The contribution of the archival principles to a meta-science methodology for digital heritage

Mariella Guercio

maria.guercio@uniroma1.itSapienza Università di Roma, Digilab

Zadar, May 2013

an assumption and its implications: science

• Science (according to the Webster’s Dictionary) is “knowledge attained through study or practice, or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method”.

• In this context the term is assumed also as an organized body of knowledge

• Meta-science is (at the moment) more simply defined as “theory or science of science” and has been developed in the form of a scientific generalization intended as a new boundary for exploring the complexity of the contemporary world and providing a contribution to theoretical and practical investigation with a multidisciplinary approach

an assumption and its implications: meta-science

• “The Metascience Expression (ME) language has been developed to aid in understanding the structure of, and relationships among, great scientific domains”

• The great scientific domain “focuses on understanding and shaping the interactions among a coherent, distinctive and extensive body of structures and processes” and “not only includes the traditional sciences and engineering, but also mathematics, the humanities and the ‘professions’”

• In the world of information sciences, specifically and not by chance in computing science, this terminology “has been developed to aid in understanding the structure of, and relationships among, great scientific domains” and applied (among others) “to provide new insight into the relationship between science and society”

• Paul S. Rosenbloom (2009). The Great Scientific Domains and Society: A Metascience Perspective from the Domain of Computing, The International Journal of science in society. 1: 133-143, http://cs.usc.edu/~rosenblo/Pubs/Y09_18145_TheGreatScientificDomainsandSociety_final.pdf

• See also the journal “MetaScience”

an assumption and its implications: new bases for strategic alliances?

• This perspective (if proved reliable) could have some positive consequences for our disciplines and, at least, implies larger scientific (and not only practical) recognition for crucial concepts and methods to be applied to other domains.

• Among other possibilities, it should include the capacity of strengthening more strategic and persistent alliances for the protection of digital heritage, as the Vancouver Unesco conference (September 2012) clearly suggested.

a common conceptual framework as a starting point - 1

• The methods and principles developed by the archival and recordkeeping research represent a robust, consolidated and open conceptual framework with high capacity for nourishing research environment and stimulating new approaches for the future

• Many aspects of this evolution (as described in McKemmish-Gilliland paper) can be considered enabling factors:– “archival science is emerging as a meta-field that cuts across so-called

‘content disciplines’”– the archival research has been characterized in the last decade by “a

significant expansion of the field’s research front, with an increasing number of large, collaborative research programs”

– “the growing diversity of archival and recordkeeping research” [table 4.1] illustrates “a move beyond the local, to span organisational, disciplinary, cultural and national boundaries”

– “the trend towards trans-disciplinary and trans-institutional collaborations tackling multiple facets of priority research problems is strengthenin”

a common conceptual framework as a starting point - 2

– “the crucial role played by domain experts/archival and recordkeeping professionals in institution-based research and development initiatives, as well as in collaborative research projects, highlights the important role of archival education programs”

– “while the construct of the Archive is itself an object of study, it provides the evidence for the study of other phenomena”

– “the maturation and rich potential of archival research methods” are clearly reflected when literature and projects are analyzed in details (table 4.4)

it is not only a question of inter- or multidisciplinarity

• The interdisciplinary research implies that “its goal and objectives could only be achieved through the contribution of several disciplines, integrating methodologies, concepts, principles and techniques from a variety of fields as needed”.

• The multidisciplinary research examines the same problem “in the context of each separate discipline and solved it within such discipline, without any integration of theory or methods, after which the results were compared and the best solutions adopted”.

… but of transdisciplinarity

• Transdisciplinarity (used for the first time in 1970 by Jean Piaget) is multi-referential and multi-dimensional

• It involves the transfer of one or more methods or ideas from a discipline to another

• Transdisciplinarity, as the prefix “trans” indicates, involves thinking at the same time within, across and outside each discipline and beyond all disciplines.

• Its purpose is to gain an understanding of present reality, one imperative of which is the unity of knowledge. “ Rigor, openness, and tolerance are the fundamental characteristics of the transdisciplinary attitude and vision. Rigor in argument, taking into account all existing data, is the best defense against possible distortions. Openness involves an acceptance of the unknown, the unexpected and the unforeseeable. Tolerance implies acknowledging the right to ideas and truths opposed to our own.

See Charter of Transdisciplinarity, http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/charten.htm and InterPARES 3 Final report,

http://www.interpares.org/display_file.cfm?doc=InterPARES_International_Alliance_ip3_final_report.pdf

transdisciplinarity for understanding and shaping complexity

• This concept can be employed for our disciplines to describe the increasing effort made by many international and national projects in archival and recordkeeping field to support an enlarged vision

• It can be interpreted as a scientific and intellectual approach aimed at implementing the capacities and the tools for understanding the present complex world.

• Transdisciplinarity does not imply a new epistemology, but a more open attitude to develop, adopt and transmit knowledge to future scholars and practitioners.

• It is based on the capacity of providing an overall and more comprehensive methodology for developing the human knowledge and preserving disciplinary diversity.

• Any transdisciplinary project by definition is also disciplinary, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary

InterPARES 3 Final report

the archival contribution for a transdisciplinary methodology for protecting the digital heritage

• Because the perspective from which the literature and the research outputs are here investigated concerns the protection of the digital heritage, some assumptions have to be considered:– the digital heritage protection includes its accurate creation, the

persistent tracking and documentation of all the relevant transactions involved in its maintenance and preservation

– for facing the most complex challenges involved in this effort the concepts and tools developed by the documentary sectors (specifically those related to the digital records keeping) can provide the best evidence and support for other domains and implement a related transdisciplinary methodology

archival concepts and international research glossaries

• Archival concepts like authenticity, reliability, trustworthy custody, digital continuity, provenance, context are already part of a common vocabulary in the research dedicated to the digital preservation even if in many cases the definitions of common use are not rooted on our specific domain and lack methodological consistency

• The glossaries developed by research projects in e-science sector normally adopt only or mainly OAIS terms, without paying much attention for a standardized and qualified use of other terminologies

• Even the ISO standards often miss the coherence control if the same concept is adopted in different environments (also when it is referred to the same subject)

• International and European projects like CASPAR, APARSEN, DiGcurV, but also the applied investigation behind the digital repositories standardization processes (TRAC requirements or ISO 16363 on digital repositories certification) have largely exploited the main archival and recordkeeping concepts and terms (like provenance, authenticity, record trustworthiness, record continuum) as part of their contribution to the creation of a coherent, distinctive and extensive body of structures and processes necessary for a scientific approach to the digital heritage protection, usually without recognizing their debt

some basic questions

• which archival concepts and methodological tools and standards can be or have been already identified (even if not explicitly recognized) because relevant and supportive for other research domains?

• which research areas have been positively influenced in the last years (more or less explicitly) by the contribution of the archival and recordkeeping disciplines?

• which projects (promoted and leaded or supported by archival institutions able to seriously contribute to “the development of important research infrastructure” in the digital heritage environment) have been funded with continuity? what impact did they have?

• which methodological tools could support such analysis other than and beyond an historical reconstruction based on oral interviews and the exam of specific research outputs and deliverables?

InterPARES approach for the authenticity evidence: a question of method

• The series of InterPARES projects (1999-2018) can be defined as an incredibly productive and long-lasting international environment developed for twenty years with stimulating results, such as a common terminology, robust conceptual frameworks and significant occasions for international and cross-domain comparisons and advanced educational programs.

• The UBC’s projects – this is an important aspect of their success strictly related to their original special nature – had a very clear and strong disciplinary (archival) focus but had and have also the capability of involving other communities with an interdisciplinary approach and (specifically in the second and third phases and, presumably, also in the future project just funded) of supporting with their basic conceptual framework other research environments.

authenticity evidence: a crucial concept for digital heritage

• The authenticity is a crucial concept, increasingly recognized for its centrality among the terms commonly used and referred to by the communication, information and knowledge society.

• The information society by its nature directly works on the creation and narration of social and individual identities and, for this reason, requires tools, procedures and fundamentally solid concepts for entrusting and documenting their authenticity specifically when facing the digital world challenges.

• Moreover, the authenticity in the sense of identity of the resources and their integrity has been developed not by chance by the documentary disciplines.

• The knowledge and the experience of archival institutions and scholars are in this respect undoubtedly central and the concept of authenticity is undoubtedly central for the research on digital preservation and for building measures and tools for trusted digital repositories of any type.

authenticity evidence for digital preservation: a demanding task

• The tendency of ignoring the complexity of ensuring authenticity evidence for long-term digital preservation is emblematic of the present capacity to overcome the critical factors by ignoring them.

• Against this flow, CASPAR and APARSEN projects have recognized – the centrality of a conceptual framework for ensuring and presuming

authenticity as part of the chain of custody for any kind of digital heritage

– the meaningfulness of archival and recordkeeping concepts when defining functions and requirements in this area and

– the essential need of a transdisciplinary cooperation to cope with it

CASPAR and APARSEN contribution to the authenticity evidence: actors profile

• The main actors involved in CASPAR and APARSEN projects have included:– archivists (senior and junior academic scholars) with competence on

authenticity of digital records and direct experience of InterPARES project (participants of the Authenticity task force)

– experts for conceptual modeling and business workflows – IT developers and IT engineers with experience of orchestration

systems for digital curation and preservation– scholars responsible for definition of the OAIS model and its

following revision (in 2012 )– experts in domains and contents which require new concepts and

tools for supporting authenticity (digital music, e-science, performing arts)

– professionals responsible for managing digital repositories and auditors involved in certification processes

CASPAR and APARSEN contribution to the authenticity evidence: key issues from archival/recordkeeping field - 1• InterPARES has been recognized as the conceptual framework for

interrelating principles, policies and procedures to compare and assess quality and consistency of digital practices with regard to authenticity

• Authenticity is based on identity and integrity (CASPAR: InterPARES concepts) and encompasses the whole business processes: before and after preservation begins (digital continuity)

• In any domain, authenticity evidence for digital heritage implies the collection of the appropriate documentation and annotations (APARSEN: Audit checklist for digital repository certification, ISO 23081)

• A standardized workflow is required to define (APARSEN: ISO 15489, ISO 23081):– when evidence should be collected– which evidence should be collected– how to structure and preserve it

CASPAR and APARSEN contribution to the authenticity evidence: key issues from archival/recordkeeping field - 2• A new definition in OAIS (2012 version]: “The degree of

authenticity is judged on the basis of evidence” (CASPAR-APARSEN)

• The related archival concept implies that authenticity has no degree in itself, but– the presumption of the authenticity is graduated and– its assessment is supported by the preservation system

and by the information collected during the whole chain of custody of the digital records: this information is defined as the authenticity evidence

CASPAR and APARSEN contribution to the authenticity evidence: key issues from archival/recordkeeping field - 3

• Authenticity is inferred from the trustworthiness of all the information collected

• A systematic way (based on well defined terminology and standardized approach) is proposed to collect and preserve authenticity evidence since the digital assets creation

CASPAR and APARSEN contribution to the authenticity evidence: key issues from archival/recordkeeping field - 4

• Authenticity evidence cannot be limited to ‘technical evidence’, i.e. mechanisms to validate the integrity at bit level (digests, signatures etc)

• ‘Non technical evidence’ should be collected as well like:– identity of the author – evidence of the reliability of the creation system – trustworthiness of the custodian– etc.

• Authenticity evidence is of crucial importance if the bit stream is modified by transformations at any time of the digital resource existence

CASPAR and APARSEN contribution to the authenticity evidence: key issues from archival/recordkeeping field - 5

• APARSEN proposes a systematic methodology based on the same conceptual framework. More functional requirements have been defined to support the methodology

– formal model based on a core set of events (normalized by adopting ISO standards on RM and MoReq 2 and MoReq 2010)

– event templates to specify and standardize controls and evidence to be gathered

– an Authenticity Evidence Record has been designed for supporting interoperability

– operational guidelines to guide implementation of the model

• APARSEN is transforming these proposals into specific tools and services. • SCIDIP-ES is implementing them for implementing provenance and context information

to be used specifically for e-health records and data but also for any type of scientific data to be collected and re-used over time.

some general (and not conclusive) remarks - 1

• The digital contents in any domain “require knowledge of its context of creation, and […] demand evidence of its provenance. These are processes to which archives respond well because they have developed an appropriate theoretical framework and have operationalised it in repository design, management and use over at least three centuries. The archival framework meets requirements surrounding the production, management, selection, dissemination, preservation and curation needs of information”

Seamus Ross, “Digital Preservation, Archival Science and Methodological Foundations for Digital Libraries” (keynote speech presented at ECDL Budapest 2007): 8 http://www.ecdl2007.org/Keynote_ECDL2007_SROSS.pdf

some general (and not conclusive) remarks - 2

• This archival framework has proved its consistency with the requirements for documenting authenticity over time in a dynamic environment

• In the last decade it has been developed and standardized within the discipline both with reference to the vocabulary and to the functional model

• It has provided a significant contribution to support the collection of relevant information for integrity and identity of digital resources in the creation and preservation processes.

• This effort has not been always consistent: on the contrary it was, it is and it will be inevitably conflicting and contradictory but still productive because increasingly based on international cooperation, multidisciplinary knowledge and transdisciplinary implicit ambition.

some (and not conclusive) remarks - 3

• This effort has been played thanks to some not avoidable conditions:– the international community has been able to discuss

openly, meet frequently and has been confident on its capacity to plan strategic roadmaps

– advanced research projects have been largely funded, – young scholars (open and with robust methodological

knowledge in their own domain) have been educated and early included into open research environments thanks to the increasing number of post-graduated and PhD programs with an international perspective