I actually think that this slow collapse - catabolic collapse - is the worst possible outcome.  Probably the most likely outcome as well.  We would switch to substitutes - coal and nuclear, probably.  At first we would make an effort to maintain safety and environmental standards, but as the going got tougher, our standards would get lower and lower.  

The very worst possible outcome would be Al Gore's nightmare: global warming run amok.  As David Goodstein puts it, the earth is tipped into a condition "incompatible with life."  That would not be entirely in our hands.  Even if we refrain from burning coal, we can't stop China or Russia from doing it.

Even if that doesn't happen, the result of a catabolic collapse would be ugly.  Topsoil stripped, water polluted (if there is any), trees all burned for firewood, plants and animals extinct due to human hunting and farming, chemical and radioactive waste poisoning the land for 100,000 years.  

I think we should aim for sustainability, not maintaining our technology.  Yes, I think the two are mutually exclusive.  No, I don't think many will agree with me.

One use it could have is to suggest what approaches and preparation may be most appropriate and advantageous should a specific level of collapse be expected. I propose it as a framework within which risks could be assessed and preparations made, nothing more. I am not aware of any other attempts to do this (if you are I would greatly appreciate knowing of them), I think it is a valid and worthwhile area to research.

It will depend on how deep the collapse is. Should it reach level 3 or 4 on my scale knowledge preservation will be a very significant objective, possibly the most important determinant of how well we survive and progress thereafter.

While the internet exists in a widespread form the risk of significant knowledge loss should be low. In the run up to major collapse (assuming, though it is probably unwise to do so, that we have reasonable warning) there should be a big effort to acquire, disseminate and safely archive multiple copies of important data.

I expect that, even in the case of profound collapse to level 4, 5 or 6, some computers capable of accessing locally archived data will be possible and some sporadic means of powering them should be available. That would be the most practical way of storing huge amounts of information for a decade or so at least. Books will probably be a more practical way of providing portable copies of frequently useful information but care will need to be given to their use and storage.

Maybe someone needs to make the committment to preserve these materials, like the monasteries and convents during the Dark Ages

I think we discussed this in the sci-fi thread.  See "A Canticle For Leibowitz."  ;-)

Seriously, I'm sure some books will survive.  But books alone are not enough.  We need the whole infrastructure of civilization.  Even Einstein could not teach himself physics.  He hated school and got terrible grades, but found he had to go to a university to learn physics.

But in a low-energy world, we won't be able to support many scholars - that is, people who don't produce something tangible.  Now, a farmer can grow enough food to feed a hundred people, freeing the rest of us to specialize in other things.  Only a hundred years ago, it was the opposite: most people grew their own food.  I think that is the model we are heading back to.