33). There may also be copyright restrictions on materials, resulting in Web collections that contain a disproportionate amount of public domain content when compared to the institutions’ actual collection. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 35)
Archivists already tread a fine ethical line when it comes to providing access to sensitive materials. They must be willing to provide answers to researchers’ questions and generally facilitate the use of the collections in their charge. However, the archivists must also "protect the legitimate needs of the creators of the records and the privacy rights of third parties identified in them" (Pugh, 1992, p. 8-9). If those records are put on the Web and access is not restricted in some way, this would be difficult if not impossible to do.
Other typical archival use policies include registration and identification of users, which would also be difficult to do with digitized items. Registration and identification helps ensure that users have been informed about rules, copyright provisions, and other legal concerns. Most repositories require picture identification and written acknowledgement of the rules before releasing materials for use. (Pugh, 1992, p. 70) Registration also provides information about topics and intended use of information, which
helps the archivist give better service, provides the basis for analyzing how well the repository meets the needs of its users, and documents the nature and amount of use. Archivists also use registration information to build constituencies: to reach users for follow-up evaluations and to inform them of new materials, additional services, or public programs. (Pugh, 1992, p. 70-71)
This kind of tracking becomes more difficult when the digitized collection is available unrestricted on the World Wide Web. The obvious solution seems to be to restrict access to registered users only, but this access limitation is contrary to the goal of increasing collection use and public visibility. Alternatively, access to sensitive materials may be restricted through the selection process; simply do not publish sensitive materials on the Web.
As alluded to earlier, putting archival materials on the World Wide Web is actually less like providing access to select researchers within the building housing the archives, and more like publishing those materials for use by the general public.
Only when digitization is viewed specifically as a form of publishing, and not simply as another way to make resources available to researchers, are the thornier issues of selection for conversion put into an editorial context that provides a strong intellectual and ethical basis for imaginative selection of complex materials. (Smith, 1999, ¶ 34)
Archivists, like librarians, perceive it to be their duty to provide complete and unrestricted access to the materials in their care. If the publishing model is adopted, however, it then becomes permissible to select only certain documents for digitization and publication on the Web. In fact it becomes downright necessary to select only key documents and to write new descriptive material that provides a context for those materials selected.
Archival Materials that Should and Should Not be Digitized
One selection criteria is whether or not the archives has the legal right to copy and disseminate the materials under consideration for digitization. In the past, holdings were photocopied or microfilmed for preservation purposes. Copies were then used locally for research purposes, which is a legitimate use under copyright law. It is not clear if digital copies that are published on the Web are permissible under current law. "The 1998 changes to the copyright law permit creation of digital preservation copies, but whether and how access to them may be provided remains open to interpretation (ALA Washington Office 1998)" (Gertz, 2000, p. 99).
Digitization for Web publication tends to focus on "unique archival and visual materials, many of them unpublished and often very desirable for nonresearch applications" (Gertz, 2000, p. 99). Such unique materials may include historically significant photographs, paintings, or handwritten pages. These items may have "unclear histories of ownership and multiple layers of authorship" (Gertz, 2000, p. 99).
Intellectual property issues become murkier as online versions join the mix because they are universally accessible and can be infinitely copied and altered without knowledge or permission of the right holders. To protect intellectual property from unauthorized use, some libraries allow access for institutional affiliates only. Other institutions mount low-resolution images that are inappropriate for printing but which may also be too low for serious research use. The tension between protecting intellectual property rights and broadening access has become a serious issue for the selection process. Adding fuel to the fire, it seems possible that converting these materials into digital form might actually be a profitable activity—which is of course when rights holders start paying attention. (Gertz, 2000, p. 99)
It is Web publication, and not simply the act of digitization, that triggers these problems. But these issues must be resolved because engaging in digitization alone without utilizing the potential for increased access is not cost effective.
In addition to copyright, there are other issues that must be considered when selecting materials for digitization. Selection policies must be developed, and a good way to start is by reviewing existing reformatting policies. The selection process for traditional preservation reformatting varies from one institution to another, but the answers to the following general questions usually play a significant role in the process:
Given my institution’s specific mission and history, is this item old enough, useful enough, important enough to keep? Given the size of my preservation budget and the number of items that need care, is it damaged or endangered enough to warrant expenditure? Selectors at different institutions frequently give different answers when faced with copies of the same book. (Gertz, 2000, p. 98)
Selection criteria for digitization may be much the same, but the emphasis should be changed to reflect the desire for the improved access provided by the digital medium rather than for preservation.
The primary criterion of enduring value is the same for preservation and digital conversion, but user demand gains in importance, and issues such as intellectual property rights and technological potential receive more attention than is the case with traditional methods. (Gertz, 2000, p. 98)
A typical checklist of criteria to consider reads as follows:
(1) Does the item or collection have sufficient value to and demand from a current audience to justify digitization?
(2) Do we have the legal right to create a digital version?
(3) Do we have the legal right to disseminate it?
(4) Can the materials be digitized successfully?
(5) Do we have the infrastructure to carry out a digital project?
(6) Does or can digitization add something beyond simply creating a copy?
(7) Is the cost appropriate? (Gertz, 2000, p. 98-99)
The NEDCC recommends dividing the selection process into three phases; nomination, evaluation, and prioritization. In the nomination phase, staff, researchers, and other individuals concerned with the collection (including groups documented by the collection) suggest which materials should or should not be included and why. During the evaluation phase, a selection committee reviews the nominations and decides which materials should be digitized. Prioritization is the phase in which the selection committee ranks the chosen materials based on such factors as value to the institution, risk to the materials, and expected use. Materials are ranked so that those that are most valuable to the repository will be digitized first. (Sitts, 2000, ch. IV) Clearly, selection for digitization is a time consuming and labor-intensive task, to which must be added the additional expense of preparing the items for digitization and the actual scanning itself. Institutions engaging in major digitization projects must try to determine in advance if the increased access to materials for the users and the increased public visibility for the institution is adequate compensation for the cost of the project.
Conclusion
Digitization is an excellent way to provide access to archival materials, but it is not currently a viable preservation technology. More must be done than simply run materials through a scanner. With numerous issues to consider, selection criteria to develop and follow, and physical and intellectual preparation to accomplish, the undertaking of a major archival project, or even a minor one, can be very costly indeed. Such a project should not be rushed into without careful consideration and expert advice.
References
Fox, M. J., & Wilkerson, P. L. (1998). Introduction to archival organization and description. (S. R. Warren, Ed.). Los Angeles: Getty Information Institute.
Gertz, J. (2000). Selection for preservation in the digital age: An overview. Library Resources & Technical Services 44 (2), 97-104.
Leek, M. R. (1995). Will a good disc last forever? CD-ROM Professional 8. (11), 102(9). Retrieved November 3, 2000, from InfoTrac Web database (San Jose State University Library, Expanded Academic ASAP) on the World Wide Web: http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/session/
Ogden, S. (Ed.). (1994). Preservation of library & archival materials: A manual. Andover, MA: Northeast Document Conservation Center.
Pugh, M. J. (1992). Providing reference services for archives and manuscripts. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
Rothenberg, J. (1995). Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American 272 (1), 42-47. Expanded version retrieved March 1, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.clir.org/pubs/archives/ensuring.pdf
Rothenberg, J. (1998). Avoiding technological quicksand: Finding a viable technical foundation for digital preservation. Retrieved March 3, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/rothenberg/contents.html
Sitts, M. K. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook for digital projects: A management too for preservation and access. Andover, MA: Northeast Document Conservation Center. Retrieved March 3, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nedcc.org/digital/dman.pdf
Smith, A. (1999). Why Digitize? Retrieved February 21, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub80-smith/pub80.html
Stinson, D., Ameli, F., & Zaino, N. (1995). Lifetime of Kodak Writable CD and Photo CD media. Retrieved March 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Media/Kodak.html
TDK. TDK CD-R technology. Retrieved March 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Media/TDK.html
Return to Academic Résumé