Talk:Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smille16umd.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
TDR[edit]
Is there an article about trusted digital repositories (TDR) that I've overlooked? It would be nice to link this article into the broader issue of tdr and trustworthiness of digital collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smille16umd (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
New Sections[edit]
I wanted to add a few sections to round out the article's coverage: Trustworthiness as Concept; Alternatives; Implementation and Impact. Please see below and let me know what you think.
Trustworthiness as concept[edit]
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. [1] 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. [2] 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),[3] 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.[4] 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.[5]
References
- ^ https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/229/183
- ^ https://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/d6/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf
- ^ https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/60441/McGovern-Digital_Decade.html?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
- ^ http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/8.1.143
- ^ https://educopia.org/publications/anadp
Alternatives[edit]
TRAC is not the only auditing system to assess the trustworthiness of a digital information system. Other systems include:[1]
References
Implementation and impact[edit]
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4] Thanks!Smille16umd (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)smill16umd