©MIT LKTR Workshop, Digital Archive Policies and Trusted Digital Repositories MacKenzie Smith, MIT Libraries Reagan Moore, San Diego Supercomputer Center

©MIT LKTR Workshop, What is the Problem? Need to extract local collection management policies from software to be more discoverable, configurable Need to standardize ILM policies to support sharing across systems within a preservation environment Need to define metadata to audit ILM operations and achieve trust in a scalable, automated way

©MIT LKTR Workshop, 20073

4 Policy Framework Based on NARA/RLG TDR checklist categories: Organization, environment and legal policies Community and usability policies Process and Procedure policies Technology and Infrastructure policies

©MIT LKTR Workshop, Policy Encoding Looked at lots of schemas and approaches XACML and BPEL too limited Single purpose (access control, rights management, workflow, etc.) Ponder and KAoS too risky Research projects that are no longer active RuleML and Rei (N3) RDF ontology best fit Selected Rei

©MIT LKTR Workshop, Policy Exchange Repository management system – DIPs METS (also looked at XFDU, IMS CP, DIDL, etc.) encapsulate content files, metadata, provenance, and policies Virtual storage system – SIPs enforce policies based on locally-implemented rules produce state information (metadata) auditable by archivist over time

©MIT LKTR Workshop, Rule Definition Based on assessment criteria (e.g. TDR checklist) local preservation policies preservation system functional capabilities Implemented as Rules controlling micro-services with associated persistent state information

©MIT LKTR Workshop, Case Study iRODS virtualized storage environment Provides 3 rd party preservation services Rules derived from local policy, preservation requirements Provides metadata to allow monitoring for trust (i.e. assessment) institutional repository Defines local collection management policies Consumes 3 rd party preservation services (e.g. iRODS) Provides provenance/audit (History) to monitor trust

©MIT LKTR Workshop, Rule-based Preservation Policies Generated Rules Event-Condition-Actions i.e. set of micro-services or other rules Each micro-service corresponds to operations on a record at a remote storage location Each micro-service has a recovery procedure to handle remote system failure or unavailability Persistent state information is saved to track the outcome from applying the rule

©MIT LKTR Workshop, Self-consistency and Closure For every required preservation attribute (authenticity and integrity) are their assessment criteria? For every assessment criterion, does there exist preservation metadata? Are the properties of the preservation environment also preserved?