User:Smille16umd/sandbox

TRAC rewrite draft

 * These are all looking good. If you haven't done so, please move the major ideas that you have for restructuring (new sections, particular issues discussed around the concept of trustworthiness, into the article talk page so they can have a chance to get review. I'd also suggest including a mention of the 1996 PDI report, which identified the need for trustworthy digital repositories and spurred the TRAC and TDR work; see https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/09/pub63watersgarrett.pdf. Morskyjezek (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Working title: TRAC (Trusted Repository Audit and Certification) and ISO 16363
Lede: Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) is a document describing the metrics of an OAIS-compliant digital repository. It developed from work done by the OCLC/RLG Programs and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) task force initiative.[1]

The TRAC checklist is an Auditing tool to assess the reliability, commitment and readiness of institutions to assume long-term preservation responsibilities. Currently the repository is under the care of the CRL who are utilizing it in several independent projects. The TRAC checklist was superseded in 2012 by the ISO 16363, known as the Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) Checklist.

Contents

1 History 2 Process 3 Trustworthiness as concept 4 Alternatives 5 Implementations and impact 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

History

 * leave as is*

Process

 * leave as is*

Trustworthiness as concept
The development of the OAIS model (Open Archival Information System) created a demand for assurance that repositories claiming to use OAIS actually adhere to those standards; that is, a demand for trustworthiness. The team behind TRAC, led by Robin Dale and Bruce Ambacher, conceived of the trustworthiness of the TRAC-certified repositories as not only providing for well-sourced and well-formatted records and metadata, but transparent managerial procedures and sustainable, long-term structural support. The TRAC creators conceived of four core principles that underpin the checklist's criteria for a trusted digital repository (TDR): documentation (evidence), transparency, adequacy and measurability.

TRAC expanded upon previous definitions of a TDR (such as Germany's nestor, RLG and OCLC's original TDR description and the Cornell model for Trusted Digital Repository Attributes), but still did not provide a perfect set of metric for trustworthiness. Yakel, Faniel, Kriesberg and Yoon demonstrate that understandings of trustworthiness vary across disciplines, and the 2007 TRAC checklist did not address or fully weigh the impact of differences within designated communities in perceptions of trust. Another key conclusion of their study was there is a difference between users' trust in data and their trust in repositories. In 2012, ISO 16363 expanded upon and superceded the 2007 TRAC checklist by adding more detailed criteria, as well as providing a new standard for bodies seeking to be certified to perform certification.

Alternatives
TRAC is not the only auditing system to assess the trustworthiness of a digital information system. Other systems include:
 * DRAMBORA (DPE)
 * nestor (Germany)
 * ISO 16363 (CRL, CCSDS and PTAB)

Implementation and impact
The CRL lays out and oversees the TRAC metrics. To date, CRL has certified six repositories according to criteria set out in the TRAC checklist. However, its influence has spread far beyond CRL-certified repositories since TRAC is commonly used as a self-auditing tool, such as at the University of North Texas and Cornell University. TRAC's successor, ISO 16363, also provides the basis of the services provided by the Primary Trustworthy Digital Repository Authorization Body (PTAB), a private sector agency providing outside auditing services.

Articles I want to work on

 * Trustworthy Repository Audit and Certification (TRAC)

Since there's high interest in the community archives article, can you take the TRAC article? That one has a decent start, but there is not much context about how it has been received or used. For example, what repositories have been certified? Since certification is an extremely high bar, how is the certification model used (good for benchmarking, e.g., http://www.library.unt.edu/digital-libraries/trusted-digital-repository)? What is relationship of TRAC & TDR? What are the criticisms of TRAC/TDR model? What are other approaches for auditing digital repositories (Nestor, Data Seal of Approval, NDSA Levels of Preservation)? The Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation (ANADP) report may be a good citation, as would any of the other benchmarking reports and a number of journal articles). Morskyjezek (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Upon looking further into the article, I was surprised that there isn't a separate entry for TDR on wikipedia; I will probably try to write more about that, as well as other related approaches to auditing digital repositories. I'm happy to add in a list of certified repositories; however, since certificaiton expires after 4 years and the TRAC was retired in 2012(?) won't that make the list obsolete? I'll also look for more formal articles, rather than institutional blogs, on the history of its development. Thanks for the leads. I definitely need to do more independent research on this topic before adding too much.

TRAC bibliography (preliminary)
@misc{ambacher2014trustworthy, title={Trustworthy Repositories Audit \& Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC)}, author={Ambacher, Bruce and Ashley, Kevin and Berry, John and Brooks, Connie and Dale, Robin L and Flecker, Dale and Giaretta, David and Hamidzadeh, Babak and Johnson, Keith and Jones, Maggie and others}, year={2014}, publisher={Chicago: Center for Research Libraries, at http://www. crl. edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac\_0. pdf, accessed} }

@article{ross2006role, title={The role of evidence in establishing trust in repositories}, author={Ross, Seamus and McHugh, Andrew}, journal={ARCHIVI E COMPUTER}, volume={16}, number={1}, pages={46}, year={2006}, publisher={REGIONE TOSCANA COMUNE DI SAN MINIATO} }

@article{yakel2013trust, title={Trust in digital repositories}, author={Yakel, Elizabeth and Faniel, Ixchel M and Kriesberg, Adam and Yoon, Ayoung}, journal={International Journal of Digital Curation}, volume={8}, number={1}, pages={143--156}, year={2013} }

@article{moore2008towards, title={Towards a theory of digital preservation}, author={Moore, Reagan}, journal={International Journal of Digital Curation}, volume={3}, number={1}, year={2008} }

@inproceedings{dobratz2007trustworthy, title={Trustworthy digital long-term repositories: The Nestor approach in the context of international developments}, author={Dobratz, Susanne and Schoger, Astrid}, booktitle={International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries}, pages={210--222}, year={2007}, organization={Springer} }

@article{steinhart2009establishing, title={Establishing trust in a chain of preservation}, author={Steinhart, Gail and Dietrich, Dianne and Green, Ann}, journal={D-Lib Magazine}, volume={15}, number={9/10}, pages={1082--9873}, year={2009} }

@article{walters2009data, title={Data curation program development in US universities: The Georgia Institute of Technology example}, author={Walters, Tyler O}, journal={International Journal of Digital Curation}, volume={4}, number={3}, pages={83--92}, year={2009} }

@article{schaefer2017module, title={Module 8: Becoming a Trusted Digital Repository}, author={Schaefer, Sibyl}, journal={The American Archivist}, volume={80}, number={2}, pages={484--487}, year={2017}, publisher={Society of American Archivists} }

@article{houghton2015trustworthiness, title={Trustworthiness: Self-assessment of an Institutional Repository against ISO 16363-2012}, author={Houghton, Bernadette}, journal={D-Lib magazine}, volume={21}, number={3/4}, pages={1--5}, year={2015}, publisher={Corporation for National Research Initiatives} }

@article{krahmer2016communicating, title={Communicating Organizational Commitment to Long-Term Sustainability through a Trusted Digital Repository Self-Audit}, author={Krahmer, Ana and Phillips, Mark Edward}, year={2016} }

trusted digital repositories (prelim)
"Trusted digital repository" is a term used by digital information professionals to indicate a collection of information whose representation, metadata, accessibility and management meets certain standards of trustworthiness.