This paper is an extended and updated version of the work reported at iPres 2008. Digital preservation activities can only succeed if they go beyond the technical properties of digital objects. They must consider the strategy, policy, goals, and constraints of the institution that undertakes them and take into account the cultural and institutional framework in which data, documents and records are preserved. Furthermore, because organizations differ in many ways, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be appropriate. Fortunately, organizations involved in digital preservation have created documents describing their policies, strategies, work-flows, plans, and goals to provide guidance. They also have skilled staff who are aware of sometimes unwritten considerations. Within Planets (Farquhar & Hockx-Yu, 2007), a four-year project co-funded by the European Union to address core digital preservation challenges, we have analyzed preservation guiding documents and interviewed staff from libraries, archives, and data centres that are actively engaged in digital preservation. This paper introduces a conceptual model for expressing the core concepts and requirements that appear in preservation guiding documents. It defines a specific vocabulary that institutions can reuse for expressing their own policies and strategies. In addition to providing a conceptual framework, the model and vocabulary support automated preservation planning tools through an XML representation.
We are failing to protect the biosphere. Novel views of conservation, preservation, and sustainability are surfacing in the wake of consensus about our failures to prevent extinction or slow climate change. We argue that the interests and well-being of non-humans, youth, and future generations of both human and non-human beings (futurity) have too long been ignored in consensus-based, anthropocentric conservation. Consensus-based stakeholder-driven processes disadvantage those absent or without a voice and allow current adult humans and narrow, exploitative interests to dominate decisions about the use of nature over its preservation for futurity of all life. We propose that authentically non-anthropocentric worldviews that incorporate multispecies justice are needed for a legitimate, deliberative, and truly democratic process of adjudication between competing interests in balancing the preservation and use of nature. Legitimate arenas for such adjudication would be courts that can defend intergenerational equity, which is envisioned by many nations' constitutions, and can consider current and future generations of non-human life. We urge practitioners and scholars to disavow implicit anthropocentric value judgments in their work – or make these transparent and explicit – and embrace a more comprehensive worldview that grants future life on earth fair representation in humanity's decisions and actions today.
We are failing to protect the biosphere. Novel views of conservation, preservation, and sustainability are surfacing in the wake of consensus about our failures to prevent extinction or slow climate change. We argue that the interests and well-being of non-humans, youth, and future generations of both human and non-human beings (futurity) have too long been ignored in consensus-based, anthropocentric conservation. Consensus-based stakeholder-driven processes disadvantage those absent or without a voice and allow current adult humans and narrow, exploitative interests to dominate decisions about the use of nature over its preservation for futurity of all life. We propose that authentically non-anthropocentric worldviews that incorporate multispecies justice are needed for a legitimate, deliberative, and truly democratic process of adjudication between competing interests in balancing the preservation and use of nature. Legitimate arenas for such adjudication would be courts that can defend intergenerational equity, which is envisioned by many nations' constitutions, and can consider current and future generations of non-human life. We urge practitioners and scholars to disavow implicit anthropocentric value judgments in their work – or make these transparent and explicit – and embrace a more comprehensive worldview that grants future life on earth fair representation in humanity's decisions and actions today.
This publication comes from the Preservation Hotlines serial, published by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History about common issues relating to preservation in South Carolina. This publication answers questions about local historic districts.
This publication comes from the Preservation Hotlines serial, published by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History about common issues relating to preservation in South Carolina. This publication is about how to select a consultant for cultural resource surveys and evaluations.
The State Historic Preservation Office at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History publishes a monthly newsletter featuring agency programs and events, and highlights those of state and national preservation groups. In this issue: Registration Open for Local Government Preservation Workshop ; SHPO Review & Compliance and Survey Programs Updates ; 2018 Preservation Conference: Call for Session Proposals ; State Review Board Approves 4 Nominations ; FY 2018 Historic Preservation Fund Grant Applications ; Tax Credit Project Spotlight ; Palmetto Trust for Historic Preservation is Now Preservation South Carolina ; American College of the Building Arts January Classes ; Conferences / Workshops / Events ; Grant Application Deadlines ; Subscription Information.
The State Historic Preservation Office at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History publishes a monthly newsletter featuring agency programs and events, and highlights those of state and national preservation groups. In this issue: State Board of Review Meeting, new listings in the National Register of Historic Places, tax credit spotlight, remembering the founder of SC's Historic Preservation Office, preparing communities for natural disasters, Preservation Society of Charleston offers preservation news, mid-century Commercial Architecture Symposium: call for proposals, legislation to enhance the historic tax credit introduced in Congress, conferences / workshops / events, grant application deadlines, subscription information.
Treves et al.'s target article can play an important role in reconciling the needs of future generations and non-human animals in conservation. Human capacities are adequate for interpreting and defining many non-human animal needs. Worldviews are more complex, however, and conservation science, like the target article itself, suffers from a lack of diversity and inclusiveness. This may pose practical impediments to realizing just preservation.
Treves et al. argue for better representation of voiceless groups in current policy decisions. We agree with the argument but believe it will be challenging to convince enough people of its importance to change policy — especially those political groups who are not predisposed to agreeing with these kinds of arguments. We draw on the social psychology literature to recommend three principles for increasing the persuasiveness of the argument to the public: pre-suasion, framing, and tailoring for the audience. We apply these principles to make concrete recommendations for framing the argument to persuade the American political right.
В данной работе рассматриваются различные аспекты неразглашения врачебной тайны.Physician–patient privilege is a medical and legal concept. It prohibits a physician from divulging to anybody some information about his patients (diagnosis, results of examination and so on). Each physician must obey this ban if he or she treats a patient.In fact, the concept of physician–patient privilege appeared in Ancient India. It voiced that you could fear your brother, mother or friend but never – a doctor. Since those days, doctors have been vowing to keep all patient's secrets and always do it. Physician–patient privilege is one of the basic postulates of the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, each state guarantees to its citizens keeping of the privilege. Although there are situations when it is allowed to provide patient's data without his or her consent, for instance: in order to examine and treat a person who cannot express his or her will due to a bad state; if there is a danger of spreading any infection or provoking an epidemic; if the information is requested by judiciary or law enforcement agency; if a patient is not an adult and physicians must inform parents or legal representatives about his or her state of health; in case of injuries received due to any incorrect procedures; the necessity to do military medical examination.According to legal systems of some countries all people having any information about a sick person are hold disciplinary, administrative or criminal responsibility in case of divulging.When somebody is admitted to a hospital, his relatives and friends want to know about his state of health. Physicians have to resolve conflict situations. On the one hand, it is clear they worry about his or her life. However, on the other hand all these data are included into the concept «physician–patient privilege». In fact, a good physician never says his patient's diagnosis to anybody. In our opinion, physicians can break physician–patient privilege only in case when it is said whether the person will live or not. In other cases, only a patient can decide whom to say this or that information about his or her health. Physicians should look after the sick people; care about their physical, mental and moral health. In return, patients should talk about their problems and trust their physicians. Any offense against the «physician–patient privilege» makes a person feel humiliated. In this case, the patient has a right to apply to a judiciary because of the non-pecuniary damage that was harmed by physicians. To sum up, the most important commandment for every physician is to remember about these ethical postulates!
After the restoration of independence of Lithuania the legal basis and administrative structures of heritage preservation were changed many times, though the maintenance, use and state of heritage were not improved, and its decay did not decrease. Undemocratic and inhumane legal basis and management of heritage preservation based on restrictions, prohibitions and penalties without any compensatory incentives for imposed restrictions and economic disadvantages increasingly raises discontent not only from society but also from heritage owners and users. The owners and users of land where heritage objects are situated realize that their property can be used more efficiently and profitably and that social and economic restrictions imposed by heritage protection regulations contravene their rights. Instead of investing into preservation of heritage objects, owners usually attempt to get rid of them. Conflicts between heritage preservation institutions, owners of heritage objects and society are especially inherent in historic city centers where commercial interests are expanding and master plans and development projects propose intensive modernization and development of high rise buildings. Countries with long-lasting democracy traditions are looking for solutions how, without contradicting heritage preservation ethics and social justice, to encourage owners and users of heritage objects to protect and use rationally the legacy inherited from the past simultaneously retaining and stimulating vitality of historic centers and improving quality of life of their inhabitants. The problem is multipartite and ambivalent. Only changes and improvements in heritage preservation systems enacted in latter years in the countries of stable democracy, emphasizing the problem of development and protection ethics, the questions of respect of heritage values and implementation of social justice in juridical and practical heritage preservation activities are discussed in the paper. Demokratiniai proveržiai paveldosaugoje Santrauka Atkūrus nepriklausomybę ne kartą buvo keičiama Lietuvos paveldosaugos teisinė bazė ir administravimo struktūros, tačiau paveldo priežiūra, panauda, būklė nepagerėjo, o netektys nesumažėjo. Teisinė paveldosaugos bazė ir vadyba, paremta apribojimais, draudimais ir baudomis be kompensacinių paskatų taikymo už patirtus suvaržymus bei ekonominius nuostolius, susilaukia vis didėjančio paveldo naudotojų bei savininkų nepasitenkinimo. Žemių naudotojai ir savininkai, kurių valdose yra paveldo objektų, yra įsitikinę, kad žemės nuosavybę galima naudoti pelningiau ir kad socialiniai bei ekonominiai suvaržymai paveldosaugos reglamentais pažeidžia jų teises. Užuot dėję pastangas ir skyrę lėšų paveldo vertybėms išsaugoti, jie įvairiais būdais stengiasi jų atsikratyti. Konfliktai tarp paveldosaugos institucijų, paveldo savininkų bei visuomenės ypač dideli miestų istoriniuose centruose, kuriuose vis daugiau atsiranda komercinių interesų, o plėtros planais yra numatyta intensyvi modernizacija bei daugiaaukštė statyba. Senos demokratijos šalyse ieškoma būdų, kaip, nepažeidžiant paveldosaugos etikos ir socialinio teisingumo normų, paskatinti pačius paveldo savininkus ir naudotojus saugoti bei racionaliai naudoti praeities turtą, plečiant miestų istorinių centrų gyvybines funkcijas ir rūpinantis gyventojų gerove. Tačiau mūsų šalyje teisinio mechanizmo, padedančio vietos gyventojams saugoti kultūros paveldo vertybes, racionaliai naudojant jas kaip socialinės ir ekonominės gerovės išteklius, dar nėra, nors 2005 m. Europos Tarybos paskelbtoje "Bendrojoje konvencijoje dėl kultūros paveldo vertės visuomenei" (Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society) nurodoma, kad kultūros paveldo apsauga organizuojama ne tik siekiant išsaugoti paveldą kaip istorijos produktą, bet ir panaudoti jį kaip vizualinę prekę vietos gyventojų socialinės gerovės labui ir siekiant ekonominės naudos. Problema daugiabriaunė ir ambivalentiška. Straipsnyje aptariami tik kai kurie pastarojo meto nauji paveldosaugos poslinkiai stabilios demokratijos šalyse. Jame daugiau dėmesio skiriama apsaugos ir plėtros etikos problemai, paveldo vertybių respektavimo klausimams bei socialinio teisingumo užtikrinimui paveldosaugos teisėje ir praktinėje paveldotvarkos veikloje. Reišminiai žodžiai: miestų istoriniai centrai, apsauga ir plėtra, atgaivinimas ir modernizacija, aukštybinė statyba, paveldosaugos etika, vertybių respektavimas, socialinis teisingumas, demokratija, lengvatos, kompensavimo programos. First Published Online: 22 May 2013
Digital preservation activities can only succeed if they go beyond the technical properties of digital objects. They must consider the strategy, policy, goals, and constraints of the institution that undertakes them and take into account the cultural and institutional framework in which data, documents and records are preserved. Furthermore, because organizations differ in many ways, a one-sizefits-all approach cannot be appropriate. Fortunately, organizations involved in digital preservation have created documents describing their policies, strategies, workflows, plans, and goals to provide guidance. They also have skilled staff who are aware of sometimes unwritten considerations. Within Planets [Farquhar 2007], a four-year project cofunded by the European Union to address core digital preservation challenges, we have analyzed preservation guiding documents and interviewed staff from libraries, archives, and data centers that are actively engaged in digital preservation. This paper introduces a conceptual model for expressing the core concepts and requirements that appear in preservation guiding documents. It defines a specific vocabulary that institutions can reuse for expressing their own policies and strategies. In addition to providing a conceptual framework, the model and vocabulary support automated preservation planning tools through an XML representation.
Description based on: 1992-94. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Vols. for 1989-90-1992-94 issued by: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources; 1995- by: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Programs, Preservation Assistance Division.
