User Tools

Site Tools


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
Next revision
Previous revision
dig-arc-pol [2014/05/14 16:33]
rsewikiadmin
dig-arc-pol [2015/08/03 21:27] (current)
rsewikiadmin
Line 1: Line 1:
 Parent issue: Digital Preservation Policy Parent issue: Digital Preservation Policy
  
-Size (time): Small (1-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: +see[[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-preservation/|draft-iab-rfc-preservation]] 
-  INTRODUCTION + 
-  LIFECYCLE OF DIGITAL PRESERVATION +Timeline:   
-  - SUMMARY OF GAPS +  * September 2014: incorporate archive/third party input; release to RSAG for input 
-  - TERMINOLOGY +  * October 2014: incorporate RSAG input; release as a -00 draft to start community input 
-  - GUIDANCE FOR THE RFC EDITOR +  * November 2014: topic for RFC Format session 
-  - WHY DOES THE RFC EDITOR NEED A DIGITAL PRESERVATION POLICY? +  * Q1 2015: incorporate updates; propose as an IAB stream draft 
-  - WHAT DOES THIS DIGITAL PRESERVATION POLICY INCLUDE +    * publication not sought until format work comes closer to reality 
-    - Ingest of Documents +
-    - Central Registry +
-    - 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.1400085186.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/05/14 16:33 by rsewikiadmin