PARSE.Insight Framework and Lesson Learned

1
PARSE.Insight Framework and Lesson Learned

• David Giaretta (STFC)

2
Overview

• Aims
• Survey
• Roadmap

3
Alliance for Permanent Access

• The British Library
• European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN
• CSC IT Center for Science
• Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
  and Letters
• Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
• Digital Preservation Coalition
• European Science Foundation ESF
• European Space Agency ESA
• Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher
  Forschungszentren
• International Association of Scientific,
  Technical Medical Publishers
• Joint Information Systems Committee JISC
• Koninklijke Bibliotheek
• Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
• NESTOR Kompenteznetzwerk
• Nationale Coalitie Digitale Duurzaamheid NCDD
• Portico
• Science Technology Facilities Council STFC

• The Alliance aims to develop a shared vision and
  framework for a sustainable organisational
  infrastructure for permanent access to scientific
  information

http//www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/
4
Alliance for Permanent Access

• The British Library
• European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN
• CSC IT Center for Science
• Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
  and Letters
• Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
• Digital Preservation Coalition
• European Science Foundation ESF
• European Space Agency ESA
• Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher
  Forschungszentren
• International Association of Scientific,
  Technical Medical Publishers
• Joint Information Systems Committee JISC
• Koninklijke Bibliotheek
• Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
• NESTOR Kompenteznetzwerk
• Nationale Coalitie Digitale Duurzaamheid NCDD
• Portico
• Science Technology Facilities Council STFC

• The Alliance aims to develop a shared vision and
  framework for a sustainable organisational
  infrastructure for permanent access to scientific
  information

PARSE.Insight
http//www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/
5
PARSE.Insight

• PARSE.Insight aims to provide
• Insight and understanding into the capabilities
  and practices within the various research
  communities
• An inventory of current and planned research and
  development relating to e-infrastructures and
  permanent access
• A roadmap for a support e-infrastructure for
  maintaining long-term accessibility and usability
  of scientific and other digital information in
  Europe
• Identification of gaps in the existing and
  planned infrastructure
• Progress towards a standard for evaluating the
  sustainability and trustworthiness of digital
  repositories

6
Motivation

• Concern with data and documents
• Need for supporting e-infrastructure
• What should this look like?
• How can it be developed?
• What timescale?
• The role of the Alliance for Permanent Access

7
Infrastructures for preservation

• Social / Legal / Financial / Organisational
• Agreements / Trust / Standards
• Costs/ Benefits/ Rewards
• Technical components

8
Lessons from other Infrastructures

• Need to grow, encourage, foster rather than
  build
• include organisational, financial, legal
  marketing
• Provide services rather than specific
  technologies
• Tackle choke points
• Various phases of development

9
Approach

• Approach based on evidence from community insight
  
• while taking full account of current work on
  digital preservation
• Coverage of disciplines wide and deep
• Coverage of resources data and documents

10
Approach (2)

• Top-down
• Desk research
• Targeted surveys to stakeholders in science
• Interviews
• Workshops and conferences
• Bottom-up case studies in 3 communities
• Case 1 High Energy Physics (HEP)
• Case 2 Earth Observation (EO)
• Case 3 Social Sciences Humanities (SSH)

11
Encouraging Organisational and Social change

• Policies mandates for depositing research data
  and funding agencies requirements
• Robust and reliable deposit places, where
  researchers can be sure their data will not get
  lost, be corrupted or misused with correct right
  access mechanisms.
• Elements that increase comfort levels so that new
  users will know how to use and interpret the
  available data.
• Communication and awareness around these issues.
• Have publication of data as valued and as
  referencable as is a publication of a paper in a
  journal.

12
Benefits

• No organisation can do everything that is
  required for digital preservation forever
• Need to share the cost/effort
• Need to identify commonalities
• None will be a perfect fit for all purposes

13
Insight stakeholders

• Research
• Research institutes (non-profit)
• Universities
• Academic libraries

• Funding/policy
• National Funding organisations
• European funding
• Corporate funding

• Publishing
• General (cross-community) publishers
• Specific (community) publishers

• Data management (preservation)
• Data centres (profit / non-profit)
• Libraries
• Archives

14
General Surveys to stakeholders
Research 1397 responses
Funding/policy lt responses
Publishing 186 responses
Data management (preservation) 273 responses
15
About researchers

• Communities aggregated to
• Agriculture Nutrition
• Behavioural Sciences
• Humanities
• Life Sciences
• Medicine
• Social Sciences
• Physical Sciences
• Socio-Cultural Sciences
• Technology
• Based on KNAW classification (Royal Netherlands
  Academy of Arts and Sciences)

16
Reasons for preservation (R)
It is unique
It potentially has economic value
It may stimulate inter-disciplinary
collaborations.
It allows for re-analysis of existing data.
It may serve validation purposes in the future.
It will stimulate the advancement of science.
If research is publicly funded, the results
should become public property and therefore
properly preserved.
17
What? Data spectrum (R)
18
Sharing of data (R)
How open is your data?
19
Sharing of data (R)
Which constrains do you see in making data open?
20
Threats to preservation

1. The ones we trust to look after the digital
   holdings may let us down.
2. The current custodian of the data, whether an
   organisation or project, may cease to exist at
   some point in the future.
3. Loss of ability to identify the location of data.
4. Access and use restrictions (e.g. Digital Rights
   Management) may not be respected in the future.
5. Evidence may be lost because the origin and
   authenticity of the data may be uncertain.
6. Lack of sustainable hardware, software or support
   of computer environment may make the information
   inaccessible.
7. Users may be unable to understand or use the data
   e.g. the semantics, format or algorithms involved.

21
Threats to preservation (R)
The ones we trust to look after the digital
holdings may let us down
The current custodian of the data may cease to
exist
Loss of ability to identify the location of data
Access and use restrictions may not be respected
in the future
Evidence may be lost
Lack of sustainable hardware/software
Users may be unable to understand or use the data
22
Threats to preservation (R)
Users may be unable to understand or use the data
e.g. the semantics, format or algorithms involved.
23
Threat Requirement for solution
Users may be unable to understand or use the data e.g. the semantics, format, processes or algorithms involved Ability to create and maintain adequate Representation Information
Non-maintainability of essential hardware, software or support environment may make the information inaccessible Ability to share information about the availability of hardware and software and their replacements/substitutes
The chain of evidence may be lost and there may be lack of certainty of provenance or authenticity Ability to bring together evidence from diverse sources about the Authenticity of a digital object
Access and use restrictions may make it difficult to reuse data, or alternatively may not be respected in future Ability to deal with Digital Rights correctly in a changing and evolving environment
Loss of ability to identify the location of data An ID resolver which is really persistent
The current custodian of the data, whether an organisation or project, may cease to exist at some point in the future Brokering of organisations to hold data and the ability to package together the information needed to transfer information between organisations ready for long term preservation
The ones we trust to look after the digital holdings may let us down Certification process so that one can have confidence about whom to trust to preserve data holdings over the long term
24
FUTURE

• Users may be unable to understand or use the data
  e.g. the semantics, format, processes or
  algorithms involved
• Non-maintainability of essential hardware,
  software or support environment may make the
  information inaccessible
• The chain of evidence may be lost and there may
  be lack of certainty of provenance or
  authenticity
• Access and use restrictions may not be respected
  in the future
• Loss of ability to identify the location of data
• The current custodian of the data, whether an
  organisation or project, may cease to exist at
  some point in the future
• The ones we trust to look after the digital
  holdings may let us down

25
Links

• CASPAR
• www.casparpreserves.eu
• http//www.casparpreserves.eu/Members/cclrc/Delive
  rables/caspar-validation-evaluation-report/at_down
  load/file - Validation report
• http//www.youtube.com/watch?vYun9hkPPF9M -
  cartoon
• PARSE.Insight www.parse-insight.eu
• Alliance for Permanent Access
  www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu
• Digital Curation Centre www.dcc.ac.uk
• Audit and certification
  wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org
• OAIS http//public.ccsds.org/publications/archive
  /650x0b1.pdf
• http//public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/rids/Lists/CCS
  DS206500P11/Overview.aspx

26
END