The Development of a Standard for Digital Repository Certification Bruce Ambacher National Archives and Records Administration Mission: Preserve digital information • Problem: ensuring digital information is accessible, usable, preserved • Problem: Digital repositories claim to be capable • Problem: No valid measure to apply The Sponsors: NARA • First national archives to preserve digital archives (April 1970) • Largest collection of archival digital holdings • Electronic Records Archives – multi-year, multi-Exabyte digital repository, operational in 2007 • Concern for content, context, authenticity The Sponsors: RLG • Preserving Digital Information (1996) with the Commission on Preservation and Access • Trusted Digital Repositories (2002) • 30 years of standards and best practices in access and preservation The Working Group • RLG, NARA, national libraries of U.S., Netherlands, & France, NASA, OCLC, Internet Archives, Harvard, Stanford,, Cornell, University of London, Digital Preservation Coalition, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories Project Goal • Devise a methodology to identify digital repositories capable of reliably storing, migrating, and providing access to digital collections, capable of winning our trust in their capacity and ability to preserve digital information. • Produce certification requirements • Delineate a process for certification • Identify a certifying body to implement process Methodology Used to Date • Review recent literature • Review and address certification options from other disciplines • Identify a list of certifiable elements • Create a standard certification process or framework Draft Checklist - Organization • • • • • Governance and Organizational Viability Organizational structure and staffing Procedural accountability and policy Financial stability Contracts, licenses, liabilities Draft Checklist – Archival Functions • Ingesting Submission Information Packages (SIP) • Transforming SIPs to Archival Information Packages (AIP) • Archival Storage • Preservation Planning • Data Migration Typical Questions • B2.7 Repository provides an independent mechanism for audit of the integrity of the repository collection/content • B3.1 Repository has documented preservation strategies • B3.2 Repository implements/responds to strategies for AIP storage and migration • B3.7 Repository actively monitors AIP integrity Draft Checklist – Designated Community • Repository has in place procedures to specify a Designated Community • Repository has in place procedures to monitor changes in Designated Community • Repository meets changing technology needs of Designated Community Draft Checklist - Technologies • • • • Archival Storage and its infrastructure System infrastructure System security Disaster planning Unresolved Issues • Do best practices vary by domain? • What attributes will be certified? • Is an official certifying body needed? If so who will designate this body? How will people be qualified as certifiers? • What role will repositories play in developing/revising the certification criteria? Current Status • 09/30/05 – 01/15/06 Public Review of draft Audit Checklist for the Certification of Trusted Digital Repositories • 09/30/05 – 01/15/06 Field testing of draft checklist • 01/15/06 Review of comments and field test results and revision of Audit Checklist • Standardization through ISO Archiving Backup Task • Identify certifying body or bodies • Identify a timetable for execution & adherence • Identify frequency or cycle of certification • Define the conditions for revocation • Create technical models • Create economic models for sustainablility • Create implementation scenarios