Trusted Repositories/Best Practices Interest Group

Owned by Andrew Weiss
Last updated: Mar 20, 2019 by David Walker
4 min read

Domain

What makes a good repository? It is clearly more than just the sum of its platform parts or a collection of searchable digital objects. It is, instead, a living organization providing a series of services in need of regular evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. Trusted Repositories certification (cf. ISO 16363:2012) is one way of ensuring consistent evaluations. Developing the next generation of repositories along the lines of the Trusted Repository guidelines will also help ensure their long-term sustainability.

This group aims to assist those that are interested in developing Trusted Repositories on their campuses and to promote and provide guidance on their best practices. The group’s scope would involve advising and providing guidance on best practices development (both local and CSU-wide) in repository and collection management, and evaluating organizational stability. This would primarily be accomplished through reviewing local policies and practices as well as accepted standards such as the ISO standard for trustworthy digital repositories (ISO 16363:2012 (CCSDS 652.0-R-1), Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) checklists, COAR’s Next Generation Repositories, and DCC’s Curation Lifecycle Model.

Shared Needs and Requirements

IG members would ideally have some interest in repository audits, certifications, and best practices, including, but not limited to, the following areas:

Overall the goal is to help develop sustainable repository services that meet well-established standards while anticipating future developments.

Use Cases for IG:

  • Identifies, documents, & aligns repository features to ISO/TDR/COAR/DCC standards; i.e.
    • Gather and share examples of documentation that campuses could adopt; provide templates for things like a Repository Mission and Vision Statement, Collection Development Plans, File Naming Guidelines, File Format Guidelines, etc.
    • Consolidates procedures for risk management and procedural accountability (e.g.: Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment [DRAMBORA])
    • Assists repository collection development best practices
  • Aims to complete a repository audit (in collaboration with other IGs, CO, STIM, or ScholCom group) and register IR with governing bodies;
    • Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) and ROARMAP
    • Assists in attaining TDR and Next Generation Repository status
  •  Advocates for Open Access and Linked Data development
    • Supports campus, CSU-wide, regional, and national/international OA policy development and compliance , including:
      • CSU OA policy (ETD, Library, or Campus)
      • AB609 [2014] / AB2192 [2018] CA state OA mandates
      • Federal OA policy – esp. for data management &c.
      • Berlin Declaration, OA2020 or other international agreements
      • ORCID/CRIS/eRTP integrations
  • Evaluates tools for auditing, data health, long term digital access and preservation

Deliverables & Timeline (updated 9/4/2018)

Ongoing

  1. Assist with and present at annual CSU IR meeting
  2. Provide advice on auditing tools (such as TRAC, DCC, DMPTool)
  3. Analyzing threats and risks and making these transparent

AY 2018-2019

  1. Gather Trusted Repository standards and resources from external sources
  2. Create a spreadsheet with repository audit criteria
  3. Develop a model timeline/roadmap for future audit cycles

AY 2019-2020

  1. Perform an audit on a selected subset of CSU repositories and report results
  2. Prepare a recommended roadmap for transition to next generation repository
  3. Assemble and formulate internal standards and resources for Trusted Repositories

Participating

Co-Facilitators: Andrew Weiss (CSUN) and Mark Bilby (CSUF)

Participating Institutions/Members:

  • CSU Northridge | Andrew Weiss, Digital Services Librarian
  • CSU Fullerton | Mark Bilby, Scholarly Communications Librarian
  • Cal Poly SLO | Zach Vowell, Digital Archivist
  • CSU Stanislaus | Kristin White, Web Services Librarian
  • CSU Channel Islands | Colleen Harris, Digital & Data Services Librarian

(This should be no less than 3, and no more than 6 institutions)

ADDENDA


From: AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES RECOMMENDED PRACTICE CCSDS 652.0-M-1 MAGENTA BOOK September 2011

Link: https://public.ccsds.org/Publications/Archive/652x0m1.pdf/default.aspx

2.1 A TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORY

At the very basic level, the definition of a trustworthy digital repository must start with ‘a mission to provide reliable, long-term access to managed digital resources to its Designated

Community, now and into the future’ (reference [B2]). Expanding the definition has caused great discussion both within and across various groups, from the broad digital preservation community to the data archives or institutional repository communities.

A trustworthy digital repository will understand threats to and risks within its systems.

Constant monitoring, planning, and maintenance, as well as conscious actions and strategy implementation will be required of repositories to carry out their mission of digital preservation. All of these present an expensive, complex undertaking that depositors, stakeholders, funders, the Designated Community, and other digital repositories will need to rely on in the greater collaborative digital preservation environment that is required to preserve the vast amounts of digital information generated now and into the future.

Communicating audit results to the public—transparency—will engender more trust, and additional objective audits, potentially leading towards certification, will promote further trust in the repository and the system that supports it. Finally, attaining trustworthy status is not a one-time accomplishment, achieved and forgotten. To retain trustworthy status, a repository will need to undertake a regular cycle of audit and/or certification.


From: COAR Next Generation Repositories: Vision and Objectives

Link: http://ngr.coar-repositories.org/

The vision underlying the work of Next Generation Repositories is, “to position repositories as the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication, on top of which layers of value added services will be deployed, thereby transforming the system, making it more research-centric, open to and supportive of innovation , while also collectively managed by the scholarly community.”