WP33 Peer review and 3rd party certification of repositories: amending the DoW

The idea is to use this page to amend the text for the WP description in the DoW. Please edit this wiki page directly, and use the "insert" and "delete" mark-up to show changes, as illustrated:

Here is some unchanged text.
<ins>Here is some text to be inserted.</ins>
<del>Here is some text to be deleted.</del>
Here is some more unchanged text

Start month End month WP leader
4 16 AFPUM

Objectives

Develop common method for peer review of data quality of data holdings and independent repository audit and certification. The analysis will consider self-audit as well as peer review, and the role of national arrangements and legislative constraints.

Description of work and role of partners

Task 3310 Repository test audit and certification (Task lead: STFC)

Building on the work of the ISO repository audit and certification working group of CCSDS [4], we will undertake a number of test audits of our data holding partners working with the ISO working group and using the metrics which they have set out. We expect coming out of such an audit not a simple yes/no answer but rather in view of the areas in which each repository need to improve. This is part of the standard ISO audit and certification approach, namely review, improvement plan, check.

We will also look at the possibility of implicit and explicit support in the national legislation. For example in the Italian case, the preservation function for e-government is under the control of the National Archives whose role is to verify the quality of the policies and staff involved. They are looking at the international recommendations like ISO guidelines (RAC) or self-auditing indications (DRAMBORA [25]). The outsourcers which preserve the digital archives of public and private bodies are also under control of the Archival administration: guidelines have been provided even if only at a general level.

Under this task we will fund the test audits and related activities required to support the research required to set up of the European Framework and the ISO Digital Repository Audit and Certification processes. The three levels of the European Framework will allow us to

  • start with the DSA
  • perform a self audit in more detail using ISO 16363 and the corresponding DIN draft standards
  • validate the results of the self certification using 3rd party auditors associated with ISO 16363. This will produce an improvement plan for each repository and together these will contribute to a best practice analysis and recommendations report.

The report should encourage other repositories to take part in this European audit and certification framework.

Task 3320 Data quality peer review

In this task we will look at a number of ways in which to assess data quality. For example we could use a formal review process analogous to that used in journal publications. Alternatively we could use the work from work package WP 2600 on the annotation and reputation to provide not so much a stamp of approval but rather a set of opinions with tools to allow the user to make up his or her own mind

List of deliverables

  • D33.1 Final report on peer review and 3rd party certification of repositories (M14)

Description of deliverables

D33.1) Final report on peer review and 3rd party certification of repositories: This report describes possible requirements and research agenda in the area of data quality, using input from domain scientists and the range of archives and other data holders within the consortium and associated with it. [month 14]


Further revisions in response to feedback from Project Officer 12th/14th December

-- SimonLambert - 2012-10-17

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-12-15 - SimonLambert
 
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