This presentation provides a quick overview of two key, and complementary, tools used to measure trust of digital repositories. First it focusses on Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC), leading towards another tool, DRAMBORA, that is applied more extensively in the next presentation. The presentation was given as part of the final module of a 5-module course on digital preservation tools for repository managers, presented by the JISC KeepIt project. For more on this and other presentations in this course look for the tag ’KeepIt course’ in the project blog http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/keepit/

1. Tools for assessing
trustworthy repositories
A quick overview of TRAC leading to DRAMBORA
by Steve Hitchcock
by eurovision_nicola
Haven’t we met somewhere before?
Previously on this JISC KeepIt course…

2. How AIDA was built
1. An Audit Checklist for the Certification of
Trusted Digital Repositories. This is the
document originally produced by RLG-
NARA, which later became Trustworthy
Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC):
Criteria and Checklist
2. The Cornell University Survey of Institutional
Readiness
3. Summary of RLG-OCLC Framework
Component Characteristics
4. Network of Expertise in long-term STORage
(NESTOR)

3. DRAMBORA and DAF
• DRAMBORA (Digital Repository Audit Method
Based on Risk Assessment)
– Requires much self-insight and preparedness
– Sees everything as risk management
– Predicated on TDR
– A bit complex
• DAF (Data Audit Framework)
– Concerned with one asset type (research data)
– Aims to improve management
– Helps to measure value of research data

4. Overview
• KRDS1 Aim – investigate costs, develop
model and recommendations
• Method – detailed analysis of 4 models:
LIFE1/2 & NASA CET in combination with
OAIS and UK Research TRAC;
• Plus literature review;12 interviews; 4
detailed case studies.

5. Overview
• KRDS1 Aim – investigate costs, develop
model and recommendations
• Method – detailed analysis of 4 models:
LIFE1/2 & NASA CET in combination with
OAIS and UK Research TRAC;
Sorry, wrong TRAC.
This is HEFCE’s Transparent Approach to Costing
• Plus literature review;12 interviews; 4
detailed case studies.

6. LIFE3
Integration
• DROID
• Planets Content Profile
• FITS
Cost • DRAMBORA
• DRAMBORA Estimation • Plato
• Planets Preservation Tool • JISC Framework
Policy
• Data Audit Framework
•Context
6

7. Digital Preservation
 Reference Models
- Records Management, ISO 15489:2000
- OAIS: Open Archival Information System, ISO 14721:2003
 Audit & Certification Initiatives
- RLG- National Archives and Records Administration Digital
Repository Certification Task Force:
Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and
Checklist (TRAC)
- NESTOR:
Catalogue of Criteria of Trusted Digital Repositories
- DCC/DPE:
DRAMBORA: Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk
Assessment

8. … because good research needs good data
Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC)
Criteria and Checklist
• RLG/NARA assembled an International Task Force to address the
issue of repository certification
• TRAC is a set of criteria applicable to a range of digital repositories
and archives, from academic institutional preservation repositories to
large data archives and from national libraries to third-party digital
archiving services
• Provides tools for the audit, assessment, and potential
certification of digital repositories
• Establishes audit documentation requirements required
• Delineates a process for certification
• Establishes appropriate methodologies for determining the
soundness and sustainability of digital repositories
www.repositoryaudit.eu
KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010

9. TRAC: not quite a global standard
• These efforts to merge development of a
certification process highlighted small but
important differences between the criteria in this
audit checklist and the nestor Criteria Catalogue,
for example. For now, a single, standardized set
of criteria and applicable rules have proven
impractical for geopolitical reasons.
http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf
Version 1.0, February 2007
Working towards ISO standardisation of Digital Repository Audit and
Certification - wiki

10. Structure of TRAC
There are three primary areas to be assessed within
TRAC:
1. Organizational Infrastructure
2. Digital Object Management
3. Technologies, Technical Infrastructure, Security

11. Ten principles
In January 2007 representatives of four preservation organizations
convened at the Center for Research Libraries in Chicago to seek
consensus on core criteria for digital preservation repositories, to
guide further international efforts on auditing and certifying
repositories.
… ten basic characteristics of digital preservation repositories …
The key premise underlying the core requirements is that for
repositories of all types and sizes preservation activities must be
scaled to the needs and means of the defined community or
communities.

12. … because good research needs good data
10 Characteristics of Digital Repositories
• An intellectual context for the work:
• Commitment to digital object maintenance
• Organisational fitness
• Legal & regulatory legitimacy
© HATII UofGlasgow, 2007
• Effective & efficient policies
• Acquisition & ingest criteria
• Integrity, authenticity & usability
• Provenance
• Dissemination
• Preservation planning & action
• Adequate technical infrastructure
(CRL/OCLC/NESTOR/DCC/DPE meeting,
January 2007)
www.repositoryaudit.eu
KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010

13. Structure of checklist entries
A1.1 Repository has a mission statement that reflects a commitment
to the long-term retention of, management of, and access to
digital information.
The mission statement of the repository must be clearly identified and
accessible to depositors and other stakeholders and contain an
explicit long-term commitment.
Evidence: Mission statement for the repository; mission statement for
the organizational context in which the repository sits; legal or
legislative mandate; regulatory requirements.

14. TRAC Criteria Checklist
• Within TRAC, there are 84 individual criteria
Only 82 criteria to go!

15. To certify or not to certify?
That is the question
1. Take a spreadsheet with
all 84 TRAC criteria.
2. Select one.
3. Decide whether you
could certify your
repository for this, based
on where your repository
is now or where you
think it might be after
participating in this
course. by Cayusa
by fabiux

16. TRAC: audit or certification?
• Audit is the basis for comparing local capabilities against a set of
core criteria for a trusted digital repository.
• Certification is a further step that some repositories will and/or
must take for formal, objective recognition at the international or
network level.
• The result of any audit must be viewed in the context in which it
was undertaken.

17. TRAC applicability in diversity
The digital preservation community has come to not only recognize
but embrace the fact that not all repositories will be “equal.”
…proliferation of repository types (institutional repositories, open-
access repositories, digital repositories, digital preservation
repositories, digital archives, etc.) on local, regional, national, and
international levels. For many of these repositories, preservation is
not the primary purpose or explicit priority. With that
understanding, it is easy to comprehend why some repositories
may not choose to pursue certification, just as it is easy to see why
others should feel compelled (or perhaps be compelled) to pursue
certification.

18. TRAC in use: CRL reviews Portico
• "Center for Research Libraries’ report marks the first public
disclosure of a digital certification review conducted by an
independent entity.”
• Portico (www.portico.org) is a not-for-profit digital preservation
service providing a permanent archive of electronic journals, books,
and other scholarly content. As of October 2009, the Portico archive
preserved over 14 million e-journal articles and 1,900 e-books.
• CRL has concerns about Portico’s status on 12 of the 84 criteria
http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/CRL%20Report%20on%20P
ortico%20Audit%202010.pdf

19. CRL reviews Portico:
Organisational Infrastructure
• Criteria - A3.2 Repository has procedures and policies in place, and
mechanisms for their review, update, and development as the
repository grows and as technology and community practice evolve.
• Portico policy infrastructure has improved considerably since the
test audit in 2006, but some of these policies still suffer from
internal contradictions and inconsistencies, specifically in the area
of roles & responsibilities and job descriptions.

20. CRL reviews Portico:
Digital Object Management
• Criteria - B2.10 Repository has a documented process for testing
understandability of the information content and bringing the
information content up to the agreed level of understandability.
• Portico needs to continue to identify what its community believes is
necessary for “understandability” or usability of the preserved
content. Portico should develop a process to support ongoing
research into the needs of its community and determine what the
Portico stakeholders think is an understandable e-journal, e-journal
article, e-book, etc. As those needs evolve, Portico should develop
test scenarios to evaluate how well the archive meets those needs.

21. CRL reviews Portico:
System Infrastructure
• Criteria - C2.2 Repository has software technologies appropriate to
the services it provides to its designated community and has
procedures in place to receive and monitor notifications, and
evaluate when software technology changes are needed.
• Portico’s ability to disseminate content to the users in the event of a
major “trigger event” (for example, where all content from a large
publisher with a large user base must be made available) is limited.
This relates to Portico’s status as a dark archive.

22. TRAC in use: eCrystals repository
TRAC, is open-ended and exploratory, taking into account vision and goals
and plans for a repository and therefore more suited to repositories
with an established long-term archival and preservation mandate.
At the current stage of development of the eCrystals data repository we
recommend self-assessment using the DRAMBORA toolkit as an
instrument. The audit process in many ways is more important than
actual certification, since it allows repositories to analyse and
respond to their archives' strengths and weaknesses in a systematic
fashion. Also, DRAMBORA takes a more quantified approach to
assessing repositories and would therefore work best for an
established repository looking for self-assessment.
Patel and Coles, A study of Curation and Preservation Issues in the eCrystals Data
Repository and Proposed Federation, 7 Sept. 2007
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/ebank-uk/curation/eBank3-WP4-Report%20%28Revised%29.pdf

23. DRAMBORA in use: eCrystals
Patel and Coles
• Due to the recent rapid developments in this area, as well as the
estimated time, effort and cost of undertaking an audit (the
DRAMBORA documentation estimates 28-40 hours, depending on
the scope and objectives), we have been unable to complete an
audit by the end of Phase 3 (June 2007).

24. DRAMBORA in use: eCrystals
Patel and Coles
• Having examined the criteria being used in the various audit
checklists, it is clear that there is a need to establish the scope and
objectives of an audit more explicitly and to relate them to
eCrystals more closely
• For a long-term repository it would be beneficial to have regular
audits, which verify periodically the proper functioning of records
management procedures and systems and the authenticity and
reliability of the records kept. Such monitoring is also useful in
building up a profile of the repository over time in the face of a
continuously changing environment. We suggest that a self-audit be
undertaken at a frequency of once a year
See also Patel, Preservation Planning for Crystallography Data, 25 June
2009http://wiki.ecrystals.chem.soton.ac.uk/images/8/82/ECrystals-WP4-PP-
090625.pdf