Fri Jan 9 11:15:35 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:OK, we maybe should get started. Thanks all for coming. I'm going to start us off with a question, but as I said earlier, please feel free to ask your own questions.
Fri Jan 9 11:17:21 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:The first question to get us warmed up (and may apologies if this is repition, but I wasn't at the workshop): How many of the practices associated with Digital repositories can be automated?
Fri Jan 9 11:19:05 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Almost all practices, except those connected with collection development need to be automated otherwise digital responsitories will be too expensive and will fail. Compromises in people's expectations are needed if we're to get anywhere.
Fri Jan 9 11:19:43 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:I'm taking an "extreme" position on purpose :-)
Fri Jan 9 11:20:03 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Oh my, that's a big question with which to begin. I thikn there are many, just beginning in the ingest process. The ingest itself - as we know from a few Rome presentations - have many options for automation. The Global Digital Format Registry may be one
Fri Jan 9 11:20:15 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:step in the larger quality control and validation process.
Fri Jan 9 11:21:01 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Have to agree with Vicky here :-) much can be automated. It's the human "intervention" that will slow the process and make it most expensive
Fri Jan 9 11:22:43 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Any process which can't be automated must be "worked around" -- I can't think of any that shouldn't be automated. What might those be?
Fri Jan 9 11:23:23 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:can the 'trusted' part of them be part of the automated process? In other words, does the automation hinder the trusted part?
Fri Jan 9 11:24:43 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Wait -- I'll be right back
Fri Jan 9 11:25:02 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Well speaking on behalf of the certification task force, I'd say that many of the automated processes will have to be auditable in some way (e.g., will be checked as a part of any certification process), so yes, they can be part of the trusted process.
Fri Jan 9 11:25:20 2004:Mariella [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:25:20 2004:Mariella [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:25:24 2004:Mariella [0/] JoinRoom:Rome_discussion
Fri Jan 9 11:25:54 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Ok, if they need to be auditable, is this done by humans, and at what junctures, and how much effort (cost) do you think this may be?
Fri Jan 9 11:26:02 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:I was looking for a one sentence definition of trusted, but i can't find it.
Fri Jan 9 11:26:04 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Right now, the task force is beginning to create a list of certifiable elements and is breaking the elements into two groups: organizational and functional. Many in the functional category are automated processes
Fri Jan 9 11:26:22 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:LOCKSS automates all the auditing
Fri Jan 9 11:27:03 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:how does it do this?
Fri Jan 9 11:27:07 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:What are examples of organizational elements
Fri Jan 9 11:27:29 2004:sheila_carey [2/] Msg:I guess I would say that it is the part before the repository that requires the most human intervention -- the selection.
Fri Jan 9 11:27:42 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Well past the creation of code, the auditing function can be mostly automatic, depending upon what is being audited obviously
Fri Jan 9 11:28:22 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Right, the selection can't be automated -- at least not more automated than a library approval plan; or an aggregated serial package
Fri Jan 9 11:28:30 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Let's see. The framework is being devised based on a hybrid of a few models, including the OAIS and the Trusted Digital Repositories report (among others)
Fri Jan 9 11:29:00 2004:Samir [0/] Logout:_
Fri Jan 9 11:29:02 2004:Samir [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:29:02 2004:Samir [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:30:01 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Therefore organizational elements may include Administrative responsibility (and the elements buried within that), Financial sustainability (ditto),
Fri Jan 9 11:30:15 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Organizational viability (ditto), etc.
Fri Jan 9 11:31:05 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:These are obviously not machine processes and the auditing of these things would be more time-consuming, just like it is to set them up at the onset of the digital repository
Fri Jan 9 11:31:18 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Ok, so the framework is trying to devise a way to capture information about an organization and then I assume it will set standards of trustworthiness?
Fri Jan 9 11:32:10 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Basically. And we also have the functional side, which will query the trustworthiness of processes, judge which ones will need to be in place (like LOCKSS automated auditing), etc.
Fri Jan 9 11:32:10 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Pete -- you asked how LOCKSS automates the auditing process. This is a longer you want to do this as part of this discussion?
Fri Jan 9 11:32:43 2004:Samir [0/] Logout:_
Fri Jan 9 11:32:45 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:well, if we think it is appropriate, yes, I'd be interested.
Fri Jan 9 11:32:49 2004:Samir [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:32:49 2004:Samir [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:33:08 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Is auditing key to what we are talking about in general here?
Fri Jan 9 11:33:20 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:I mean are we focussing on the trusted part......?
Fri Jan 9 11:33:52 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Audting is one piece of trusted.
Fri Jan 9 11:33:55 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I think it's a component of trusted.
Fri Jan 9 11:34:19 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:What are the other components? Shall we take this as the next question?
Fri Jan 9 11:34:38 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Robin said it: trusted is both function and organization. I have a list of elements.
Fri Jan 9 11:34:57 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Vicky- can you send me your list too?
Fri Jan 9 11:35:31 2004:sheila_carey [2/] Msg:I'd be interested in the list of elements too.
Fri Jan 9 11:36:01 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Elements of a trusted archive: 1. organization mission; organization business model; technical infrastructure: ingest, verification, storage, delivery, migration, redundency; relationships with all stakeholders.
Fri Jan 9 11:36:02 2004:Mariella [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:36:02 2004:Mariella [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:36:12 2004:Mariella [0/] JoinRoom:Rome_discussion
Fri Jan 9 11:36:47 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Ok, that's my list. It's my "touchstone" for LOCKSS
Fri Jan 9 11:37:09 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:But how do we ensure that we can trust the organisation mission, the migration, the delivery, the storage etc.?
Fri Jan 9 11:37:25 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:I'd be interested to know what's missing
Fri Jan 9 11:38:17 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I think that will be spelled out within the work of the Certification Task Force, but quickly, I'd say that there are ways to verify that an organization HAS a mission, that it's actions reflect that mission accurately, etc.
Fri Jan 9 11:38:28 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I could go on...
Fri Jan 9 11:39:19 2004:sheila_carey [2/] Msg:Robin -- is the certification task force going to provide examples of what is expected to show 'organizational viability'?
Fri Jan 9 11:40:12 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Yes, I think too you don't really "trust" -- you make sure the community has some control and power over the system and organization. Maybe certification is enough. Maybe more community leverage will be required.
Fri Jan 9 11:40:38 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:For example, open source software development; community coordinated collection work, etc.
Fri Jan 9 11:41:42 2004:sheila_carey [2/] Msg:Pete -- I will need to leave shortly. Will the chat session be archived for later reading?
Fri Jan 9 11:41:52 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Yes, we're in the process of developing certifiable elements - the components that must be judged within the larger categories. And I think Vicky is right on the mark. The community will need to play a part in trustworthiness - it's how all of our
Fri Jan 9 11:42:35 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Sorry, I forgot to mention to everyone, that yes, this is being archived, and I'll send the transcript to everyone to look over. I'll also create a summary that we hope to put up on the website with everyone's permission.
Fri Jan 9 11:42:53 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:organizations have been judged with analog collections. The certification process will hopefully speed this process along for digital collections and in time, the expectations of "trustworthiness" may be so well established that a certification process is
Fri Jan 9 11:43:03 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:no longer needed. I see that well into the future, however.
Fri Jan 9 11:44:41 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Pete- just a quick check. Is this an hour chat?
Fri Jan 9 11:45:20 2004:Mariella [2/] Msg:I wo
Fri Jan 9 11:46:43 2004:Mariella [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:46:43 2004:Mariella [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:46:46 2004:Mariella [0/] JoinRoom:Rome_discussion
Fri Jan 9 11:46:59 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Sorry, yes, ideally for an hour....
Fri Jan 9 11:47:44 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Does anybody have a quesiotn they would like to pose?
Fri Jan 9 11:48:08 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Seems to me that this archive will be of great interest to Hans and Andreas. They are in the process of planning the Erpanet workshop on audit
Fri Jan 9 11:48:38 2004:Mariella [2/] Msg:Sorry, but I have some problems with the connection. I would like to ask Robin how we could improve the awareness within the European institutions that seem less involved in building adequate repositories
Fri Jan 9 11:48:44 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:I don't have much information abut the framework group, who is participating, can you send a url?
Fri Jan 9 11:49:10 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:
Fri Jan 9 11:50:01 2004:sheila_carey [2/] Msg:bye everyone. I have to leave
Fri Jan 9 11:50:12 2004:sheila_carey [0/] Logout:_
Fri Jan 9 11:50:20 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:It's funny, Mariella. I would say that there are *many* European institutions and communities involved in building adequate repositories. In fact, many US institutions are following the lead set by many European groups.
Fri Jan 9 11:51:16 2004:Mariella [2/] Msg:Perhaps my experience is negative with reference to my country and to the archival sector, specifically
Fri Jan 9 11:51:19 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:I'm looking for a brief descripton of how LOCKSS audits content, it may only be in technical papers
Fri Jan 9 11:51:58 2004:Pete [0/] Logout:_
Fri Jan 9 11:52:02 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I think the greater problem I see is that Eu money is available for experiementation much more so than in the US so you have lots of projects testing proposals. Not all are successful (a problem for the investigators) but these projects are valuable
Fri Jan 9 11:52:07 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:learning tools for all others.
Fri Jan 9 11:52:21 2004:Pete [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:52:21 2004:Pete [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:52:21 2004:Pete [0/] JoinRoom:Rome_discussion
Fri Jan 9 11:52:49 2004:Mariella [2/] Msg:What is missing in Europe is the continuity and the lack of business plan, that I think are essential in this area
Fri Jan 9 11:53:10 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:OK, that makes some sense. I do have to admit that many of these early, leading projects have come out of Northern European countries.
Fri Jan 9 11:53:27 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Does this mean you think there should be one centralised body for trusted repositories Mariella?
Fri Jan 9 11:54:04 2004:Mariella [2/] Msg:I think that it should be necessary to organise some trusted repositories at least for the public institutions
Fri Jan 9 11:54:40 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:There you go - I think that would be a more accurate desire - a *network* of trusted repositories.
Fri Jan 9 11:55:09 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Yes. exactly. Network of trusted repostitories. Decentralized, redundent.
Fri Jan 9 11:55:16 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:All with the same certification though?
Fri Jan 9 11:55:19 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Your vision is not unlike what the US National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program seeks.
Fri Jan 9 11:56:10 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:No, they need not have the same level of certification.
Fri Jan 9 11:56:19 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Ah, that's a tricky question, Pete. I think certification will vary depending upon the kind of repository (as defined by mission, etc).
Fri Jan 9 11:56:26 2004:Mariella [2/] Msg:The risk is that the present complexity and the difficulties in finding resources and expertise could determine for many national bodies (State Archives, National and Provincial libraries) the impossibility to work in this function
Fri Jan 9 11:57:17 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I would argue that we'll probably see different certification "modules" (to borrow a word from the Task Force) and we'll likely see certification try to apply to some tools, eg., LOCKSS.
Fri Jan 9 11:57:24 2004:Mariellag [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:57:24 2004:Mariellag [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 11:57:24 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:It's not that hard if you don't try to solve all the problems at once. I was very impressed by the Australian Archive presentation for example. Very practical.
Fri Jan 9 11:57:27 2004:Mariellag [0/] JoinRoom:Rome_discussion
Fri Jan 9 11:57:33 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Would at least they have the same standards, or guidelines?
Fri Jan 9 11:58:00 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:We'll need all kinds of repositories and that doesn't mean just the traditional silo view or a networked silo view, if that makes sense.
Fri Jan 9 11:59:12 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I agree, Vicky. And other archives may want to borrow from their example, but I doubt what they do would ever be considered practical (or sufficient) for say, librarues
Fri Jan 9 11:59:17 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:libraries.
Fri Jan 9 11:59:50 2004:Samir [0/] Logout:_
Fri Jan 9 11:59:51 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Yeah, I think that makes sense...! But why then make it a network if they are going to be different and disparate?
Fri Jan 9 11:59:52 2004:Samir [0/] Login:
Fri Jan 9 11:59:52 2004:Samir [0/] IP:
Fri Jan 9 12:00:16 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:It's called "fault tolorant"
Fri Jan 9 12:00:36 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I think standards will apply for some specific things (another reason for different modules perhaps) because the US DOD standard won't apply for research library repositories
Fri Jan 9 12:01:10 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Networks that are heterogeneous are more able to withstand the pressures of time. And our purpose here is preservation.
Fri Jan 9 12:01:38 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Because not everybody can or will want to preserve the same thing. Having a network of trusted repositories - each trusted and being able to trust each other - will provide a way for a great deal of digital material to be preserved.
Fri Jan 9 12:01:53 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:Yes, some standards will be needed. I'll argue it's too early to be considering any standards.
Fri Jan 9 12:02:49 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Ok, I see the need for the network, but how can everybody in the network trust each other? Indeed, do they need to if they're holding differnt info. Does it not only need to be trusted by the user?
Fri Jan 9 12:03:06 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Well, I'd argue that there are some applicable standards which have to be followed as they relate to individual components (the US DOD standards, for example), but these apply to only certain repositories and only in the
Fri Jan 9 12:03:32 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:US and only those dealing with governement materials. But as far as overarching standards, I would agree with Vicky
Fri Jan 9 12:04:03 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:If it's too early for standards, could guidelines be offered?
Fri Jan 9 12:04:06 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:I'll need to sign off -- this has been fun.
Fri Jan 9 12:04:33 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Ah, Pete, you can see why we believe certification is needed - at least for a period of time. It'll be a way of knowing that a repository has met a certain "bar" of functionality and organizational wherewithal
Fri Jan 9 12:05:07 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:ok, well we should finish if off here then. Thanks a lot for participating, the erpaChats are fun.
Fri Jan 9 12:05:22 2004:Vicky [2/] Msg:You're welcome.
Fri Jan 9 12:05:28 2004:Mariellag [2/] Msg:I agree with Pete. Thank you to everyone
Fri Jan 9 12:05:37 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:I think guidelines are emerging and in the interim, will be much more important thatn standards. Besides, knowing that this enviroment changes so quickly and also knowing that time of a standardization process, waiting for standards seem impractical
Fri Jan 9 12:05:44 2004:Pete [2/] Msg:Robin, I'm still confused! how different is certification from audit...and so many more questions....!
Fri Jan 9 12:05:44 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Thank you!
Fri Jan 9 12:05:48 2004:Mariella [0/] Disconnect:
Fri Jan 9 12:05:56 2004:Vicky [0/] Logout:_
Fri Jan 9 12:06:56 2004:Robin_Dale [2/] Msg:Really though, Audit has some particular meanings applicable more to archives than other types of repositories. This will be teased out at the next ERAPNet workshop. (How's that for a PR plug?)