Hi Mathew,
This is really useful, thank you! I must admit the TNA report has been
sitting in my 'must read' pile a while. The criteria look very relevant,
as do the AV Preserve profiles. I'll aim to take heed of both in
revising the text and will add references. The guide could do a little
more on the contractual issues I agree, at least for the RDM support
audience if not researchers (who need a separate snappy flyer version).
Thanks again,
Angus
On 25/02/2015 11:55, Matthew Addis wrote:
> Hi Angus,
>
> Great doc! A couple of resources you might want to include/reference are:
>
> Guidance on cloud storage and digital preservation from The National
> Archives.
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/archives/cloud-storage-guidanc
> e.pdf
>
> Cloud storage profiles from AV Preserve.
> http://www.avpreserve.com/papers-and-presentations/cloud-storage-vendor-pro
> files/
>
> The authors of the TNA report include Neil Beagrie, who’s obviously well
> known in the RDM community, but also Andrew Charlesworth who adds a useful
> legal perspective. The report has a good set of assessment criteria and
> also case studies that cover Azure, AWS, DuraCloud, Preservica, Arkivum
> etc. Not research data repositories per se, but they do come under the
> area of your report that mentions cloud storage and data archiving.
>
> In the TNA report Andrew covers many of the points that you have in
> Section3 on repository T&Cs but he also highlights the need for a contact
> between the provider and the client, e.g. framework agreement or SLA
> covering availability, business continuity etc. Maybe it is worth
> including a few words on this in your report? I suspect this will become
> increasingly important to institutions because I can imagine that there
> will be cases where they still retain responsibility for research data
> (e.g. EPSRC expectations) even though the functions of retention or access
> might be delegated to a third-party repository. If there is well defined
> and funder supported transfer of responsibility then fine, e.g. deposit to
> somewhere like the UK Data Archive, but if not then I guess that
> institutions will feel increasingly bound to have proper T&Cs in place
> with a repository so there is some assurance (beyond certification or
> assessment according to TDR or some form or readiness level). They might
> of course also keeping their own independent and safeguarded copy of
> research data as an ‘insurance policy'. For example, just in the same way
> that a Research Office might get involved in the contract to do some
> research, I can imagine them wanting to be involved in due diligence and
> contract review if a third-party repo is then used to hold the results of
> that research.
>
> The work by AV Preserve is perhaps less well known, but is a great example
> of how the NDSA levels can be applied in practice. They covered
> DuraCloud, Preservica, Chronopolis, Dternity and others. Again not
> research data repos, but the approach they’ve used is transferrable.
> Their summary sheet
> (http://www.avpreserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CloudVendor_NDSA_Comp
> arison.pdf) shows graphically how a set of providers can be compared at
> the 4 NDSA levels and in the three areas of storage, integrity and
> security. They use a red/yellow/green traffic light scheme on whether
> each level is met and this provides an instant way to see how mature a
> given service is. They’ve also published the assessment they made of each
> provider.
>
> The stuff above is clearly a small corner of what your report is trying to
> cover and adding references to this stuff will only serve to make it
> longer, but hopefully the stuff is useful enough to warrant a brief
> mention!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
> Matthew Addis
> Chief Technology Officer
>
> tel: +44 1249 405060
> mob: +44 7703 393374
> email: [log in to unmask]
> web: www.arkivum.com <http://www.arkivum.com/>
> twitter: @arkivum
>
> This message is confidential unless otherwise stated.
> Arkivum Limited is registered in England and Wales, company number
> 7530353. Registered Office: 24 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3ND, United Kingdom
>
>
>
>
> On 10/02/2015 22:08, "Angus Whyte" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Joachim thanks very much for these really useful and sensible changes.
>>
>> On very similar topics, thanks also to Joan Starr for flagging up her
>> recent paper with colleagues, at
>> peerj.com/preprints/697.pdf <https://peerj.com/preprints/697.pdf> That
>> comes out of work with the Force11 group to operationalise the Joint
>> Declaration of Data Citation Principles, and is very relevant to our
>> checklist.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Angus
>>
>> On 10/02/2015 10:48, Wackerow, Joachim wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Angus,
>>
>> Thanks for the possibility.
>>
>> Overall it looks pretty good.
>>
>> I have some comments regarding the section “4. Will the repository
>> sustain the data’s value?”, Discovery, Integration & Interoperability
>>
>> Basic level / Domain & contextual metadata
>> Suggested addition: ... metadata can be deposited with the collection as
>> an XML file (like a DDI [http://www.ddialliance.org/]
>> XML file).
>>
>> Extensive level / Discovery metadata
>> Suggested addition: the landing page for a data collection uses Linked
>> Open Data standards (like The RDF Data Cube
>> Vocabulary[http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/]
>> or DDI-RDF Discovery Vocabulary
>> [http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/RDF/Discovery]) to make
>> metadata machine readable.
>>
>> Extensive level / Domain & contextual metadata
>> Suggested addition: Machine-readable metadata in open standards could
>> support processing and analyzing of open data.
>>
>> In general: Linking of discovery metadata and domain & contextual
>> metadata would support purely machine-based discovery and processing. The
>> linking could be
>> possibly bi-directional.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Joachim
>>
>> --
>> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
>> Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change
>> Team: Social Science Metadata Standards
>> Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
>> Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
>> Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
>> Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
>> E-mail:
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.gesis.org <http://www.gesis.org/>
>>
>> From: Research Data Management discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Angus Whyte
>> Sent: Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015 11:05
>> To:
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Please comment on our new draft guide 'where to keep your data'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DCC has a new draft checklist for Evaluating Data Repositories titled "
>> Where to keep your data: key considerations".
>>
>>
>> This builds on previous work by the PREPARDE project and comments from
>> colleagues, and we're now opening it up for wider comment. So we would
>> love to hear what you think of it. Can you help us shorten or otherwise
>> improve it? Let us know please by Feb 24 at
>> http://bit.ly/where2keep
>> <http://bit.ly/where2keep>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, -- Dr Angus WhyteSenior Institutional Support OfficerDigital
>> Curation CentreUniversity of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh is a
>> charitable body, registered inScotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Angus Whyte
>> Senior Institutional Support Officer
>> Digital Curation Centre
>> University of Edinburgh
>> Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE
>> +44-131-650-9980
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
Dr Angus Whyte
Senior Institutional Support Officer
Digital Curation Centre
University of Edinburgh
Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE
+44-131-650-9980
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|
