1. DSA & WDS WG Certification RDA Outputs: Munich 20 February 2015

2. 2 “Importance of Certification and brief overview of certification schemes”

3. 3 A show of hands:  OAIS Open Archival Information Reference Model  Trusted Digital Repositories (TDR)  European Framework for Trusted Digital Repositories  ICSU- World Data System(WDS)  Data Seal of Approval (DSA)  DIN31644: Information and Documentation - Criteria for TDR  ISO16363: Audit and certification of TDR

4. 4 “Importance of Certification and brief overview of certification schemes”  Is certification important?  Is Trusted Digital Repository Certification important?  Does your organisation plan to certify?  Have you investigated TDR issues  Is your organisation certified as a TDR?  Does your organisation hold other certifications?

5. 5 ICSU- World Data System ‘ICSU’s long-term vision is of a world where excellence in science is effectively translated into policy making and socioeconomic development. In such a world, universal and equitable access to scientific data and information is a reality …’ WDS membership certification by the Scientific Committee:  Potential members apply through a short letter of intent  The SC decides whether their activities are relevant to the WDS  The applicant fills a form with its answers to the membership criteria

6. 6 WDS Membership: January 2015 57 Regular: Data stewardship organizations and data analysis services (individual data centres and data services) 10 Network: Networks of Regular Members / umbrella organizations of nodes having common characteristics (IODE, IVOA…) 4 Partner: Neither data stewards nor data analysts, but contribute support or funding to ICSU-WDS (ICSU Scientific Unions…) 18 Associate: Organizations interested in the WDS endeavour (national scientific academies, science publishers,…)

7. 7 WDS-Criteria WDS general requirements and policies:  Management of data, products and services  WDS deals with ‘data centres’ and ‘data services’  Technical infrastructure  Questions linked to the organisational framework and to how the scientific relevance is ensured

8. 8 Data Seal of Approval 16 Guidelines Self-assessment, no external auditors or site visit Peer-reviewed process supervised by DSA Board DSA granted for a period of two years Online tool for self-assessment and review with public evidence

9. 9 Data Seal of Approval Initiated by DANS in the Netherlands in 2005, first version presented in 2007 Internationalized and handed over to international board in 2009 and first assessments done in 2010 Now 40+ repositories with the Data Seal, with another 40+ in progress

10. 10 Data Seal of Approval: objectives Assure data producers that their data are reliably managed and preserved Instil confidence in funders that data in which they have invested will be available for re-use in the future Provide a transparent view into repositories to enable data consumers to assess them

11. 11 DSA/WDS collaboration within RDA DSA and WDS are two ‘basic’ certification frameworks DSA began in social science and humanities, WDS in natural and physical sciences but both expanding in scope WDS members are data centres AND services Collaboration through RDA: Certification IG Repository Audit and Certification WG RDA framework allows wider membership Certification WG: compare and align the certification frameworks

12. 12 Working Group Goals  Develop common catalogue of criteria for basic repository assessment  Develop common procedures for assessment  Implement a shared test bed for assessment  Ultimately, create a shared framework for certification that includes other standards as well

13. 13 Procedures for Mapping  Collaborative Google spreadsheet of all relevant certification information  Mapped the DSA to the WDS, and the WDS to the DSA  Held lengthy discussions on each guideline,  Group members noted areas of agreement, partial agreement, and gaps on each side and documented rationale

14. 14 General Findings Lists have similarities and differences:  DSA guidelines more concise; WDS has multipart criteria  DSA focus on data management, not organizational stability  WDS certification includes membership in the WDS and certification of services, not in scope for the DSA

15. 15 Mapping Discovery  Shows mappings along with notes on level of the match (good match, partial, gap, etc.) for 17 criteria  Reconciles the two standards with suggested common language for requirements  Assigns a topic to each common requirement, e.g., Discovery, Appraisal, Continuity of Access  Assigns ISO16363/TRAC label(s): Organizational Infrastructure, Digital Object Management, Technology

16. 16 Other collaboration tracks  Bottom-up: common members!  Expands the basis of DSA and WDS  Better aligned certification frameworks would facilitate cross-membership

17. 17 Other collaboration tracks  C1Context Org Infrastructure / Digital Object Management Please provide context for your repository  C2Appraisal Digital Object Management The repository accepts data and metadata based on defined criteria to ensure relevance and understandability for data users  C3Mission/Scope Organizational Infrastructure The repository has an explicit mission to provide access to and preserve data in its domain

18. 18 Other collaboration tracks  C4Documented storage procedures Digital Object Management The repository applies documented processes and procedures in managing archival storage of the data  C5Preservation plan Digital Object Management The repository assumes responsibility for long-term preservation and manages this function in a planned and documented way  C6Workflows Digital Object Management Archiving takes place according to defined workflows from ingest to dissemination

19. 19 Other collaboration tracks  C7Data discovery and identification Digital Object Management The repository enables users to discover the data and refer to them in a persistent way through proper citation  C8Data reuse Digital Object Management The repository enables reuse of the data over time, ensuring that appropriate metadata are available to support the understanding and use of the data  C9Data integrity and authenticity Digital Object Management The repository guarantees the integrity and authenticity of the data

20. 20 Other collaboration tracks  C10Technical infrastructure Technology The repository functions on well-supported operating systems and other core infrastructural software and is using hardware and software technologies appropriate to the services it provides to its Designated Community(ies)  C11Security Organizational Infrastructure, Digital Object Management, Technology The technical infrastructure of the repository provides for protection of the facility and its data, products, services, and users

21. 21 Other collaboration tracks  C12Licenses Organizational Infrastructure The repository maintains all applicable licenses covering data access and use and monitors compliance  C13Continuity of access Org Infrastructure / Digital Object Management The repository has a continuity plan to ensure ongoing access to and preservation of its holdings  C14Data quality Digital Object Management The repository has appropriate expertise to address technical data and metadata quality and ensures that sufficient information is available for end users to make quality-related evaluations

22. 22 Other collaboration tracks  C15Confidentiality/ethics Organizational Infrastructure The repository ensures, to the extent possible, that data are created, curated, accessed, and used in compliance with disciplinary and ethical norms  C16Organizational infrastructure Organizational Infrastructure The repository has adequate funding and sufficient numbers of qualified staff managed through a clear system of governance to effectively carry out the mission  C17Expert guidance Organizational Infrastructure The repository adopts mechanism(s) to secure ongoing expert guidance and feedback (either in-house, or external, including scientific if relevant)