Records Management Network Digital Archiving Workshop 19 March 2015

neoVEO The new VERS standard Andrew Waugh, Senior Manager, Standards and Policy

Design goals of the revision What were we trying to do?

Simplify Make the standard simpler to implement (and understand) Drastically reduced in length Adopted simpler mechanisms (e.g. digital signatures, ZIP file) Use of existing work (e.g. AGLS, ASNZS) Elimination of little used features (e.g. some metadata)

Flexibility Make the standard more flexible in representing and holding records Move away from EDRMS focus Eliminate rigid file/record/document hierarchy Provision for arbitrary hierarchy with content at any level Support arbitrary packages of metadata to assist in describing content (e.g. digitisation, geospatial) No specific structure required for record content BUT too much flexibility affects simplicity

Efficiency Reduce the cost of creating and storing records Storage of large binary objects (e.g. databases, video, audio, websites) Eliminate unnecessary migrations of content to long term preservation formats

Preservation Retain the characteristics that assist in preserving long term access Package a record into a single object for long term management Recordkeeping metadata to describe record and its context Use of long term preservation formats to minimise preservation actions Digital signatures to detect corruption of record object

neoVEO The new Standard

Basis for revised standard Our end goal is the long term preservation of records held in an agency or an archive The focus of the standard is on records held outside operational systems Operational systems may not be EDRM systems Standard is based on generation of VEOs when moving records out of operational systems does not impose requirements on creating system beyond this (i.e. no functional requirements

Tin tack requirements Requirements on creating system are similar to the current standard: Can generate VEOs (Spec 1) Holds mandatory metadata (Spec 2) Content is in an approved long term preservation format (Spec 3)

In practice Key features of new standard ZIP file used as package Separation of metadata, content, VEO history & digital signatures Flexible information structure 2 standard metadata packages Accepts user defined metadata packages Different focus with long term preservation formats

Specification 1: Creating VEOs What is in a VEO?

Take away

Contents of a VEO zip file VEOReadme.txt – text file containing a human readable description of a VEO Content subdirectories – contain the content files in the record VEOContent.xml – logically organises the content into records and associates metadata VEOHistory.xml – contains events in the history of the VEO VEO*Signature?.xml – contains the digital signatures that lock the VEOContent and VEOHistory files

Key features Allows efficient inclusion of large binary objects Separates physical structure of content from logical arrangement in record Allows event log to grow without requiring record to be resigned Simplifies calculation of digital signatures

Specification 2: Metadata Describing the record

Take away Must include one package of standard metadata in each VEO Augmented AGLS ASNZS 5478/AGRkMS May include any other metadata packages Must be representable in XML We encourage use of RDF, but don’t require it

AGLS Records may be described using AGLS Chosen because many records will already be described using AGLS, and most IM professionals will be familiar with AGLS Must be expressed in RDF Needed to add additional properties to document disposal

ASNZS 5478 Australian/New Zealand Standard for Recordkeeping Metadata Not yet published - soon Based on NAA/ANZ recordkeeping metadata standards Current VERS metadata is based on an earlier version of the NAA metadata Specification does not define the elements Must be expressed as RDF (templates provided)

Specification 3: Long term preservation formats Access for the long term

Take Away Continue to limit formats accepted to maximise likelihood of access and to reduce preservation cost Change in criteria by which good formats are selected (economics is a key criteria) Focus on reducing migrations of common formats that are unlikely to be a preservation risk in forseeable future (i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint)

Background All formats are likely to require preservation actions (e.g. migration to a new format) at some point A good long term preservation format is Likely to be accessible for a long time AND Likely to have migration tools available if it does become obsolete

Characteristics of LTPF A good long term preservation format is one that is: Economically dominant in its field Implemented by multiple independent products Has a published specification (note we do not require this to be an open specification)

Formats Existing VERS formats: Text, PDF, TIFF, JPEG, JPEG2000, MPEG4 Document HTML, XML, Word Spreadsheet CSV, Excel Audio MPEG 1/2 Audio Layer 3 MPEG 4 MIME

Where to from here? What does this mean for you?

Short term (eofy 2015) New standard and supporting tools will be available from PROV web site

Longer term (several years) Re-implement PROV digital archive to accept new version VEOs.

Any questions?

Records Management Network Digital Archiving Workshop 19 March 2015

Digital Archiving Workshop- contacts Transferring relational databases to PROV Peter Francis Standards and Policy Ph: NeoVEO Andrew Waugh Standards and Policy Ph: