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

in procedures or even require authors to identify themselves by means of PGP/GPGkeys. 80The nestor and TRAC catalogs contain criteria dealing with integrity and authenticityof the files submitted to and archived by the repository. While, as we have seen, thenestor criteria mention the two concepts explicitly (cf. criteria blocks 6 and 7), TRAC onlyrefers to “completeness and correctness” of the submitted objects (2007, B1.4). Importantaspects of the concept of authenticity as outlined above are touched upon in TRACcriterion B1.3, focusing on “authenticat[ing] the source of all materials,” and requiring therepository to “ensure the digital objects are obtained from the expected source, that theappropriate provenance has been maintained, and that the objects are the expectedobjects” (2007, B1.3). DINI's overall approach to authenticity and integrity is primarily fromthe technical side. Thus 2.5 (Sicherheit, Authentizität und Integrität) among others 81recommends the use of advanced digital signatures according to SigG 2001 (Gesetz überRahmenbedingungen für elektronische Signaturen) 82 (DINI 2007, 2.5.2) and requires that(technical) measures are taken to prevent that files are uploaded onto the server which donot meet the criteria outlined in the repository's policy (DINI 2007, 2.5.1). Thus, forexample, files containing viruses or files with formats not accepted by the repositoryshould be rejected automatically. 83During the Generate AIP functional sub-entity, an Archival Information Package isgenerated from the Submission Information Package. This AIP must, according to OAIS,“conform to the archive's data formatting and documentation standards” (2002, 4-6;emphasis omitted), that is, it must be built and structured in accordance with packagingdesigns developed by the Preservation Planning Functional Entity (see below) andadopted by Administration. Like all OAIS Information Packages, the AIPis a conceptual container of two types of information called Content Information andPreservation Description Information (PDI). The Content Information and PDI are viewed asbeing encapsulated and identifiable by the Packaging Information. The resulting package isviewed as being discoverable by virtue of the Descriptive Information. (OAIS 2002, 2-5)80 TUBdok, the OPUS-based repository of the Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, uses PGP/GPG keysto authenticate the source of materials published on its server. Thus, every record contains a link to a pageserving as evidence for the attached document's integrity (“Unversehrtheitsnachweis”), including areference to digital signatures of the author(s) and the library. See Marahrens 2005 for a description of theproject in which these and other changes were implemented.81 In addition, DINI criterion 2.5 for example suggests access controls to the server (required; see 2007,2.5.1) and contains the requirement that a document whose content was changed has to be treated like anew document (see 2007, 2.5.2). These and other relevant criteria, requirements, and recommendationsfrom 2.5 will be listed and discussed under the functional entities for which they are most relevant.82 It does not become entirely clear how the signature is to be used and what is meant to be signed with it.See Winkler (2008) 76-78 for an explanation of possible uses of digital signatures in the context of longtermpreservation. Becker explicitly comments on the DINI suggestions and points to possible problemsthe use digital signatures can pose for long-term preservation efforts (2008, 36-37).83 Of course, each repository must decide for itself whether it wants to restrict the formats it will accept, andwhether these should really be rejected upon upload. As pointed out by Dr. Wagner, such an automatedrejection process might mean that files which could, for example, be converted into a different format willnot reach the repository at all as users might not want to make a second attempt or contact repository staffafter a file was rejected. This scenario shows quite clearly that in contrast to digital long-term archivessolely serving the purpose of preservation, for institutional or subject repositories long-term preservationefforts might conflict with usability and the concern to acquire a critical mass of repository content.29