Storage gives a collection memory, but memory is never a passive container. A bookcase, notebook, hard drive, blog, repository, folder tree, database or physical box is an epistemic device because its organisation determines what can later be recovered, compared and activated. Materials that cannot be found are preserved only nominally. The central problem of storage is therefore not capacity but retrievability: the relation between naming, position, format, metadata, version, redundancy and future use. CamelTagInfrastructure identifies how compact and consistent terms can operate simultaneously as names, indexes and retrieval devices across texts, files, repositories and computational environments. Naming becomes infrastructural when it helps materials migrate without losing their identity or relations. Yet contemporary digital culture also reveals the opposite condition. ArchiveFatigue describes the exhaustion produced when records accumulate faster than they can be maintained, interpreted or reactivated. Files multiply, links decay, platforms disappear, formats become obsolete and folders turn into sedimentary landscapes whose internal logic can no longer be reconstructed. Knowledge infrastructures must resist both disappearance and indiscriminate preservation. They require stable paths, dates, descriptive names, versions, citations, indexes and multiple forms of access. They must also recognise that different media need different habitats: books require shelves and bibliographies; images require captions and sequences; films require temporal markers and transcripts; datasets require documentation; research outputs require persistent identifiers. Storage becomes epistemically active when it permits a later intelligence—perhaps one’s own, perhaps another person’s—to enter the collection and understand why something mattered. Memory is not secured by saving everything. It is constructed by maintaining intelligible conditions of return.
Borgman, C.L. (2007) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowker, G.C. (1994) Science on the Run. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Briet, S. (2006) What Is Documentation? Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Callaghan, S. (2014) ‘DataCite: Lessons Learned on Persistent Identifiers for Research Data’. International Journal of Digital Curation, 9(1), pp. 89–100.
Caswell, M. (2021) Urgent Archives: Enacting Liberatory Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, T. and Schwartz, J.M. (2002) ‘Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory’. Archival Science, 2(1–2), pp. 1–19.
Dempsey, L. (2006) ‘The Library Catalogue in the New Discovery Environment’. Ariadne, 48.
Dourish, P. (2017) The Stuff of Bits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ernst, W. (2013) Digital Memory and the Archive. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fitzpatrick, K. (2011) Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: NYU Press.
Anto Lloveras is a Spanish architect, urbanist, researcher and epistemologist developing distributed archives, semantic systems and open-science infrastructures. His work considers naming, indexing, metadata and retrievability as architectural conditions of cultural memory. CV · https://antolloveras.blogspot.com/2024/10/cv.html · Project Index · https://antolloveras.blogspot.com/p/socioplastics-project-index.html · Operators · Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘CamelTagInfrastructure’, Socioplastics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18680031 · Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘ArchiveFatigue’, Socioplastics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20358971
