DLM Forum’s triennial conference 2011: Keynote: Preserving Communications for the Future / Common Features of Messages for Interoperability and Long Term Preservation

Keynote: Preserving Communications for the Future / Common Features of Messages for Interoperability and Long Term Preservation

Richard Jeffrey‐Cook, Head of Information & Records Management,

In‐Form Consult (UK)

Jeffrey-Cook focused on the challenge of continuity of information. For him this encompassed all forms of communications transactions: from text to social media communication. Not an uncommon perception for archivists. The challenge can be beaten by finding common ground between communications. Jeffrey-Cook argues that Moreq2010 provides such common ground.


The world of communication and technology changes at an ever increasing speed. The use, purpose and impact   of communication changes as well as do the instruments we use for communication. A case also made by Angelika Menne-Haritz.

All these instruments use different technology, have different functionality, employ different standards, but all potentially produce records.

Jeffrey-Cook points out that we need to search for common characteristics between all these forms of communication and identify which characteristics are important for interpreting and preserving records. In a many ways this confirms the ideas formulated in the Interpares projects. He also stressed the importance of maintaining the threads between communications. Proper interpretation is derived from the relationships between communications.

The biggest challenge will come from communications where little is standardized. The interaction by social media has little or no standardization. The maintenance of threads will be all important. We will also face problems when dealing with communications with interaction which are not intended to produce records. I think the first case study has already arrived.

Jeffrey-Cook concluded with the following remarks:

• Distinguish  the message and it’s metadata from the technology
• Identify the characteristics common to all communications
• Separate the client application - the user interface into an extension module

His presentation can be found here.

DLM Forum’s triennial conference 2011: Interoperability – Applied interoperability: Experiences with reusing records management metadata

Applied interoperability: Experiences with reusing records management
metadata
Kuldar Aas, Deputy Chief, Digital Preservation Department, National Archives
of Estonia (Estonia)

Since the National Archives of Estonia also use the Tessella Safety Deposit Box I am always eager to learn from their experience, challenges and solutions.

I had the honor to give a presentation last November at the Estonian Digital Deposit Event in Tallinn, so was already a bit acquainted with the Estonian approach.

Kuldar Aas started by stating that (manual) pre-ingest and ingest procedures are not sustainable when dealing with digital records. Human intervention can’t cope with the data volume. This means that processes need to be automated and that we should reuse records management metadata as much as possible for archival purposes.

Aas offered a two folded solution: 1) focus on the originating ERMS: define strict protocols for transfer and ingest, Submission Information Package (SIP) standards and quality requirements, 2) choose a centralized solution.

The centralized solutions entails tooling for record creators during the pre-ingest and transfer process: the Universal Archiving Module 

Taken from the presentation by Kuldar Aas

A similar debate is present at the National Archives of the Netherlands: what should we automate and how do we go about doing this? Similar to the National Archives of Estonia tools have been developed to aid both archivist and records creator in creating SIP for ingest in the e-Depot and the de facto SIP standard MeDusA is propagated, but there are many issues that cannot be solved by this.

Aas recognizes this by stating that most work will have to be done at the moment of creation. In his conclusions he stated that quality of descriptions cannot be achieved if it is not already available in records management. He also stated that it might be wiser to  not demand to replace the current records management metadata but add something to it instead. Again a similar position.

There were also some practical conclusions:

• start small: mandatory metadata set in UAM is currently rather limited
• many agencies and ERMS vendors do not like the idea of prescriptive metadata schemas

Furthermore we should look ahead and at new ideas. The European Interoperability Framework provides new opportunities to develop solutions. Also there is a real need for clever semantic mapping engines, since by and large, semantic operability remains the larger issue in records and archival management. As was proven by the CRKM Metadata Broker (Clever Recordkeeping Metadataproject).

Aas expressed the hope MoReq2010 extensions could explore this venue of semantic interoperability.

DLM Forum’s triennial conference 2011: day 2 - Making Intelligent Information Control a Reality in Europe

13 December 2011
Making Intelligent Information Control a Reality in Europe
Rory Staunton, Managing Director, Strategy Partners (UK)

Rory Staunton did not waste time on niceties, but bluntly announced that the time had come for traditional archivists. Old records management seemed outdated to him. We now live in a time of coincidence. A coincidence of forces such as recession, new technology (at new prices) and increasing compliance.

Traditional records management seemed to fight these forces, but according to Staunton, we should be clever and use these forces. Secret records management: providing records management without people noticing you are doing it. A stark contrast to the popular image that we should bring records management to the (end)users.

Staunton set about how to use these forces.

Why does one need intelligent control? A question every archivist should be able to answer in my opinion. But Staunton provided us with some answers drawn from his own experience. Intelligent information control is needed because of the ever increasing and en enduring scrutiny we need to work under. Transparency comes at a price. Next to scrutiny there is operational safety for which we need intelligent control. Humans are humans and we make mistakes. Human disfunctioning needs technical checks: it needs intelligent information control. But despite our own shortcomings, people distrust technical solutions. One will trust the paper files stored in the cabinet behind them (it’s there isn’t it?), but will distrust digital files. Adding insult to injury: digital information management in some minds leads to too much transparency. We can record everything.

So a paradox seems to emerge: the compliance industry is growing, but the number of implemented records management systems is not. One feels to lose control over content. But in any event archives are still expected to serve compliance needs, but see little resources allocated to them to actually fore fill these needs.

But according to Staunton successful compliance is not so much about technic as it is cultural. One has to change the organization and the prevailing culture: fighting the three way chasm: records management altruism, IT departments are de facto run by IT vendors, Business is run by stockholders.

Records management is done more for the benefit of others (you can certainly find your own records), so records management is hardly done at all. MoReq2010 is considered a game changer by Staunton and Strategy Partners for business managers, consumers and government. ­MoReq2010 does not ‘fit’ in IT, because it does not consider IT as an strategy, but as a list of technologies. It’s about information compliance and as such is driven by business. Business considers costs and substitution of technology is costly. MoReq2010 supplies interoperability which renders substitution less costly. Combining cost reduction with records management MoReq2010 uses a horizontal instead of vertical approach to records management. So I think what Staunton says is that MoReq2010 frees records management of pure altruism.

IT departments are part of the problem since due to outsourcing they are de facto run by IT vendors. IT vendors by definition propagate technology solutions instead of human or customer solutions: the service level agreements you agree on do not concern control. You are very much not in control, since instead of service delivery they are about service performance. But this goes beyond new SLA´s. It´s about thinking about new organizational formats where legacy thinking is ousted and duty of care is welcomed: it should be about delivery of results.

By using financial arguments one can push MoReq2010 and records management. Under a recession stockholders and business owners are eager for financial opportunities. The theme of substitution should not be about technology choices. It’s a lifestyle choice. Substitution should have a Return On Investment (ROI): MoReq2010 can be used to gain compliance and enables a ROI when substituting technology. MoReq2010 saves money.

Recession and stockholders are never a good combination, but for records managers there are opportunities.

More information on Strategy Partners and Moreq2010.

DLM Forum’s triennial conference 2011: day 1 - Moreq2010

12 December 2011

Apples and oranges: An in‐depth comparison of MoReq2010 to other

international records management standards

Jon Garde, Author of MoReq2010 & Director of Journal IT (UK) 

Although some might frown upon the fact that conference attendees received a paper version of the MoReq2010 standard, Jon Garde revealed that this edition was in fact the 1.1 version of the standard. A version nowhere to be found online. Not even on the MoReq website.

Firstly he touched on some specific tools that accompanied the new standard:

• The MoReq2010 export XML schema that describes how entities are exported, in what order, and the structure of the resulting XML data
• The MoReq2010 Test Framework for Accreditation, Certification & Testing 

This however would not be the end. In the (near) future extension modules and translations would be developed.

After these announcements he set out to compare the MoReq2010 standard to other records management standards. This comparison should eventually lead to a contrast document.

Important differences according to John Garde are:

• Requirements
• Coverage: incomplete coverage of the standard is diverted by allowing extensions
• Cardinality: level of specification per requirement.
• Process: MoReq2010 relates to parts of the records management process, thus recognizing that some work is already done.
• Vocabulary & concepts: be using a extended glossary the MoReq2010 can be made interoperable. By contrast ISO standards such as 23081 and 15489 are not interchangeable on this point.

Garde then made a distinction between so called ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ standards. Hard standards are standards that have a testing regime and which are interoperable via technical and semantic requirements: if you do not follow the rules exactly (comply), then it does not work. MoReq2010 is such a standard. Soft standards do not have a testing regime and compliancy is a value.

I do not know about the hardness of MoReq2010 and am tempted to say that I foremost would like to see that some (instead of no) rules are applied. We’ll work from there.

His presentation can be downloaded from the DLM website.