CA Criticizes some of the limitations of OAIS and makes suggestions for improvements and clarifications. Also suggests that OAIS may be too library-centric, to the determinent of archival and especially recordkeeping needs. "In this article I have tried to articulate some of the main requirements for the records and archival community in preserving (archival) records. Based on this, the conclusion has to be that some adaptations to the [OAIS] model and metadata set would be necessary to meet these requirements. This concerns requirements such as the concept of authenticity of records, information on the business context of records and on relationships between records ('documentary context')."(p. 20)
Phrases
<P1> It requires records managers and archivists (and perhaps other information professionals) to be aware of these differences [in terminology] and to make a translation of such terms to their own domain. (p. 15) <P2> When applying the metadata model for a wider audience, more awareness of the issue of terminology is required, for instance by including clear definitions of key terms. (p. 15) <P3> The extent to which the management of objects can be influenced differs with respect to the type of objects. In the case of (government) records, legislation governs their creation and management, whereas, in the case of publications, the influence will be mostly based on agreements between producers, publishers and preservers. (p. 16) <P4> [A]lthough the suggestion may sometimes be otherwise, preservation metadata do not only apply to what is under the custody of a cultural or other preserving institution, but should be applied to the whole lifecycle of digital objects. ... Preservation can be viewed as part of maintenance. <warrant> (p. 16) <P5> [B]y taking library community needs as leading (albeit implicitly), the approach is already restricting the types of digital objects. Managing different types of 'digital objects', e.g. publications and records, may require not entirely similar sets of metadata. (p. 16) <P6> Another issue is that of the requirements governing the preservation processes. ... There needs to be insight and, as a consequence, also metadata about the preservation strategies, policies and methods, together with the context in which the preservation takes place. <warrant> (p. 16) <P7> [W]hat do we want to preserve? Is it the intellectual content with the functionality it has to have in order to make sense and achieve its purpose, or is it the digital components that are necessary to reproduce it or both? (p. 16-17) <P8> My view is that 'digital objects' should be seen as objects having both conceptual and technical aspects that are closely interrelated. As a consequence of the explanation given above, a digital object may consist of more than one 'digital component'. The definition given in the OAIS model is therefore insufficient. (p. 17) <P9> [W]e have no fewer than five metadata elements that could contain information on what should be rendered and presented on the screen. How all these elements relate to each other, if at all, is unclear. (p. 17) <P10> What we want to achieve ... is that in the future we will still be able to see, read and understand the documents or other information entities that were once produced for a certain purpose and in a certain context. In trying to achieve this, we of course need to preserve these digital components, but, as information technology will evolve, these components have to be migrated or in some cases emulated to be usable on future hard- and software platforms. (p. 17) <P11> I would like to suggest including an element that reflects the original technical environment. (p. 18) <P12> Records, according to the recently published ISO records management standard 15489, are 'information created, received and maintained as evidence and information by an organisation or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business'. ... The main requirements for records to serve as evidence or authoritative information sources are ... authenticity and integrity, and knowledge about the business context and about the interrelationship between records (e.g. in a case file). <warrant> (p. 18) <P13> It would have been helpful if there had been more acknowledgement of the issue of authenticity and the requirements for it, and if the Working Group had provided some background information about its view and considerations on this aspect and to what extent it is included or not. (p. 19) <P14> In order to be able to preserve (archival) records it will ... be necessary to extend the information model with another class of information that refers to business context. Such a subset could provide a structure for describing what in archival terminology is called information about 'provenance' (with a different meaning from that in OAIS). (p. 19) <P15> In order to accommodate the identified complexity it is necessary to distinguish at least between the following categories of relationships: relationships between intellectual objects ... in the archival context this is referred to as 'documentary context'; relationships between the (structural) components of one intellectual object ... ; [and] relationships between digital components. (p. 19-20) <P16> [T]he issue of appraisal and disposition of records has to be included. In this context the recently published records management standard (ISO 15489) may serve as a useful framework. It would make the OAIS model even more widely applicable. (p. 20)
Conclusions
RQ "There are some issues ... which need further attention. They concern on the one hand the scope and underlying concepts of the OAIS model and the resulting metadata set as presented, and on the other hand the application of the model and metadata set in a records and archival environment. ... [T]he distinction between physical and conceptual or intellectual aspects of a digital object should be made more explicit and will probably have an impact on the model and metadata set also. More attention also needs to be given to the relationship between the (preservation) processes and the metadata. ... In assessing the needs of the records and archival community, the ISO records management standard 15489 may serve as a very useful framework. Such an exercise would also include a test for applicability of the model and metadata set for record-creating organisations and, as such, broaden the view of the OAIS model." (p. 20)
SOW
DC OAIS emerged out of an initiative spearheaded by NASA's Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. It has been shaped and promoted by the RLG and OCLC. Several international projects have played key roles in shaping the OAIS model and adapting it for use in libraries, archives and research repositories. OAIS-modeled repositories include the CEDARS Project, Harvard's Digital Repository, Koninklijke Bibliotheek (KB), the Library of Congress' Archival Information Package for audiovisual materials, MIT's D-Space, OCLC's Digital Archive and TERM: the Texas Email Repository Model.
