D24.1 - Report on authenticity and plan for interoperable authenticity evaluation system

1. Introduction

2.State of the art

2.1. Research projects

A comparative analysis of the results and proposals from major international projects on Long Term Digital Preservation Currently analyzed projects include:
  • _InterPARES, CASPAR, PLANETS, PARSE.Insight (already available on the wiki),
  • ARCOMEM, ENSURE, LiWA, KEEP, PersID e PrestoPRIME, PROTAGE, SHAMAN,SCAPE, TIMBUS e Wf4Ever (to be prepared in August).

-- BarbaraSierman - 2011-08-10

I'm participating in the SCAPE project in a Workpackage called Policy Representation, with the aim of feeding the Automated Preservation Watch and Preservation Planning with policy elements that should play a role in areas of monitoring (in Watch) or decision criteria (in Planning). As many preservation policies are speaking about keeping the objects "Authentic" it will be necessary to translate this concept into concrete "rules". I think it is important that we keep each other informed about the progress we make in the project, I'll try to do this for above mentioned WP's (and other relevant areas in SCAPE)

-- BarbaraSierman - 2011-08-10


2.2 Standards, requirements and recommendations

  • _How the issue of authenticity is presented in standards and recommendations concerning the design, the management and the certification of ERMS and LTDP systems (OAIS, DoD 5015‐2, MoReq2, ISO/DIS 15489, TRAC, DRAMBORA, ISO/DIS 16363, ICA‐BRS Record Exchange Standard).


2.3. Practices (best & worst)

  • Findings from real life experience: how authenticity and provenance are currently handled by organizations and institutions which preserve large amounts of digital objects.
  • Some meaningful results may come from case studies on space data, medical data, national libraries and large digital libraries. Further suggestions are welcome.
  • Crucial information for the analysis could be provided by the activity developed under WP33 related to the audits of digital repositories

All partners should try to give some idea of how Authenticity and Provenance is handled in (some of) their repositories

-- DavidGiaretta - 2011-08-08

I guess the question is - if someone comes to your repository and asks for evidence that this really is what it is claimed to be, what evidence would be presented. In science repositories this might in the end rely on the knowledge of and trust in the repository manager and what is in his/her head. Also trust in applications which are used to transform data from one format to another.

As input to section 4 we also need some idea of how this evidence is itself preserved. i.e. what it its Representation Information and its Provenance, Fixity etc.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2011-08-08


3. Authenticity and provenance through the digital object lifecycle

3.1 A basic framework for authenticity and provenance

  • Some of the outcomes of the research projects can be worked together in a basic framework; this should act as a starting point for a new proposal that would bring these ideas to a more systematic and operational level.
  • InterPARES makes a clear proposal about the assessment of authenticity, when the records are transferred to archival custody, and maintenance of authenticity, when producing authentic copies during custody; two sets of requirements are given as well to support the presumption of authenticity and the production of authentic copies.
  • The main and crucial CASPAR's contribution in the field is the conclusion that authenticity cannot be handled as a static quality of the object, but as a complex process that requires the creation and the preservation of well structured documentation.
  • CASPAR has also defined a conceptual model and has introduced the notion of authenticity protocol to represent the procedures to be followed to assess the authenticity of objects.


3.2 A model for the management of authenticity along the preservation chain

  • Authenticity and provenance need to be managed along the whole lifecycle of digital objects, a sequence of phases from their creation to their preservation; this possibly includes several changes of custody and several modifications.
  • The lifecycle needs to be clearly modeled, and a general methodology should be outlined to define at operational level, for all the phases of the lifecycle, the authenticity protocols and the associated sets of requirements.
  • Though individual scenarios may substantially differ from each other, a general methodology can still be given to define precise and operational procedures according to well set quality standards.


4. Producing and preserving authenticity evidence

Authenticity evidence must be produced along all the phases of a digital object lifecycle: this is in turn the input data and the result of the execution of the authenticity protocols which correspond to the changes of phases in the digital object lifecycle.

From a more technical viewpoint, we (SBA) want to contribute surveys and overviews of standards in the area of secure logging mechanisms for digital preservation. Our general idea is to focus on secure logging (with respect to authenticity) and the possibility of semi-automated audits of such log files of archives. Our research should provide means for measuring the authenticity and provenance related aspects of a digital repository and ways to assess the capabilities of an archive for providing evidence of interactions - be it or regular even malicious - with the system in a secure way.

-- StefanProell - 2011-08-18


4.1 Authenticity evidence in the common and civil law environments

  • A preliminary problem is defining which evidence should be collected. This issue needs to be carefully analyzed both in the common and civil law environments to produce clear and credible guidelines.


4.2 Standardization of processes and procedures for authenticity evidence and interoperability within ERMSs

  • The issue of interoperability arises from the digital object possibly undergoing several changes of custody along its lifecycle.
  • Standardization of authenticity evidence allows to set a common ground for data exchange and makes more systematic the definition and the implementation of authenticity protocols.
  • Standardization should include the definition of exchange structures and of a core set of evidence.
  • Representation information are a crucial part of authenticity evidence.
  • Though individual scenarios may substantially differ, and require specific set of metadata, a core set of metadata related to authenticity and provenance should be defined.

By ERMS I assume you mean archive or repository - is that right?

-- DavidGiaretta - 2011-08-08

Perhaps we could separate this, to facilitate interoperability, into

  • what are the common things e.g.
    • who was responsible
      • at least a name and address
      • perhaps also a digital signature to prove this was really the person
    • when was this evidence collected
      • some sort of time (what time zone) or time interval
    • text description of what was done
    • there may be other common this based on some agreed common virtualisations of provenance
  • Something more specific
    • some lump of digital data which contains details - this could be opaque and so may need specific Rep. Info.. Alternatively this could be a piece of physical evidence e.g. a signed piece of paper
    • some evidence that this piece of Provenance applies to the digital object we are concerned with e.g a digest of the object.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2011-08-08


5. Relationship with existing standards

  • The model proposed in sect. 3 and 4 should be compared to the existing standards and recommendations discussed in sect. 2.2. The requirements and specifications they contain about authenticity are very general. Anyway conformance to these standards is desirable but not mandatory.


6. Provenance interoperability and reasoning

  • This section presents the results of task 2430 which is carried out by FORTH.

The outline of the internal report "ID2401 Report on provenance interoperability and mappings" is expected to be like this:

  • Introduction to Provenance
  • Provenance Models and Mappings (CRM Dig,OPM,CRM DIG <-> OPM Mapping)
  • Provenance-Related Reasoning Rules (Background, Motivation, Indicative inference rules, technical/implementation approaches)
  • References

The first draft of this report is available at ID2401

-- YannisTzitzikas - 2011-09-01


7. Conclusions



8. Glossary

  • The definition of the glossary is an important and difficult task. We take as a starting point the glossaries defined by previous research projects, but we will need to make choices and to integrate and extend previous definitions and to introduce new ones.
  • Many definitions have a scope larger than the one of WP 24, and often encompass the whole APARSEN project. We expect therefore a substantial contribution from the other partners.


Assigned to Due date Description State Closed Notify  
TWikiUsers 2011-09-01 WP24 : Comment on outline of D24.1 2011-09-24 DavidGiaretta   edit
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r7 - 2011-09-29 - YannisTzitzikas
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback