Melinda,
Thanks for the update. A quick look suggests that the body of the paper
(preceding the appendices) is about 5 pages longer than the August 2001
draft. I cannot determine without a close reading if there any major
changes. But I'll try to find time before the meeting tomorrow to do so.
Daniel
At 01:26 PM 6/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>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 - 14:36:41 EDT