B3 Preservation planning (BS)

In this chapter several similar expressions are used, which does not make it clear to the reader. I have: preservation strategies, preservation policies, preservation plans, preservation implementation plan, preservation planning, preservation strategic plan, preservation issue. I would suggest the following:

• preservation policies are the guiding principles on a high level
• a preservation issue is a risk that was identified and need some action, I would suggest we call it a “preservation risk”
• a preservation (implementation) plan describes the decision to mitigate the risk, which preservation actions will be performed to mitigate the risk, in relation to the context of the objects in danger
• a preservation strategy is a suggested/ performed (range of ) actions that mitigates the risk

B3.1 Repository has documented preservation strategies relevant to its holdings.

Supporting Text
The repository must have current, sound, and documented preservation strategies which describes how the repository will act upon identified risks.. This isThese documented preservation strategies are necessary in order to make the information available and usable for future generations and to provide a means to check and validate the preservation work of the repository.
Examples of Ways the Repository can Demonstrate it is Meeting this Requirement
Documentation identifying each preservation issuerisk identified and the strategy for dealing with that issuerisk.
Discussion
These preservation strategies will typically address the degradation of storage media, the obsolescence of media drives, and the obsolescence of Representation Information (including formats), safeguards against accidental or intentional digital corruption. For example, if migration is the chosen approach to some of these issues, there also needs to be Preservation Implementation Plans on; what triggers a migration and what types of migration are expected forto solve the solution of each preservation issuerisk identified.

B3.2 Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring its preservation environment.

Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring and notification when Representation Information (including formats) approaches obsolescence or is no longer viable.
Supporting Text
The repository must show that it has some active mechanism to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable and usable by the designated community(ies). The repository must show that it has some active mechanism to warn of impending obsolescence. Obsolescence is determined largely in terms of the knowledge base of the designated community(ies). This is necessary in order to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable and usable by the designated community(ies).
Examples of Ways the Repository can Demonstrate it is Meeting this Requirement
sSubscription to a format registry service service which registers information about file format obsolescence and/or notifies if this occurs; subscription to a technology watch service; surveys in the Designed Community of the repository.
Discussion
For most repositories, the concern will be with the Representation Information used to preserve information, which may include information on how to deal with a file format or software that can be used to render or process it. Sometimes the format needs to change because the repository can no longer deal with it. Sometimes the format is retained and the information about what software is needed to process it needs to change. If the mechanism depends on an external registry, the repository must demonstrate how it uses the information from that registry. For most repositories, the concern will be with the Representation Information used to preserve information, which may include information on how to deal with a file format or software that can be used to render or process it. Sometimes the format needs to change because the repository can no longer deal with it. Sometimes the format is retained and the information about what software is needed to process it needs to change. If the mechanism depends on an external registry, the repository must demonstrate how it uses the information from that registry.

B3.2.1 Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring and notification when Representation Information is inadequate for the Designated Community(ies) to understand the data holdings. Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring and notification when Representation Information (including formats) approaches obsolescence or is no longer viable.

Supporting Text
The repository must show that it has some active mechanism to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable and usable by the designated community(ies). The repository must show that it has some active mechanism to warn of impending obsolescence. Obsolescence is determined largely in terms of the knowledge base of the designated community(ies). This is necessary in order to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable and usable by the designated community(ies).
Examples of Ways the Repository can Demonstrate it is Meeting this Requirement
subscription to a format registry service; subscription to a technology watch service, surveys amongst its designated community members, relevant working processes to deal with this information.
Discussion
For most repositories, the concern will be with the Representation Information used to preserve information, which may include information on how to deal with a file format or software that can be used to render or process it. Sometimes the format needs to change because the repository can no longer deal with it. Sometimes the format is retained and the information about what software is needed to process it needs to change. If the mechanism depends on an external registry, the repository must demonstrate how it uses the information from that registry.see Discussion for 3.2

B3.3 Repository has mechanisms to change its preservation plans as a result of its monitoring activities.

Supporting Text
The repository must demonstrate or describe how it reacts to information from monitoring, which sometimes requires a repository to change how it deals with the material it holds in ways that could not have been anticipated at an earlier stage. This is necessary in order for the repository to be prepared for changes in the external environment that may make its current preservation plans a bad choice as the time to implement draws near.
Examples of Ways the Repository can Demonstrate it is Meeting this Requirement
Preservation Strategic Plans tied to formal or informal technology watch(es); preservation planning or processes that are timed to shorter intervals (e.g., not more than five years); proof of frequent Preservation Policies and Preservation Strategic Plans updates; sections of Preservation Policies that address how plans may be updated and that address how often the plans are required to be reviewed and reaffirmed or updated.
Discussion
Plans as simple as migrating from format X to format Y when the registries show that format X is no longer supported are not sufficiently flexible; other events may have made format Y a bad choice. The repository must periodically review it's preservation plans and the technology environment and, if necessary, makes changes to those plans to ensure their continued effectiveness. Another possible response to information gathered by monitoring is for the repository to update and create additional Representation Information and/or PDI.

B3.3.1 (was B3.2) Repository has mechanisms for creating, identifying or gathering any extra Representation Information required. Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring and notification when Representation Information (including formats) approaches obsolescence or is no longer viable.

Supporting Text
The repository must show that it has some active mechanism to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable and usable by the designated community(ies). The repository must show that it has some active mechanism to warn of impending obsolescence. Obsolescence is determined largely in terms of the knowledge base of the designated community(ies). Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring and notification when Representation Information (including formats) approaches obsolescence or is no longer viable and must show that it has mechanisms to incorporate these findings in its workflows. This is necessary in order to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable and usable by the designated community(ies).
Examples of Ways the Repository can Demonstrate it is Meeting this Requirement
sSubscription to a format registry service; subscription to a technology watch service; preservation plans.
Discussion
For most repositories, the concern will be with the Representation Information used to preserve information, which may include information on how to deal with a file format or software that can be used to render or process it. Sometimes the format needs to change because the repository can no longer deal with it. Sometimes the format is retained and the information about what software is needed to process it needs to change. If the mechanism depends on an external registry, the repository must demonstrate how it uses the information from that registry. NOTE THIS IS THE SAME TEXT AS 3.2, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

B3.4 Repository can provide evidence of the effectiveness of its preservation activities.

Supporting Text
The repository must be able to demonstrate the continued preservation, including understandability, of its holdings. This is necessary in order to assure the Designated Community(ies) that the repository will be able to make the information available and usable over the mid-to-long-term.
Examples of Ways the Repository can Demonstrate it is Meeting this Requirement
Collection of appropriate preservation metadata; proof of usability of randomly selected digital objects held within the system; demonstrable track record for retaining usable digital objects over time; Designated Community polls.
Discussion
This could be evaluated at a number of degrees and depends on the specificity of the Designated Community(ies). If a Designated Community is fairly broad, an auditor could represent the test subject in the evaluation. More specific Designated Communities could require significant efforts.
-- MarkConrad - 25 Jun 2008 We still need to go over David's cross-walk of Appendix 5 of the TRAC document and the requirements in B.3. to ensure that we have captured all of the requirements that should be listed in this section.
-- MarkConrad - 26 Jun 2008 In B.2.10. we inserted a reference to a B.3.x as a needed requirement to continue to test the understandability of AIPs beyond ingest. Does B.3.2. adequately meet this need or do we need another requirement in B.3?
-- JohnGarrett - 07 Jul 2008 - Following text was originally from B4.2, but today's meeting determined that it should be included in B3.
-- JohnGarrett - 07 Jul 2008 - I don't see a need to require strategies that are not yet employed. But I do think there is a need to be able to include those new strategies. Could the sentence above be changed to something like "The repository must demonstrate that it has documented preservation strategies and the strategy document must include a means to update and add to the strategies employed." This is necessary in order for the repository to be prepared for changes in the external environment that may make its current preservation plans a bad choice as the time to implement draws near. Minimally, documentation of Preservation Implementation Plans must be included in repository policies and practices. This is necessary in order to assure funders, producers, and users - and allow them to verify this
-- MarkConrad - 25 Jun 2008 It is not clear what the distinction is between preservation policies, preservation plans and preservation strategies. If there is one we need to make it explicit. [End of text moved from B4.1]