Download (PDF, 9MB, Not barrier-free file.) - Nestor

access related criteria will also have little difficulty in implementing the access functionalentity according to the requirements voiced in the catalogs.In order to make working with the different catalogs easier, in addition the decisionwas made to map them onto each other based on the functional entities outlined in theOAIS reference model. 28 Taking the nestor catalog of criteria as a basis, criteria of theother two catalogs were matched with the nestor criteria. In a second step, these matchedcriteria were then reordered according to the OAIS functional entity or entities for whichthey seemed most relevant (see Appendix A for the mapping of the criteria). Thisprocedure seemed adequate not only because OAIS is the accepted internationalstandard for the (high-level) description of digital archives, but also because in particularnestor and TRAC clearly work against the backdrop of the OAIS reference model by usingits terminology and by referring to its functional entities.1.2 OAIS and Disaggregated Preservation Models for Repositories“OAIS is not an architectural model. It is an ontology, a terminology underlying a shared viewand, as such, provides a means of communication […].” (Allinson 2006, 11)In that OAIS is one of the main conceptual frameworks for the following discussion, itneeds to be considered briefly to what extent and in which ways the model's terminologyis really applicable to institutional and subject repositories. As the commentaries to theaforementioned blog posts by Chris Rusbridge illustrate, whether OAIS is a suitable modelfor institutional or subject repositories, especially if they do not see long-term preservationas one of their central tasks, continues to be subject to debate. Nonetheless, the presentwork will use OAIS terminology to describe the elements and activities of the selectedrepositories, even if the latter do not consider themselves as and are no long-termarchives. 29 That this is possible is argued, among others, in Allinson's article “OAIS as aReference Model for Repositories” (2006), in which she opens her argument by pointingout thatmost repositories, perhaps without realising it, are offering some level of preservation. They arestoring and managing materials on behalf of others, they are committed to gathering metadataand they have agreements and policies to ensure a certain level of service. (5)Arguing that it is “relatively easy” for repositories “to conform to the OAIS model” (2006,5), she explains that the requirements for OAIS-compliance are merely a “small set ofhigh-level goals, providing a loose framework for best practice and communicationbetween repositories” embodied in “six responsibilities encompass[ing] many of the tasksthat institutional repositories are already fulfilling […]” (2006, 6). A similar point is made byThibodeau, who argues that28 The present work will refer to the OAIS reference model as published in 2002 by the CCDS (ISO14721:2003). A new (preliminary) OAIS version was presented in May 2009 for public examination andcomment (hereafter cited as OAIS 2009). This version was scheduled to be submitted to ISO in or afterJune 2009 but is not an ISO standard as of yet.29 Please note that while some of the terminology will be explained in the course of this study, a generalfamiliarity with the terminology of OAIS on the side of the reader is assumed.15