1. APT Trustworthy Digital Repository / Certification Working Group Progress Report, October 2015 Stephen Paul Davis, Columbia University Libraries

2. Why Create a Consortial Trustworthy Digital Repository? To responsibly preserve our cultural record for the future To be able to assure donors that their digital and digitized collections will be responsibly cared for and made available over the long term To be able to assure funding agencies that their grants and gifts will yield long-term benefits To make it unnecessary for individual institutions to build separate, standalone preservation repositories To reduce the costs of long-term preservation

3. What is a TDR? (Reminder)  A repository that has implemented ISO 14721:2012, Space data and information transfer systems – Open archival information system (OAIS) – Reference model  A repository that is in compliance with ISO 16363:201, Space data and information transfer systems -- Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories  A repository that has undergone certification according to ISO 16919:2014, Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories

4. Organizational Infrastructure  Governance and Organizational Viability  Organizational Structure and Staffing  Preservation Policy and Framework  Financial Sustainability Digital Object Management  Acquisition of Content  Creation of Archival Information Package  Preservation Planning  Access Management Infrastructure and Security Risk Management  Content Replication  Technology Inventory and Monitoring  Technical Audits  Software Replacement and Monitoring Key Characteristics of a TDR

5. APTrust’s Opportunity  To build a TDR from the ground up rather than after the fact  To help shape the technical, policy and organizational framework of APT to meet the goal of “trustworthiness”  To save time and money when formal audit and certification is conducted

6. Which Repositories Have Already Been Certified?  Canadiana.org (2015)  CLOCKSS (2014)  Scholars Portal (2013)  Chronopolis (2012)  Hathitrust (2011)  Portico (2010) (Per CRL https://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital- archives/certification-assessment -- 10/2/2014)https://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital- archives/certification-assessment

7. TDR/Cert Working Group Members  Sean Crowe, University of Cincinnati (crowesn@ucmail.uc.edu)crowesn@ucmail.uc.edu  Bradley Daigle, UVa (bjd2b@eservices.virginia.edu)bjd2b@eservices.virginia.edu  Heidi Dowding, Indiana University ( heidowdi@indiana.edu )heidowdi@indiana.edu  Andrew Hart, UNC (ashart@email.unc.edu)ashart@email.unc.edu  Kara McClurken, UVa (kmm6ef@eservices.virginia.edu)kmm6ef@eservices.virginia.edu  Dina Sokolova, Columbia (ds2057@columbia.edu)ds2057@columbia.edu  Jordon Steele, Johns Hopkins (jsteele@jhu.edu)jsteele@jhu.edu  Stephen Davis, Columbia, Sub-Group Lead (daviss@columbia.edu)daviss@columbia.edu

8. Working Group Methodology: 2015  Study ISO 16363: Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories  Identify current APT organizational structure  Identify highest priority ISO requirements  Locate and document existing documentation addressing ISO requirements  Identify areas where there is no appropriate documentation – or no appropriate policies, procedures, strategies  Ask questions, elicit answers, encourage creation of policies, procedures, strategies and documentation as needed  Put in place mechanism for change monitoring

9. TDR / Cert Working Group Tools  Nancy McGovern’s ISO/TDR Drupal application – AP Trust Edition https://trac-audit-aptrust.cul.columbia.edu/trac/ https://trac-audit-aptrust.cul.columbia.edu/trac/  Documentation Library on Google Drive http://tinyurl.com/APTTDR http://tinyurl.com/APTTDR

10. Evolving TDR Strategies / Issues  “Digital Preservation Maturity Model” (Tournesol Consulting)  “Data Seal of Approval” (Research Data)  New Standard: ISO 16919:2014, Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories  Critiques of ISO 16363 – e.g., by Seth Anderson, Preservica  Important for APT to continue environmental scan of evolving TDR practices, policies, opportunities, initiatives and tooling.

11. Related Task Areas / Topics for Discussion  Does APTrust’s implementation of the OAIS Reference Model conform to ISO 14721:2012?  What should depositors’ SIPs include in order to meet OAIS and TDR requirements?  What role might APTrust have in supporting the “curation lifecycle”?  Does the preservation of born-digital content such as institutional records and research data raise new questions / bring new opportunities?

12. Proposed Timeframe for TDR/Cert  2015 November-December : Document Current APTrust Environment; identify gaps, issues  2016 January-June : Collaborate to fill gaps, address issues  2016 June-December: Conduct full self-audit (possibly with outside consultant)  2017: Formal ISO 16363 Audit

13. Current info will be posted to http://tinyurl.com/APTTDR http://tinyurl.com/APTTDR