Panel “ Towards a Common Vision on Digital Preservation ” APA Conference 2012, Frascati

1. Panel “Towards a Common Vision on Digital Preservation” APA Conference 2012, Frascati November 7 2012, 14:00– 15:30

2. “Towards a Common Vision on Digital Preservation” Chair: Peter Doorn, DANS Introduction: René van Horik, DANS APARSEN Representatives: • Mariella Guercio, University of Rome • Simon Lambert, STFC • Juan Bicarregui, STFC External Experts: • Miroslav Sirl, Czech digital preservation society • Thomas Risse, Leibniz Universität Hannover • Carlos Morais-Pires, EU eInfrastructures

3. Program • Short introduction on APARSEN • Topic 1 Trust • Topic introduction • Discussion • Topic 2 Common Vision • Topic introduction • Discussion • Topic 3 Virtual Centre of Excellence • Topic introduction • Discussion

4. What is APARSEN? • A Network of Excellence in digital preservation • Funded by European Commission • 7th Framework Programme — Digital Libraries and Digital Preservation • Runs January 2011 to December 2014 (4 years) • 31 Partners from 13 countries • Leading to a “Virtual Centre of Excellence” • Coordinated by Science and Technology Facilities Council (UK)

5. Network of Excellence

6. Approach of APARSEN SUSTAINABILITY USABILITY TRUST ACCESS Stream 1 Integration Stream 2 Technical research Stream 3 Non-technical research Stream 4 Sustainable uptake

8. “TRUST” Why and how to reinforce confidence in digital repositories APARSEN Panel November 7 2012, 14:00 – 15:30

9. brochure on Trust

10. project deliverables on trust

11. APARSEN research papers for Stream 1 Trust • Interoperability Framework for Persistent Identifiers systems Maurizio Lunghi, Emanuele Bellini, Chiara Cirinnà, Barbara Bazzanella, Paolo Bouquet, David Giaretta and René van Horik • Authenticity Management in Long Term Digital Preservation of Medical Records Silvio Salza and Mariella Guercio • Conversion and Emulation-aware Dependency Reasoning for Curation Services Yannis Tzitzikas, Yannis Marketakis and Yannis Kargakis • Curating the Specificity of Metadata while World Models Evolve Yannis Tzitzikas, Anastasia Analyti and Mary Kampouraki • On the Applicability of Workflow Management Systems for the Preservation of Business Processes Stefan Proell, Rudolf Mayer and Andreas Rauber • From cataloguing to digital curation: the role of libraries in data exchange Susan K. Reilly

12. trust and its definition(s)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust • a: assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something b: one in which confidence is placed • a: dependence on something future or contingent:HOPE …. • a (1): a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some relationship (2): something committed or entrusted to one to be used or cared for in the interest of another b : responsiblecharge or office c:CARE, CUSTODY — in trust: in the care or possession of a trustee

13. trust and digital preservation • “A hope is more than resolve, and it is based on trust in a divine faithfulness that operates not only within history, but also beyond history” (John Polkinghorne, Times Literary Supplement, 3 May 2002) • Trust in the (digital) world operates within history; it is related to concepts of place and responsibility; it implies trustful relationships between the entities (organizations and individuals) involved and mechanisms and services by which it can be established, implemented, promoted, verified • These mechanisms cannot be limited to simple means of authenticationcommonly implemented because of their capacity of declaring the authenticity of a bitstream at one specific moment in time

14. trust cannot be blind or feel like and act of faith • In the networked society questions related to trust are more challenging than in the past because of the distributed archives in the cloud • In the digital environment the assumption for trusted preservation implies (is based on) the capacity of ensuring and documenting: • data accuracy: a question of truthfulness, exactness, precision or completeness): it has to be assessed per se to govern the risks related to the transmission across space (between persons and/or systems) and time (between digital systems when upgraded or in case of migration) • reliability of content information and provenance/context information when created: a responsibility of the producer • authenticity: the digital identity and integrity are inferred from the circumstances of their maintenance and preservation thanks to “an unbroken chain of responsible and legitimate custody” which shifts from the producer to thetrustedcustodian(L. Duranti)

15. trust in digital environment is based on movable responsibilities and trusted relationships • Accuracy and authenticity areshifting responsibilitiesthat move over time from the producer/data keeper to the trusted custodian/repository • Because of the dynamic nature of the digital environment, these responsibilities must have aninstitutionalnature and a complex and well defined structure: they need trusted relationshipsbased on solid business principles, formalized agreements and accreditation processes • Responsibilities and frameworks have to be evaluated periodically on formal basis, according to well stated recommendations by recognized auditors (to ensure impartiality and offer comparable and solid evidence)

16. core elements for establishing trusted responsibilities for preservation • reputation,based on the assessment of the trustee’s past actions and conduct; • performance,which is the relationship between the trustee’s present actions and the conduct required to fulfill his or her current responsibilities as specified by the truster; • competence, which consists of having the knowledge, skills, talents, and traits required to be able to perform a task to any given standard; • confidence,which is an assurance of expectation of action and conduct the truster has in the trustee • Piotr Sztompka, Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 6)

17. Audit & Certification: the basis for trusted responsibilities Metrics of trust (relevant to support the quality and the sustainability of the digital preservation and to certify digital repositories) still require to be defined in details but relevant steps have been defined and partially implemented: Audit checklist (TRAC) Basic Certification -> Data Seal of Approval (for small organizations) Extended Certification -> Self-audit based on ISO 16363 DIN 31644 Formal Certification -> Full external audit and certification basedon ISO 16363 DIN 31644 The next step is the definition of a European framework for audit and certification of digital repositories www.trusteddigitalrepository.eu

18. APARSEN contribution Collection of details of a number of test audits based on ISO 16363 DIN 31644 and performed by members of the Primary Test Audit Board (PTAB): Data Archiving And Networked Services – DANS (NL) UK Data Archive – UKDA Centre iNformatique National de l’enseignement Supérieur – CINES (FR) Socioeconomic Data and Application Center – SEDAC (US) Center for Earth Science Information, the National Space Science Data Center – NSSDC (US) Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives – KDLA (US)

19. findings from test audits • The preparation of the test audit and certification implies a thorough analysis and documentation to define an overall picture for the repository • The identification of strengths and gaps and the suggestion of improvements are valuable and instructive results for the repositories (more than the certification itself) and influence their medium term strategy (i.e. with reference to the collection of authenticity evidence) • The full process can be practical and sustainable, but the methodology has to be detailed and the auditors adequately trained • Auditors need tools and guidelines that help them conduct the Formal Certification with specific reference to handle the conflicts “between what the auditors sees, tests, reads, and is told” (APARSEN report) • National standards and legislations should be taken into account • The issues related to the authenticity and the collection of related evidence is always underestimated

20. Discussion • Statement 1: “Formal accredited auditors are a basic requirement to assess the trustworthiness of a digital repository”

21. Topic 2 “Common vision on digital preservation” Simon Lambert STFC simon.lambert@stfc.ac.uk APARSEN Panel November 7 2012, 14:00 – 15:30

22. What is a common vision, and why? • A vision of the digital preservation “landscape” • Founded in the present but oriented to the future • Leading to a research agenda • Underpinning to a Virtual Centre of Excellence • Unifying different perspectives

23. What is “common” about the common vision? • Two aspects: • Uniform: well-structured, coherent, systematically organised • Shared: accepted, agreed, cooperative • The language and the statements made in the language

24. How to structure the common vision • Underpinning the “uniformity” dimension: • The threats to long-term preservation of PARSE.Insight • OAIS • Common terminology

25. What sort of things make up the common vision? • Approaches that work • Or appropriate for this but not that • Open research questions • Promising directions • …

26. A typical method in APARSEN

27. Two statements for discussion • “A common vision should have two independent attributes: being uniform and being shared” • “A common vision of digital preservation can only come about within specific domains”

28. Network of Excellence

29. Discussion • Statement 1: “A common vision on digital preservation can only come about within specific domains” • Statement 2: “A common vision should have two independent attributes: being uniform and being shared”

30. APARSEN Panel Session: Virtual Centre of Excellence Juan Bicarregui, Juan.Bicarregui@stfc.ac.uk STFC APA Conference, Frascati, 7 November 2012

31. Structure • Why have a VCoE? • What is a VCoE? • Key Questions for a VCoE? • What can an APARSEN VCoE offer? • Two Statements for Discussion

32. Why have a VCoE? • A Virtual Centre of Excellence is to be a key outcome of APARSEN: • “… to bring coherence, cohesion and continuity to research into barriers to the long-term accessibility and usability of digital information and data, exploiting our diversity by building a long-lived Virtual Centre of Digital Preservation Excellence.”

33. What is a VCoE? • According to APARSEN: • “A Virtual Centre of Excellence is a fairly new organizational concept. Its aim is to bring the capabilities, knowledge and expertise together from diverse teams across geographical and organization boundaries to create something exemplary and distinguishable within its domain.” • “The key to a successful VCOE is the vision which is shared by all members, including the knowhow and "know-why" of digital preservation. This know-how includes knowing who to ask about particular areas.” • Examples of similar things: Open Planets Foundation, PrestoCentre, VCC-3D

34. Key questions for a VCoE? • What can it offer? (next slide) • Who benefits from its activities? and how? (Inside/outside) • How is it sustained? What is its lifetime? • What is its relationship with its participating organisations? • What is its relationship to other organisations? • (In particular to other coalitions/networks/alliances)

35. What can the APARSEN VCoE offer? • Consultancy? • including repository audit and certification services • Preservation services? • Training? • Collaboration brokering? • Research leadership? • Outreach and/or evangelism? Is this the key?

36. Two statements for discussion “The main reason for the VCoE’s existence is to foster collaboration among is members” “The ultimate goal of the VCoE is to make itself redundant”

37. Network of Excellence

38. Key questions for a VCoE? • What can it offer? • Who benefits from its activities? and how? (Inside/outside) • How is it sustained? What is its lifetime? • What is its relationship with its participating organisations? • What is its relationship to other organisations? • The main reason for the VCoE’s existence is to foster collaboration among is members • The ultimate goal of the VCoE is to make itself redundant

39. Discussion • Statement 1. “The main reason for the VCoE's existence to foster collaboration among its members” • Statement 2: “The ultimate goals of the VCoE is to make itself redundant”