Practical, Available Approaches for Long-Term Accessibility of Electronic Records

1. Practical, Available Approaches forLong-Term Accessibility of Electronic Records • Charlie Arp • State Archivist • Ohio Historical Society • (614) 297-2581 • carp@ohiohistory.org • handout with contact information & URLs

2. Discussion Points • Introduction • Policy • Ohio Electronic Records Committee • Ohio UETA • Ohio Bureau of Employment Services E-Mail • Websites • Plans, Problems, and Conclusions

3. Background - OHS • Ohio Historical Society • Private non-profit organization - 501 (3) (c) • Serves as the State’s partner in preserving and interpreting Ohio’s history, archaeology and natural history • 149.31 ORC - Legal basis of the State Archives • The Ohio Historical Society, in addition to its other functions, shall function as the state archives administration for the state and its political subdivisions

4. Background - OHS • State Archives has: • 35,000 c.f. of state and local government records • State Archives staff: • 5 professionals • 3 technicians • Appraisal, accessioning, arrangement, and description • Give advice on records management to local governments • 5 separate records management systems in Ohio

5. Electronic Records Programat the State Archives of Ohio • Electronic Records • Tried to influence electronic records policy • ERC and Ohio’s version of UETA • Tried to insure access to electronic records • GILS & RIMS • Tried to preserve electronic records • JERRI

6. Electronic Records Policy • Electronic Records Committee • Started the ERC in 1998 to consider electronic records issues in depth • ERC made up of about 35 people • Archivists, records managers, IT people • State Archivist is chair • ERC makes recommendations to Dept. of Administrative Services (DAS) for implementation

7. Electronic Records Policy • ERC • Electronic records policy for the State that DAS adopted on 1 May 1999 • Guidelines for Digital Imaging Systems • General Schedule for Administrative ER • Guidelines for Managing E-mail • Recommendations for Electronic Publications • Electronic Records Management Guidelines

8. Electronic Records Policy • ERC • Currently modifying Minnesota’s Trustworthy Information Systems Handbook for use in Ohio • Sub-committee drafting protocols for replying to public records requests for databases • Scheduled to create a working group to recommend DOD5015.2 Records Management software • Department of Insurance - e-mail litigation • Michigan assisted us

9. Electronic Records Policy • Ohio’s Version of UETA • H.B. 488 - effective date Sept. 14, 2000 • State CIO created a committee to modify the UETA for Ohio • State Archivist only non-DAS person on the committee • State Archives GILS application used PKI • ERC

10. Electronic Records Policy • 1306.20 ORC • If a state agency changes the format of an electronic record it must demonstrate that the alternative format accurately and completely reflects the record as it was originally created, used, sent, or received • The state agency shall create a certificate of authenticity for each set of records that is altered • DAS in consultation with the state archivist, shall adopt rules that establish the methods for creating certificates of authenticity

11. Electronic Records Policy • 1306.21 ORC • With regard to state agency use of electronic records or electronic signatures, DAS, in consultation with the state archivist, shall adopt rules setting forth all of the following: • The minimum requirements for the method of creation,maintenance, and security of electronic records and electronic signatures;

12. Electronic Records Policy • 1306.21 ORC • Can also create rules that: • Control processes and procedures as appropriate to ensure adequate preservation, disposition, integrity, security, confidentiality, and auditability of electronic records; • Any other required attributes for electronic records that are specified for corresponding nonelectronic records or are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

13. Electronic Records Policy • DAS has not created any administrative rules for electronic records at this point • “In consultation” means that State Archives will be involved in the process • Supreme Court of Ohio creating committees to look at similar issues • will ask State Archives to assist with those committees

14. Accessioning Electronic Records Informal Criteria for Accessioning Electronic Records • Originating agency cannot maintain the records • Non-proprietary formats • Records that would loose significant functionality if maintained in another format • Reasonable expectation that OHS can preserve and make the records available to the public

15. Accessioning Electronic Records We have accessioned: • OBES e-mail • 2 Web sites • What do we do about government entities that image permanent records and then want to dispose of the paper?

16. OBES E-Mail • OBES was switching from non-Y2K compliant e-mail system to a compliant system - merged into another agency • Wanted State Archives to sign off on the destruction of eleven years of e-mail • Executive correspondence “to be reviewed by State Archives” • E-mail Guidelines - defined by content • Credibility was at stake

17. OBES E-Mail • Accession • Took e-mail accounts of 45 OBES executives - 3 Agency heads and 42 Department Heads • 334,000 e-mails from 1987-1998 • early implementation of agency e-mail • Most of it is inter-office memos • ASCII Text files • System documentation and policies • Good test case

18. OBES E-Mail • E-mail includes: • To • From • CC - names with e-mail addresses • Date - created and sent • Subject Line • Text - no attachments • Index by account (sender)

19. OBES E-Mail • Status • Put the e-mail on our production server • Three sets of CD-ROMs • SDSC to wrap the e-mail in XML • Dump the e-mail into a database • Appraise using sort functions • Use a report to duplicate the structure • Document what we do

20. Websites • Websites from two agencies who went defunct • Women’s Policy and Research Commission • State and Local Government Commission • Both are “Brochure-ware” websites • No databases or dynamically generated pages • Simple HTML • Modification of code to make the internal links work • Keep in electronic format? • Printed them out

21. Electronic Publications • As part of the JERRI project OHS partnered with: • State Library of Ohio • DAS • Ohio Supercomputer Center • Electronic Publications Pilot Project (EP3) was a spin off of JERRI dealing with electronic publications • LSTA funding • Tested software to capture publications

22. Electronic Publications • OCLC is working on a “Digital Vault” project to sell the capture and preservation of electronic publications to their customers • OCLC has asked the JERRI partners to be consultants on their project • SLO signing a contract with OCLC • Rest of the JERRI partners are signing a MOU with SLO to work on the project

23. Plans • State Archives Server • OBES E-mail • Finding aid • Public accessible database to search, retrieve, view, and print out the e-mail • Web sites • Finding aid • View and print out the web site

24. Plans • We hope that the partnership with SLO and OCLC • gives SLO a method of capturing electronic publications • non-proprietary method of preserving electronic publications

25. Problems • Do we make these electronic records available through the web? • Do we do one interface for all access to all electronic records or do we do separate applications? • How do we integrate electronic records series with other digital collections? • How do preserve the records?????

26. Conclusions • Policy: • To document migration • To dictate the formats of electronic records • To try to make sure that electronic records are created and maintained in a reliable and authentic manner • Experimenting with OBES e-mail/agency web sites to learn how to process and provide access to electronic records

27. Conclusions • Formed new partnerships to deal with electronic electronic records issues • We are trying to balance: • Our limited resources • To address electronic records issues • While meeting our obligations to collect records of enduring historical value • So that we maintain our credibility

28. Conclusions • Questions?