RSE Wiki Archive

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
dig-arc-pol

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
dig-arc-pol [2014/05/14 09:33]
rsewikiadmin 		dig-arc-pol [2014/08/15 12:38]
rsewikiadmin
Line 1: Line 1:
 Parent issue: Digital Preservation Policy Parent issue: Digital Preservation Policy
  
-Size (time): Small (1-3 months)+Size (time): Medium (6-12 months)
  
 Importance/Urgency: Importance/Urgency:
  
-Problem Statement: A Digital Preservation Policy helps address the inherent instability of digital media by providing a plan for technological obsolescence and a long-term plan for the continued authenticity and integrity of the digital records (RFCs and their associated metadata).  This document needs to include the criteria that should be measured to determine when to kick up a migration project.+Problem Statement: A Digital Preservation Policy helps address the inherent instability of digital media by providing a plan for technological obsolescence and a long-term plan for the continued authenticity and integrity of the digital records (RFCs and their associated metadata).  This document needs to include the criteria that should be measured to determine when to kick up a migration project.  
  
- +Pros: Will allow for a better financial planning given a documented cycle for review and updates to the documents.  It will also allow for better project planning and technical guidance for ongoing support of the Series.  A plan would help avoid incurring costs on an //ad hoc// basis, probably in more of an emergency scenarios.
-Pros: Will allow for a better financial planning given a documented cycle for review and updates to the documents.  It will also allow for better project planning and technical guidance for ongoing support of the Series.  A plan would help avoid incurring costs on an ad hoc basis, probably in more of an emergency scenarios.+
  
 Cons: This will add a known cost to the maintenance of the RFC Series. Cons: This will add a known cost to the maintenance of the RFC Series.
Line 14: Line 13:
 Note: [[metadata-preservation]] is dependent on this project Note: [[metadata-preservation]] is dependent on this project
  
-Update:  Project underway.  Topics currently covered include: +Update:  Project underway.  The requirements for this effort will inform the RFC Format requirements.  See [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/FormatFAQ.html]] for an early draft. 
-  - INTRODUCTION + 
-  - LIFECYCLE OF DIGITAL PRESERVATION +Note: input being sought on the early draft from the archive and library communities, as well as the RPC.  After that input is received and incorporated, draft will go to the RSAG for discussion, and later, out for community discussion. 
-  - SUMMARY OF GAPS + 
-  - TERMINOLOGY +Timeline:   
-  - GUIDANCE FOR THE RFC EDITOR +  * September 2014: incorporate archive/third party input; release to RSAG for input 
-  - WHY DOES THE RFC EDITOR NEED A DIGITAL PRESERVATION POLICY? +  * October 2014: incorporate RSAG input; release as a -00 draft to start community input 
-  - WHAT DOES THIS DIGITAL PRESERVATION POLICY INCLUDE +  * November 2014: topic for RFC Format session 
-    - Ingest of Documents +  * Q1 2015: incorporate updates; propose as an IAB stream draft 
-    - Central Registry +    * publication not sought until format work comes closer to reality 
-    - Normalization and standardization of canonical file structure and format +
-    - Transformation/migration to current publication formats  +
-    - Semantic metadata +
-    - System Parameters +
-    - Financial Planning +
-  - APPENDIX A – OPERATIONAL BEST PRACTICE +
-  - APPENDIX B.  COST ESTIMATES - DETAILS+
  
dig-arc-pol.txt · Last modified: 2015/08/03 14:27 by rsewikiadmin

Page Tools

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki