1. PARSE.Insight Framework and Lesson Learned David Giaretta (STFC)

2. Overview Aims Survey Roadmap

3. Alliance for Permanent Access The Alliance aims to develop a shared vision and framework for a sustainable organisational infrastructure for permanent access to scientific information  The British Library  European Organization for Nuclear Research [CERN]  CSC — IT Center for Science  Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters  Deutsche Nationalbibliothek  Digital Preservation Coalition  European Science Foundation [ESF]  European Space Agency [ESA]  Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren  International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers  Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC]  Koninklijke Bibliotheek  Max-Planck-Gesellschaft  NESTOR Kompenteznetzwerk  Nationale Coalitie Digitale Duurzaamheid [NCDD]  Portico  Science & Technology Facilities Council [STFC] http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/

4. Alliance for Permanent Access The Alliance aims to develop a shared vision and framework for a sustainable organisational infrastructure for permanent access to scientific information  The British Library  European Organization for Nuclear Research [CERN]  CSC — IT Center for Science  Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters  Deutsche Nationalbibliothek  Digital Preservation Coalition  European Science Foundation [ESF]  European Space Agency [ESA]  Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren  International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers  Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC]  Koninklijke Bibliotheek  Max-Planck-Gesellschaft  NESTOR Kompenteznetzwerk  Nationale Coalitie Digitale Duurzaamheid [NCDD]  Portico  Science & Technology Facilities Council [STFC] http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/ PARSE.Insight

5. PARSE.Insight aims to provide: –Insight and understanding into the capabilities and practices within the various research communities –An inventory of current and planned research and development relating to e-infrastructures and permanent access –A roadmap for a support e-infrastructure for maintaining long- term accessibility and usability of scientific and other digital information in Europe –Identification of gaps in the existing and planned infrastructure –Progress towards a standard for evaluating the sustainability and trustworthiness of digital repositories

6. Motivation Concern with data and documents Need for supporting e-infrastructure –What should this look like? –How can it be developed? –What timescale? The role of the Alliance for Permanent Access

7. Infrastructures for preservation Social / Legal / Financial / Organisational Agreements / Trust / Standards Costs/ Benefits/ Rewards Technical components

8. Lessons from other Infrastructures Need to “grow”, “encourage”, “foster” rather than “build” include organisational, financial, legal & marketing Provide services rather than specific technologies Tackle “choke points” Various phases of development

9. Approach Approach based on evidence from community insight … … while taking full account of current work on digital preservation Coverage of disciplines: wide and deep Coverage of resources: data and documents

10. Approach (2) Top-down: –Desk research –Targeted surveys to stakeholders in science –Interviews –Workshops and conferences Bottom-up: case studies in 3 communities: –Case 1: High Energy Physics (HEP) –Case 2: Earth Observation (EO) –Case 3: Social Sciences & Humanities (SSH)

11. Encouraging Organisational and Social change Policies: mandates for depositing research data and funding agencies requirements: Robust and reliable deposit places, where researchers can be sure their data will not get lost, be corrupted or misused with correct right access mechanisms. Elements that increase comfort levels so that new users will know how to use and interpret the available data. Communication and awareness around these issues. Have publication of data as valued and as referencable as is a publication of a paper in a journal.

12. 12 Benefits No organisation can do everything that is required for digital preservation forever Need to share the cost/effort Need to identify commonalities –None will be a perfect fit for all purposes

13. Insight: stakeholders Research Research institutes (non-profit) Universities Academic libraries Data management (preservation) Data centres (profit / non- profit) Libraries Archives Funding/policy National Funding organisations European funding Corporate funding Publishing General (cross-community) publishers Specific (community) publishers

14. General Surveys to stakeholders Research 1397 responses Data management (preservation) 273 responses Funding/policy < responses Publishing 186 responses Plus a similar number from in- depth case studies

15. About researchers Communities aggregated to: Agriculture & Nutrition Behavioural Sciences Humanities Life Sciences Medicine Social Sciences Physical Sciences Socio-Cultural Sciences Technology Based on KNAW classification (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)

16. Reasons for preservation (R) It is unique It potentially has economic value It may stimulate inter-disciplinary collaborations. It allows for re-analysis of existing data. It may serve validation purposes in the future. It will stimulate the advancement of science. If research is publicly funded, the results should become public property and therefore properly preserved.

17. What? Data spectrum (R)

18. Sharing of data (R) How open is your data?

19. Sharing of data (R) Which constrains do you see in making data open?

20. Threats to preservation 1.The ones we trust to look after the digital holdings may let us down. 2.The current custodian of the data, whether an organisation or project, may cease to exist at some point in the future. 3.Loss of ability to identify the location of data. 4.Access and use restrictions (e.g. Digital Rights Management) may not be respected in the future. 5.Evidence may be lost because the origin and authenticity of the data may be uncertain. 6.Lack of sustainable hardware, software or support of computer environment may make the information inaccessible. 7.Users may be unable to understand or use the data e.g. the semantics, format or algorithms involved.

21. Threats to preservation (R) The ones we trust to look after the digital holdings may let us down The current custodian of the data may cease to exist Loss of ability to identify the location of data Access and use restrictions may not be respected in the future Evidence may be lost Lack of sustainable hardware/software Users may be unable to understand or use the data

22. Threats to preservation (R) Users may be unable to understand or use the data e.g. the semantics, format or algorithms involved.

23. ThreatRequirement for solution Users may be unable to understand or use the data e.g. the semantics, format, processes or algorithms involved Ability to create and maintain adequate Representation Information Non-maintainability of essential hardware, software or support environment may make the information inaccessible Ability to share information about the availability of hardware and software and their replacements/substitutes The chain of evidence may be lost and there may be lack of certainty of provenance or authenticity Ability to bring together evidence from diverse sources about the Authenticity of a digital object Access and use restrictions may make it difficult to reuse data, or alternatively may not be respected in future Ability to deal with Digital Rights correctly in a changing and evolving environment Loss of ability to identify the location of dataAn ID resolver which is really persistent The current custodian of the data, whether an organisation or project, may cease to exist at some point in the future Brokering of organisations to hold data and the ability to package together the information needed to transfer information between organisations ready for long term preservation The ones we trust to look after the digital holdings may let us down Certification process so that one can have confidence about whom to trust to preserve data holdings over the long term

24. FUTURE Users may be unable to understand or use the data e.g. the semantics, format, processes or algorithms involved Non-maintainability of essential hardware, software or support environment may make the information inaccessible The chain of evidence may be lost and there may be lack of certainty of provenance or authenticity Access and use restrictions may not be respected in the future Loss of ability to identify the location of data The current custodian of the data, whether an organisation or project, may cease to exist at some point in the future The ones we trust to look after the digital holdings may let us down

25. Links CASPAR: –www.casparpreserves.eu –http://www.casparpreserves.eu/Members/cclrc/Deliverables/caspar- validation-evaluation-report/at_download/file - Validation report –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yun9hkPPF9M - cartoon PARSE.Insight: www.parse-insight.eu Alliance for Permanent Access www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu Digital Curation Centre: www.dcc.ac.uk Audit and certification: wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org OAIS: http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/rids/Lists/CCSDS%206500P11/Overview.aspx http://developers.casparpreserves.eu http://sourceforge.net/projects/digitalpreserve

26. END