Preserving Authenticity Across Time: The Work of the InterPARES Project

1. Preserving Authenticity Across Time: The Work of the InterPARES Project Anne Gilliland-Swetland Department of Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles

2. Rationale • The authenticity of electronic records is threatened whenever they are transmitted across space (i.e., when sent between persons, systems or applications) or time (i.e., either when they are stored offline, or when the hardware or software used to process, communicate, or maintain them is upgraded or replaced). • Requirements for assessing the authenticity of electronic records that are preserved over the long term are necessary to support the presumption that an electronic record is and continues to be, what it purports to be and has not been modified or corrupted in essential respects. • Preservation processes and mechanisms need to be identified that ensure these requirements are, and continue to be met.

3. Participants • Luciana Duranti, UBC, Director • Canadian Team (Eastwood) • American Team (Eppard & Gilliland-Swetland) • Australian Team (McKemmish) • European Team (Horsman & Ross) • Italian Team (Guercio) • Asian Team (DuMei) • Global Industry Team (Lysakowski)

4. Collaborators • National and university archives, Smithsonian Institution staff • Academics & research students in archival science, preservation management, information policy, computer science and electrical engineering, and music • Industry biocomputing specialists • Matrices with other electronic records initiatives

5. Organisation • 4 research domains: • Authenticity • Appraisal • Preservation • Policy • Glossary Task Force

6. Methodological and Analytical Approaches • Contemporary archival diplomatics (top-down, inductive approach) • to identify and define the elements of an ideal electronic record in general, and those that are relevant to a consideration of its authenticity in particular, using concepts and methods based upon what is known about traditional records, juridical systems, and record-keeping practices • Grounded theory development using purposively selected case studies of actual systems (bottom-up, deductive approach) • to elucidate the shifting boundaries of electronic records, emergent record-keeping processes, and new manifestations of traditional record elements

7. Methodological and Analytical Approaches (cont’d) • Functional analysis • To understand the functions, activities, products and by-products of the recordkeeping system • Narrative analysis • To examine language and narrative tropes to identify how records creators and systems personnel view the nature of the electronic record and understand the concept of authenticity • Activity modeling (IDEF0) • To delineate and decompose archival appraisal and preservation processes

8. Assumptions About the Nature of the Electronic Record • A complex of complex of elements and their relationships • Possesses a number of identifiable characteristics, including a fixed documentary form, a stable content, an archival bond with other records either inside or outside the system, and an identifiable context • Participates in or supports an action, either procedurally or as part of the decision-making process (meaning its creation may be mandatory or discretionary) • At least three persons (author, writer, and addressee) are involved in its creation (although these three conceptual persons may in fact be only one physical or juridical person) • These characteristics manifest themselves in explicit and implicit ways.

9. Authenticity Domain Outcomes • 2 sets of conceptual requirements for assessing authenticity: • Benchmark requirements are based on the notion of a trusted recordkeeping system and include requirements that support the presumption of the authenticity of electronic records before they are transferred to the preserver’s custody • Baseline requirements are based on the notion of the preserver as trusted custodiansupport the production of authentic copies of electronic records after they have been transferred to the preserver’s custody • Template for Analysis which decomposes an electronic record into its constituent elements, defines each element, explains its purpose, and indicates whether, and to what extent, that element is instrumental in assessing the record’s authenticity

10. Authenticity Domain Findings • Records are inextricably embedded in their contexts • Authenticity is primarily ensured through procedural and technological means (often implicit), rather than through explicit elements of form • An electronic record needs to be understood within its functional context and that needs to be the basis of any typology of electronic records • Medium is not a relevant indicator in assessing the authenticity of a record

11. Preservation Domain Conceptual Outcomes • It is not possible to preserve an electronic record. It is only possible to preserve the ability to reproduce an authentic copy of an electronic record • The record should not be changed in any way that relates to its essential record nature, even if its existence as a physical object changes. A record is considered essentially intact and uncorrputed if the message that it is meant by its creator to communicate in order to achieve its purpose is unaltered • The level of functionality and other aspects of the record that need to be preserved and reproduced are decided based upon application of the authenticity requirements. The preservation method is then selected according to a risk and economic assessment • Notion of record components

12. Digital Components • A digital object that is, or is part of, an electronic record, or that contains one or more parts of one or more electronic records, and that has specific methods for storage and reproduction.

13. Preservation Control • Preservation control is critical in transitions across technological boundaries. • Preservation control consists of actions, conditions, and constraints designed to ensure the preservation of recoprds and their continued authenticity. • Preservation controls may be systematic or dynamic.

14. Preservation Function Models • Metamodels delineating and decomposing the activities (I.e., inputs, outputs, requirements, and constraints) involved in the preservation process that can be situated within the OAIS framework and can accommodate a range of preservation methods and production of different kinds of copies

15. Future Research Agenda: InterPARES 2 • Expanded examination of the utility and extensibility of InterPARES 1 findings and outcomes in 3 activity areas: • Corporate and government sectors • Physical and social sciences (especially geospatial aspects) • Creative and performing arts • Emphasis on complex records generated by interactive, dynamic, sensory, and experiential systems

16. Major Changes to the InterPARES1 Approach • Expanded emphasis on the nature of the record and the concepts of authenticity and evidence as they are understood in non-bureaucratic contexts such as the creative and performing arts • Integration of policy, metadata and terminology considerations across all research domains • More emphasis on qualitative methods such as ethnography and narrative analysis • Modified collaborative structure

18. Further Information • Main project Website: http://www.interpares.org • American Team Website: • http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/us-interpares