Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Check Me Out! - The RLG/NARA task force on certifying digital repositories Kevin Ashley Head of Digital Archives Department ULCC.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Check Me Out! - The RLG/NARA task force on certifying digital repositories Kevin Ashley Head of Digital Archives Department ULCC."— Presentation transcript:

1 Check Me Out! - The RLG/NARA task force on certifying digital repositories Kevin Ashley Head of Digital Archives Department ULCC

2 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 2 Introduction The background - how we got here The problem The group and its methods Some issues Some material in this presentation taken from Robin Dale’s presentation to Erpanet Roma,but… This is my personal view, not RLGs

3 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 3 How we got here May 2002: RLG/OCLC report Well received Next problem: how do you decide who has these attributes? Solution: a task force to define a certification model & process

4 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 4 Summary of May 2002 report Executive summary & introduction Attributes of trusted digital repositories (TDR) Responsibility & digital preservation Deep infrastructure & OAIS Responsibilities of a TDR Recommendations Selected resources Appendices: OAIS;definitions;roster

5 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 5 The problem Charge: Create a standard certification process or a framework that can be implemented across domains or types of digital repositories From: www.rlg.org/longterm/certification.html

6 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 6 The new problem? “The goal of this project is to design a digital archiving service that is capable of reliably storing, migrating, and providing access to digital collections.” “The challenge is to produce certification requirements, delineate a process for certifications, and identify a certifying body (or bodies) that can implement the process.” From: www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=580

7 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 7 Tasks Identify a list of certifiable elements (attributes, processes, functions, activities) of a digital repository or types of repositories Create a standard certification process or a framework that can be implemented across domains or types of digital repositories. Develop a certification plan Define the conditions for revocation of certification and suggest appropriate action plans for endangered digital information

8 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 8 Subtitles Sub-title of original report was: Meeting the needs of research resources Does this restrict the scope of what we can or should do?

9 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 9 Members Bruce Ambacher, NARA Kevin Ashley, ULCC Connie Brooks, Stanford Josh Coates, Internet Archive Judith Cobb, OCLC Dale Flecker,Harvard David Giaretta, CCLRC Maggie Jones, DPC William LeFurgy, LoC Rich Lysakowski GERA/CENSA Julien Masanes, BNF Nancy McGovern, Cornell Don Sawyer, NASA Johan Steenbakkers, KBR RLG staff liaison: Robin Dale, Task Force Co-Chair Program Officer

10 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 10 How we work Regular conference calls (3-weekly) Email discussion & document exchange New: a WIKI for collaborative work Maybe more?

11 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 11 Open questions at outset Levels of certification? Self certification? Bit preservation? Information preservation? Certifiable elements? Certifying body/organization? Duration of certification? Consequences of revocation?

12 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 12 Emerging framework Toolkit –Self certification –“Independently administered” certification Certification –Baseline requirements –Additional levels or “modules” likely

13 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 13 Elements OAIS compliance Administrative responsibility Organisational viability Digital archives border Financial sustainability Technological suitability System security Procedural accountability

14 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 14 Methods Say what you claim to do Demonstrate that you can and do do it Currently working through peer-review exercises from members Requirements in each section; Certification metrics; Statements & documents

15 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 15 Example requirement 2.7: “The repository has written agreements with depositors that address all appropriate aspects of acquisition, maintenance, access and withdrawal” Demonstrate they exist Demonstrate they are adequate Demonstrate they are adhered to

16 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 16 Questions we want input on Who is this for - who cares? The potential depositor ? The potential accessor ? The regulatory body ? The customer of a 3rd-party provider ?

17 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 17 Is bit preservation certifiable ? One can clearly conduct bit preservation well, or badly Is it something worth certifying ? Is it so basic we should not consider it ?

18 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 18 How does audit happen Is peer review acceptable ? Achievable ? What will repositories pay for certification? What is their incentive to pay? Who bankrolls the process at the outset?

19 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 19 Overlap with other processes How relevant is ISO 9002 certification ? Or BS 7799/ISO 17799? Many potential organisations may have one or both, but not all They are expensive, and they cover many relevant areas How to accommodate this ?

20 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 20 The role of the collecting policy Clearly relevant to research libraries –but what about other sorts of repository ? Service providers work in a different organisational framework Collection policy may not control quality of what is preserved But we can audit how it is preserved

21 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 21 AHDS’s organisational model Policy Makers Record Creators Archives

22 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 22 Distributed repositories Where a community adopts a system such as LOCKSS Well-controlled communities may be amenable to audit But responsibilities may still be unclear These models design institutional failure away Reliable - but not auditable?

23 2004-04-15Copyright University of London 2004 23 Next steps Draft document(s) will be issued for public review this year Revision and adoption will follow Someone will need to take forward the creation of an organisational structure for certification


Download ppt "Check Me Out! - The RLG/NARA task force on certifying digital repositories Kevin Ashley Head of Digital Archives Department ULCC."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google
http://slideplayer.com/slide/4299618/
slideplayer.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-43
191261
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:EL2CCZTEQKTHGYJD5DEKHHMTQD6WPCZ4
<urn:uuid:2da44cc2-ced4-4527-9876-821dc7115f88>
2017-10-22T18:00:10Z
88.99.70.210
text/html
sha1:HEHDYCEGSBGQCMPS6VE2EHID6P7PLYAN
<urn:uuid:593c5deb-dea1-40c6-b2ec-1785b52fa423>
http://slideplayer.com/slide/4299618/
length
response
<urn:uuid:073fed1d-7892-40d0-b49b-ff7f7210e3ef>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-138-94-242.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-43
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf