Working Group: Preservation

From FedoraWiki

Return to Working Groups


Preservation Services Working Group

Chair:

  • Ron Jantz (Rutgers University)

Members:

  • Grace Agnew, Rutgers University
  • Andrew Bennett, U. of Queensland
  • Paul Bevan, National Library of Wales
  • Dan Davis, Harris Corporation
  • Kevin Glick, Yale University
  • Chritiaan Kortikaas, U. of Queensland
  • Sandy Payette, Cornell University
  • Eliot Wilczek, Tufts University

Other Contributors:

  • Kevin Bradley, National Library of Australia


This group is charged with developing a general definition of preservation services for the Fedora service framework. The group will recommend enhancements to the Fedora repository service as well develop specifications for new preservation-support services for the Fedora Service Framework.

[edit]

Minutes


[edit]

Working Group Charter

Preservation Services – FEDORA Working Group Charter 8/23/2005

Organization of the Working Group (WG)

  • Members will be selected by invitation with emphasis on those who are actively involved with Fedora and who have experience/interest in digital preservation.
  • We need to represent several communities in the WG including archivists, science and social sciences data (data curation), and someone from the Fedora development team. Input on preservation requirements will be requested from the Fedora community at large.
  • Some face-to-face meetings will be required. Whenever possible, however, video conferencing and telephone conference calls will be used. WG members should plan to meet at the annual users’ meeting
  • Schedule. The WG will develop a schedule to produce major outputs at the six month and one year interval.


Output of the WG

  • Requirements that represent what the user would want to do with digital preservation services. This should include several scenarios of use, such as the archiving of a faculty research project, the archiving of university websites and documents, the archiving of data, the archiving of cultural heritage materials, from the point of view of all the stakeholders. We should also develop minimum requirements to define a trusted repository.
  • Architecture and APIs showing how preservation services would be integrated into Fedora 2.x as part of the core system and as a service layer.
  • Extension of Fedora’s metadata capabilities to support the recommended best practices.
  • Prototyping will be undertaken as appropriate to verify or demonstrate requirements. Some of the prototyping may be used in the development as part of an iterative development process.
  • A development plan that specifies the major phases of development and a proposed timeline.
  • A preliminary grant proposal


Preservation Services Architecture The user process and the boundaries of the digital preservation process will be defined by the WG. At this stage, we believe the preservation services should start with the assumption that a digital object has been created. We would therefore cover objects that are born-digital as well as those created from a physical artifact. Although this needs more discussion in the WG, it would suggest that we focus on processes P1.0 and P2.0 in the process diagram below.

  • A description of the suite of preservations services
  • Service operation – how it works
  • How to interoperate with the service – APIs, utilities,
  • Based on services in Fedora 2.x


Further Discussion. We need to decide in the WG how much we can undertake and how the work maps to our schedule. The following are items that can be included in our WG activities:

  • A plan for federated preservation within the Fedora community. Preservation is a difficult task and needs the economies of scale that a shared platform should leverage.
  • RLG and OCLC are working on a trusted repository certification process. The WG should collaborate with RLG/OCLC as reactors and testers of their certification process.
  • A definition of how Fedora qualifies as an OAIS platform, demonstrating conformance with the model proposed by OAIS. This will help also with marketing Fedora to savvy archives.
  • Recommended best practices for preservation and provenance metadata to support collaborative preservation.


Related work (groups, technologies, standards the WG should review)

  • NDIIP, NLA, CEDARS, etc
  • Content models – how integrated with an object (e.g. digiprov metadata)
  • Persistent Ids (CNRI Handle, ARKs, Fedora PIDS as Handles, etc)
  • Object and format validation (JHOVE). What is the digital original? Does this object have the standard format for a jpeg, wav (etc) file?
  • PREMIS (preservation metadata – data dictionary from OCLC/RLG)
  • Migration events
  • Audit trails and versioning
    • Intelligent agents and semi-automated preservation processes
    • Canonical forms for archival masters



Return to Working Groups

Retrieved from "http://www.fedora.info/wiki/index.php/Working_Group:_Preservation"