UT INF 389K - Lifecycle Metadata for Digital Objects

Unformatted text preview:

Lifecycle Metadata for Digital ObjectsNHPRC Initiatives, 1991-2003NHPRC Initiatives, cont.University of Pittsburgh ProjectWarrant by Functional Requirements (for system)Warrant by PracticePittsburgh metadata reference model in six layersI. Handle layer (ID + description)II. Terms & Conditions LayerIII. Structural Layer (technical + preservation)IV. Contextual Layer (provenance + evidence)V. Content LayerVI. Use History LayerIndiana University test of BACInterPARES ProjectInterPARES case studiesInterPARES basis in diplomaticsInterPARES Authenticity templateA quick exampleInterPARES findings, 2002InterPARES 2Meanwhile, in Australia…Sue McKemmish, “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”Slide 24“Yesterday” II“Create Once, Use Many Times” project“Create Once” metadata layers conceptRKMS Australian Metadata standardWhat about EAD?Dublin Core Metadata InitiativeDublin Core elementsDublin Core developmentDublin Core in HTML environmentLibrary of Congress Metadata EffortsMetadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS)METS Descriptive metadataMETS Administrative metadataMETS Structural metadataMETS and XMLWhy is it all so complicated?Why should we care about library/archives schemes?Lifecycle Metadata for Digital ObjectsSeptember 25, 2006Major archival and digital library metadata schemes: How (or how not) to go about schemingNHPRC Initiatives, 1991-2003Research Issues in Electronic Records publication (no longer online) http://www.archives.gov/nhprc_and_other_grants/electronic_records/research_issues_report.html#recommendations1996 conference on electronic records research http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.si.umich.edu/e-recs/Report2002-03 review of research agenda, MN Historical Society http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/records/eragenda.htmlNHPRC Initiatives, cont. For links to extant online NHPRC project results, see: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/us-interpares/bibliography/NHPRC.htm For a list of all funded NHPRC e-records projects, see: http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/electronic-records/projects.htmlUniversity of Pittsburgh ProjectNHPRC funding, 1992-1996Overlapped with “Camp Pitt”, 1991-93 (which spread the word about need)“Business Acceptable Communications” assured by warrant from non-archival contextsEmphasis on evidence and on postcustodial strategies for managing recordsEmphasis on transactions as recordsWarrant by Functional Requirements (for system)Conscientious organization1 CompliantAccountable recordkeeping system2 Responsible3 Implemented4 ConsistentCaptured Records5 Comprehensive6 Identifiable7 Complete8 AuthorizedMaintained Records9 Preserved10 RemovableUsable Records11 Exportable12 Accessible13 RedactableMajor elements here are organization, recordkeeping system, recordsWarrant by PracticeLawyersAuditorsRecords ManagersInformation TechnologistsManagers (mostly ISO 9000, 9001)Medical ProfessionsPittsburgh metadata reference model in six layersNote now available (rescued from loss at Pittsburgh) at http://www.archimuse.com/papers/nhprc/meta96.htmlHandle [URI]Terms & Conditions [IP, privacy, etc]Structural ContextualContentUse History [entire life history]Ordering depends on the assumption that metadata will be encapsulated as part of the recordI. Handle layer (ID + description)Unique identifierRecord declaration (i.e., as record)Transaction domain (creation context)Transaction instance (date-stamp etc.)Discovery metadataDescription standard (e.g. namespace)DescriptorsLanguageII. Terms & Conditions LayerRestrictions status (any “holds” on data)Access conditions (for restricted records)Use conditions (licenses, redactions, etc.Disposition requirements (retention, destruction)III. Structural Layer (technical + preservation)File identification metadata (of constituent files)File encoding metadata (standards used)File rendering metadata (standards required)Record rendering metadata (standards required)Content structure metadata (for e.g. databases)Source metadata (creator + capture event)IV. Contextual Layer (provenance + evidence)Transaction context metadata (people + transaction)Responsibility metadata (Organizational information; org chart, etc.)System accountability metadata (system audit)V. Content LayerActual dataAny constituent filesAny internal markupVI. Use History LayerTypeInstanceUserConsequencesIndiana University test of BACFunded by NHPRCEvaluating administrative recordkeeping systems at IUTesting functional requirementsMapping metadata requirementsElimination of “metadata encapsulated objects” (record separated from metadata)Reduction in structural metadataPulled back from record-level metadata to record, file, class levels in many casesInfluenced by MoReq (I.e., 5015.2)InterPARES ProjectFunded by NHPRC, SSHRCInitially a University of British Columbia project that led to DoD STD 5015.2Aim to establish characteristics of a reliable and authentic electronic recordInterPARES is international project funded by NHPRC, SSRC, etc.Aim to establish rest of record life cycle (i.e., after creation and classification)InterPARES case studiesExamine digital recordkeeping systems in wide variety of contexts worldwideQualitative methods used to discover how records are used, carry out functional analysisData used to provide basis for modeling preservation processesInterPARES basis in diplomatics16th-19th-century method for establishing genuineness of documentsDefines four types of records:Dispositive (form is essence of evidence)Probative (written form part of evidence)Supporting (written form discretionary, procedurally linked to action)Narrative (provides context)InterPARES Authenticity templateDocumentary formExtrinsic elementsIntrinsic elementsAnnotationsMediumContextA quick examplehttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay2.html Do we believe this document? Why? What metadata does it incorporate?InterPARES findings, 2002Hopes for a clear typology of record forms dashed after four roundsContemporary systems too fluid for modelNo fixed form or contentNo annotationsEmbedded in social contextsManaged procedurallyInterPARES 2Follow-on from InterPARES 1Addresses “new” file formats:ExperientialDynamicInteractiveDescription cross-domainMetadata Schema RegistryMetadata Specification ModelLiterary Warrant DatabaseMeanwhile, in Australia…Bearman and Australia (postcustodialism)Specifics of Australian problemsRelatively


View Full Document

UT INF 389K - Lifecycle Metadata for Digital Objects

Download Lifecycle Metadata for Digital Objects
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Lifecycle Metadata for Digital Objects and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Lifecycle Metadata for Digital Objects 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?