For those of you who, like me, are just getting to this reading, I've found
that RLG has put up the final report of the ATDR at
http://www.rlg.org/longterm/repositories.pdf . I presume this document is the
one we should be looking at rather than the draft. See you all tomorrow.
Melinda
--On Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:55 PM -0400 Daniel Pitti <dpitti@virginia.edu>
wrote:
> All,
>
> After reading a lot of the latest literature on digital repositories, I have
> made some progress in getting us moving once again on developing draft
> digital library policies.
>
> In preparation for our meeting in June, I would like all of you to read
> carefully Attributes of a Trusted Digital Repository (ATDR), a RLG-OCLC
> report: http://www.rlg.org/longterm/attributes01.pdf
>
> This joint RLG/OCLC report is inspired by the "Reference Model for an Open
> Archival Information System (OAIS)," [not to be confused with OAI] a
> framework for digital repositories developed by the space community (NASA and
> others). Though OAIS was developed by the space community, it has been well
> received by the archive, library, and museum communities, and with support
> from them, is nearing approval as an ISO standard. OAIS is very dense, but if
> you a feeling ambitious or suffering from insomnia, you will find the latest
> draft (July 2001) at http://www.ccsds.org/documents/pdf/CCSDS-650.0-R-2.pdf
>
> The ATDR uses OAIS terminology (which is quickly becoming the standard
> terminology for discussing digital repositories). It defines the OAIS terms,
> at least minimally, and so you can read it without reading OAIS.
>
> In addition to the readings, I have also drafted an outline organized around
> the statements of Repository Responsibilities in the ATDR report, in
> particular the "responsibility relies on" lists given under each major
> responsibility. I have tried to organize these around the three principle
> areas of responsibility and activity outlined in OAIS, which are submission,
> archiving, and dissemination. In front of these is simply a list of "policy
> areas" given in ATDR (I). The policy areas overlap with the submission,
> archiving, dissemination categories (II-IV). I nevertheless included this
> section because I wanted to make sure that we did not overlook anything in
> the "policy areas" that might not come up under the lists.
>
> My intention is that we go over each responsibility and what the
> responsibility relies on, and then begin to develop draft policies for each.
> As you can see, I am trying to approach this systematically. I think the
> first thing we will notice is that while the categories in the ATDR report
> are useful, they are insufficiently detailed. And so developing them will be
> the first order of business.
>
> After the "Organization of Digital Collecting Policy" below is a list of
> working assumptions that seem to me to provide a context and some guidance in
> our deliberations. These are, of course, open for debate, and, in fact,
> should be debated. And added to as well.
>
> That's all for now,
> Daniel
>
> Organization of Digital Collecting Policy
>
> Trusted Digital Repository
> I. Policy
>
> Follows documented policies and procedures that ensure the information is
> preserved against all reasonable contingencies and enables the information to
> be disseminated as authenticated copies of the original or as traceable to
> the original. A. Policies for collections development (e.g., selection
> and retention) that link to technical procedures about how and at what level
> materials are preserved and how access is provided both short and long term.
>
> B. Policies for access control to ensure all parties are protected,
> including authentication of users and disseminated materials.
>
> C. Policies for storage of materials, including service-level agreements
> with external suppliers.
>
> D. Policies that define the repository's designated community and
> describe its knowledge base.
>
> E. A rigorous system for updating policies and procedure in accordance
> with changes in technology and in the repository's designated community.
>
> F. Explicit links between these policies and procedures, allowing for
> easy application across heterogeneous collections.
>
>
>
> II. SIP/submission information package/intake or receipt
>
> A. Works closely with the repository's designated community to advocate
> the use of good and (where possible) standard practice in the creation of
> digital resources; this may include an outreach program for potential
> depositors.
>
> B. Negotiates for and accepts appropriate information from information
> producers and rights holders. a. Well-documented and agreed-on policies
> about what is selected for deposit, including, where appropriate, specific
> required formats.
>
> b. Effective procedures and workflows for obtaining copyright clearance
> for both short-term and immediate access, as necessary, and preservation.
>
> c. A comprehensive metadata specification and agreed-on standards for
> its implementation. This is critical for federated or networked repositories
> and includes standards for the provision of rights metadata from content
> providers and for representing technical metadata.
>
> d. Procedures and systems for ensuring the authenticity of submitted
> materials.
>
> e. Initial assessment of the completeness of the submission.
>
> f. Effective record keeping of all transactions, including ongoing
> relationships, with content providers.
>
> III. AIP/archive information package/care and feeding
> Obtains sufficient control of the information provided to support long-term
> preservation:
>
> A. Detailed analysis of an object or class of objects to assess its
> significant properties. Analysis should be automated as much as possible and
> informed by the collections management policy, rights clearances, the
> designated community's knowledge base, and policy restrictions on specific
> file formats.
>
> B. Verification and creation of bibliographic and technical metadata and
> documentation to support the long-term preservation of the digital object
> according to its significant properties and underlying technology or abstract
> form, with monitoring and updating of metadata as necessary to reflect
> changes in technology or access arrangements. This involves understanding how
> strategies for continuing access, such as migration and emulation, influence
> the creation of preservation metadata.
>
> C. A robust system of unique identification.
>
> D. A reliable method for encapsulating the digital object with its
> metadata in the archive.
>
> E. A reliable archival storage facility, including an ongoing program of
> media refreshment; a program of monitoring media; geographically distributed
> backup systems; routine authenticity and integrity checking of the stored
> object; disaster preparedness; response, and recovery policies and
> procedures; and security.
>
> IV. DIP/dissemination information package/delivery
> A. Determines, either by itself of with others, the users that make up
> its designated community, which should be able to understand the information
> provided. Analysis and documentation of the repository's designated
> community; for federated or cooperating repositories, a shared understanding
> of the designated community.
>
> B. Ensures that the information to be preserved is "independently
> understandable" to the designated community; that is, that the community can
> understand the information without needing the assistance of experts. a.
> Well-maintained and documented technical metadata that is kept aligned with
> the knowledge base of the designated community and with changing technologies.
>
> b. A "technology watch" to manage the risk as technology evolves and to
> provide continuing access and updated methods of access as necessary, such as
> new migrations or emulators.
>
> C. Makes the preserved information available to the designated community.
> a. A system for discovery of resources.
>
> b. Appropriate mechanisms for authentication of the digital materials.
>
> c. Access control mechanisms in accordance with licenses and laws, and
> an "access rights watch."
>
> d. Mechanisms for managing electronic commerce. User support programs.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Assumption: (from TDR/RLG/OCLC)
> Preservation reqires active management that begins at creation ... [p.18]
> ----------------------------
> Assumption:
>
> Digital collecting or long-term preservation and access of digital resources
> (hereafter referred to as (digital preservation and access: DPA) is and will
> be a responsibility shared with other respositories (libraries, archives,
> museums, and related non-profit and for-profit organizations and
> institutions. This assumption is based on three interrelated assumptions:
>
> 1) the long-term preservation and access of digital resources will
> be expensive, requiring that the burden of remembering the digital
> cultural artifacts deemed worth remembering be shared. No one
> repository will be able to effectively remember all worth
> remembering.
>
> 2) the authenticity and reliability of the "remembered" (the
> accuracy of our memory) and our judgement with respect to what is to
> be remembered will necessary be subjected to evaluation. Such
> evaluation will necessarily be conducted by an authoritative body or
> bodies that arise from the cultural heritage repository communities,
> and, while users will rely on in large part on the evaluation of the
> authoritative bodies, users will also, ultimately, be the arbiters
> of the quality of our memory, and the extent to which we can be
> trusted.
>
> 3) remembering, especially shared remembering, will necessarily
> require a large number of hardware, software, communication, and
> intellectual and procedural standards. In that standards are
> necessarily the product of communities sharing common interests and
> objectives, digital collecting will necessarily involve
> participating in the development of standards and mastering them.
>
> Assumption:
>
> In order to take responsibility for DPA, the repository must "control" that
> which is collected. In other words, the repository must have control over the
> files (both content and, if necessary, software) in order to be able to
> manange the DPA. Therefore access to digital content that is licensed, or
> licensed access software, cannot be "collected." As a long-term strategy, the
> respository needs to work with other respositories and with licensed content
> provider on a strategy for the development of "DPA-friendly" content, and for
> arrangments for transfer of control of such content to a trusted respository.
> (See e-journal Mellon project at www.clir.org/diglib/preserve/ejp.htm
>
> Assumption:
>
> There are no existing, proven methods for DPA. There several competing
> theoretical models that are being tested. No one of these may emerge as THE
> method, and a combination of methods may well emerge, with different
> production methods, technology and standards (or lack thereof), and
> publication content and functional objectives and different known and
> anticipated user requirements being taken into account.
>
> Assumption:
>
> The mutability of the technology, the growing interdependency of the various
> participants in scholarly communication (creators, producers-publishers,
> repositories, and users) and the lack of an effective political
> infrastructure to promote and develop cooperation and collaboration among
> them leads to economic uncertainty, but also the need to develop policy that
> reflects both what is known and understand, and what is uncertain and
> changing.
>
> Assumption:
>
> The Reference Model for an Open Archive Information System (OAIS), originally
> developed by the space research community, has gained wide international
> acceptance as a "framework" for DPA. OAIS is currently being considered by
> the International Standards Organization, largely at the urging of the
> international archive and library communities. Virginia policy, as a member
> of the international library community, will work within the broad framework
> of OAIS, and will work within and participate in the ongoing international
> application of OAIS to the cultural heritage repository communities. At the
> level of respository administration, Virginia needs to in particular to
> follow the OCLC/RLG report "Attributes of a Trusted Digital Repository."
>
> Assumption:
>
> Inspired in part by OAIS, there are several metadata initiatives which need
> to be followed. Some of these initiatives deal only with semantics, but
> others with both semantics and syntax. In the semantic category, particular
> attention needs to be paid to two reports by the OCLC/RLG Working Group on
> Preservation Metadata, "A Recommendation for Preservation Description
> Information," and "A Recommendation for Content Information." These two
> metadata initiatives are addressing essential OAIS requirements.
>
> Addressing descriptive data: Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), an
> initiative led by the Library of Congress.
>
> METS ...
>
> Assumption:
>
> The current DL literature reflects two implicit (and sometimes almost
> explicit) assumptions: 1) for large scale collections, digital publications
> collected will be relatively simple (or discrete or close to it: one file, or
> at most only a "few" files), and either created in or migrated to a hand full
> of representations (or formats). It is assumed that large, complex
> publications, with many interrelations between objects and/or or many
> signficant functional properties will be too expensive for archives/libraries
> to collect. It is assumed that the complexity of collecting the complex will
> be best addressed by emulation. SDS does not share this assumption. SDS, with
> its emphasis on behaviors, is "banking" on declarative standards (such as XSL
> and XQuery) as making the replication of behaviors over time affordable. This
> will need (humble) justification and argument.
>
> -----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Melinda Baumann
Director, Digital Library Production Services
University of Virginia Library
PO Box 400155
Charlottesville VA 22904-4155
baumann@virginia.edu (434) 243-8785
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 13:38:55 EDT