Digital Preservation of Scientific Information in a Trusted Environment: Report of the Workshop on 28th April 2009 in Luxembourg
1. Introduction - The importance of trusted environments for repositories In the previous years, the rate of digital data production accelerated at unprecedented rates. At the same time the technical possibilities to store data have increased, reducing the price per unit for the storage of data collections. There has been a rapid growth of repositories and data collections – in some cases, they are part of recognised organisations (or infrastructures), but there are also many that are established on a more ad hoc basis. Increasingly, repositories are becoming the primary means for storing and disseminating scientific information. However, especially scientific and cultural data collections stored in digital repositories require special care to ensure input providers and users that the repository: • guarantees the long-term conservation and preservation of the stored data; • ensures that the stored data is and remains authentic; • tags the data with metadata to prevent data loss and ensure easy accessibility of the data In short, scientists and others that want to store their data need to be sure that they can rely on the chosen repositories to provide a secure digital preservation of their data. Therefore, any input provider (as well as the users) requires a trusted digital repository and must be able to base his choice on reliable standards according to his needs. Such standards, however, should be transparent and assessed regularly by a trustworthy body in order to guarantee the trustworthiness of repositories. Therefore, there is the acute need for trusted audit and certification standards for the digital preservation of repositories and other data collections. Based on this reasoning, the European Commission convened on 28th April 2009 a workshop with stakeholders in this field to discuss these issues in an open brainstorming session with the major stakeholders in the field. 2. Summary of the Workshop 2.1. Structure Due to these above-mentioned factors the Directorate for Digital Content and Cognitive Systems (Directorate E) of DG Information Society and Media invited experts to a meeting on 28 April 2009 to discuss the issues at stake and to inquire for a potential EUwide approach. Among the invited were: representatives of science, arts and social sciences repositories, research funding agencies, European initiatives and projects in this field as well as representatives of libraries, archives and research organisations (see Annex II).
The Workshop was divided into three parts (see Agenda in Annex I): a) Common Plenary Session: with presentations by the main initiatives already active in the field b) 2 Break-out Sessions on common assessment criteria and the implementation of a common approach. These two sessions ran in parallel and discussed in more depth the two specific topics. c) final plenary session for conclusions and recommendations.
2.2 Results of the discussions • Compatibility of approaches: The discussion on common assessment criteria was an important step between the representatives of the different existing solutions to compare their approaches and to discuss commonalities. There remain differences regarding the chosen approaches, the methodologies applied and the definitions used, but all representatives agreed that they are compatible and do not exclude each other in principle. Furthermore, a gradual approach between the existing solutions was deemed to be feasible, provided that existing differences can be accommodated. A common approach should also take into account the different requirements and purposes of repositories. Therefore, domain-specific solutions might be considered, including for specific archives guaranteeing long-term preservation. • Support for repositories: In addition, the participants identified a strong need for the exchange of best practices of repositories applying the different solutions and – linked to that – better consultancy especially for smaller repositories. Depending on the size of repositories audit & certification requirements should be adapted to their size and resources. Especially for smaller repositories self-assessment schemes should be offered as cost-effective alternatives.
• Incentives for creating trusted environments: A first step to promote the issue is to increase the awareness of the problem to stakeholders. A simple stamp for institutions would work already significantly in this direction. Also researchers should also be made aware of digital preservation issues already at the beginning of their research projects. Although there is increasing awareness among stakeholders and repositories, the European Commission and other institutions need to think carefully about the right mix of incentives that show clearly the benefits for repositories and data collections to
2
implement adequate and robust standards. These incentives should be addressed not only to the institutions but also to users, input providers and funding agencies. Another instrument could be formal requirements by funding bodies to put research data and results into certified repositories. If this is done in a cost-effective and technically feasible way, this would strongly encourage the development of trusted environments for digital preservation. • Role of the EC a) as facilitator to combine existing initiatives: The participants agreed that coordination between the initiatives on a European level is needed and strongly supported to bring together the national and sectoral initiatives that already work on this topic. A strong leading role of the European Commission might be the "glue" to combine existing initiatives together to create a coherent approach for repositories and data collections. b) as the promoter of a European benchmark standard During the discussions it was suggested that an EC support to develop a common approach and its endorsement of minimum requirements for trusted long-term solutions would set a strong sign to the stakeholders to take the topic seriously. In addition, an EU-label or "stamp" for an endorsed method or standard was considered to be very helpful. c) as a funding agency that requires compliance with standards Finally, the EC in its role as a funding agency would be able to significantly promote standards, should it require compliance with specific audit and certification standards for its funded research projects. As a result the Workshop provided the participants with a clear idea about the different approaches used so far and about the open questions which need to be solved. In particular, the participants became aware about the existing compatibility of the different approaches in relation to the major sectors and repository stakeholders. As first recommendations were identified about how to increase the compatibility and to tackle potential obstacles, the next steps taken by the European Commission would be now crucial to encourage further convergence. In practical terms, the workshop came to the conclusion that a core group of the main stakeholders should be formed to meet regularly for discussing the main identified open issues and to help developing a framework to coordinate and harmonise the current efforts in the field from different actors (DRAMBORA, TRAC, NESTOR, DSA etc.) and environments.
3
Annex I: Annotated Agenda 9.30 – 11.00 Opening Plenary Session
After an introductory note from Mr. Horst Forster, Director of DG INFSO of the European Commission, the major existing initiatives were presented to provide the audience with a common ground on the current state of affairs of the issues involved. 1) Introduction by Horst Foster (European Commission, Director) 2) Data Seal of Approval – Henk Harmsen (DANS) 3) Nestor - Susanne Dobratz (Humboldt-University Berlin) 4) DRAMBORA – Hans Hofman (National Archives of The Netherlands) 5) TRAC & ISO standardisation – Simon Lambert (STFC, UK) (The Powerpoint presentations are available upon request) 11.00 – 11.30 Coffee Break 11.30 – 13.00 Break-out sessions (I): Group I: Discussion of Assessment criteria Common assessment criteria needed for a trusted environment for repositories and data collections. This session discusses the differences and communalities of different types of data collections, including the requirements of users, data providers and funding organisations. Moderator: Liina Munari Group II: Rapporteur: Henk Harmsen
Implementation of Common Approach
This session discusses in more detail, how a coherent European approach should be structured and implemented in order to create a sustainable trusted environment for scientific information in Europe. Moderator: Martin Mühleck 13.00 – 14.00 Lunch Break 14.00 – 14.30 Break-out Sessions (II): Continuation of the discussions and drafting of preliminary conclusions by the Rapporteurs 14:30 – 15:30 Plenary and Conclusions The discussions from the break-out sessions were presented and discussed. Then conclusions were be drawn by the workshop as to what common European approach could be taken and what further steps would be advisable. Rapporteur: Hans Jansen
4
Annex II: List of Participants 1) Birte Christensen-Dalsgaard (DK, The Royal Library) 2) Susanne Dobratz (D, Humboldt-University Berlin/ Nestor) 3) Peter Doorn (NL, DANS/ DARIAH) 4) Sigrun Eckelmann (D, DFG/DINI) 5) Neil Grindley (UK, JISC) 6) Henk Harmsen (NL, DANS) 7) Hans Hofman (NL, National Archives of Netherlands/DRAMBORA) 8) Wolfram Horstmann (D, CIO Scholarly Information Bielefeld University/ DRIVER:) 9) Hans Jansen (NL, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/PARSE.Insight) 10) Hannah Jenkins, (UK, British Library) 11) Simon Lambert (UK, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory/ ISO Standardisation Wiki) 12) Lisa van den Kleyenberg (NL, DANS) 13) Hans Pfeiffenberger (D, Alfred Wegener Institute, IPYDLE) 14) Graham Pryor (UK, DCC) 15) Olivier Rouchon (F, CINES) 16) Wouter Schallier (NL, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/LIBER) 17) Natascha Schumann (D, DNB/Nestor) 18) Laurents Sesink (NL, DANS/DARIAH) 19) Janez Stebe, (SL, ADP Social Science Data Archives) 20) Paul Trilsbeek (NL, MPI/CLARIN) 21) Mary Vardigan (US, ICPSR) 22) Matthew Woolard (UK, UKDA/CESSDA) European Commission: 1) Horst Forster (DG INFSO, Director) 2) Patricia Manson, (DG INFSO, E3) 3) Martin Mühleck (DG INFSO, E3) 4) Liina Munari (DG INFSO, E3)
5
5) Carlos Morais Pires (DG INFSO, F3) 6) Deirdre Furlong (DG RTD)
6