RLG Digital Certification Task Force Don Sawyer 2 November 2004

Background (from David’s Montreal report) RLG and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) are the joint creators of this task force. Its purpose is to produce certification requirements for establishing and selecting reliable digital information repositories. This effort is part of ongoing work with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model, and RLG and NARA intend the results to go into the standardization process through the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) Archiving Series.

Team members (Montreal Report) Bruce Ambacher, Co-Chair National Archives and Records Administration Kevin Ashley University of London Computing Centre John Berry Internet Archive Connie Brooks Stanford University Judith Cobb OCLC Dale Flecker Harvard University David Giaretta Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, UK Maggie Jones Digital Preservation Coalition, UK William LeFurgy Library of Congress  Julien Masanes Bibliothèque nationale de France Nancy McGovern Cornell University Don Sawyer National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johan Steenbakkers Koninklijke Bibliotheek RLG staff liaison: Robin Dale Task Force Co-Chair - RLG Program Officer

Main inputs OAIS Reference Model RLG: Trusted Digital Repositories

Status Original framework, described in Montreal, being replaced by alternatives Content was in terms of item descriptions with identified metrics/standards Wide range of detail and overlapping issues made it difficult to make progress Several alternative frameworks proposed David and Don proposed an alternative more closely aligned to OAIS and, initially, more textually oriented Current framework is OAIS and process oriented, with following major sections: Administrative/organizational process Ingest process Preservation planning process Archival Storage process Data Management process Access process Members volunteered to fill out the various sections Too soon to say how it is working, but appears to be improvement OAIS sub-functions provide text to encourage ‘certification view’ from members Telecon now every 2 to 3 weeks

Personal Thoughts Certification wrt “preservation” and/or “performance”? David and I proposed focus on ‘preservation’ only Not accepted at this point - both currently in play Migration not clearly identified topic Potentially in ‘Administration’ from OAIS view No clear distinction between broad applicability criteria and specializations Believe needed for successful result

Backups from David’s Montreal Report, May 2004

Team activities Examples of documentation that might be used as indicators of compliance The metrics and methods that might be used to document compliance Places that might require more detailed breakouts or specifications Items that might be merged to simplify the process Potential levels of compliance Mandatory, desirable, optional levels Relevant standards that might form the basis for certification protocols

Wiki Wiki has been created to allow Team members to edit the document on-line