This page is used to discuss recommendations in the field of Repositories which in our interpretation are essential pillars in the emerging data landscape. We distinguish 4 statements:
- Suggestions which come from RDA WG outputs (RDA WG)
- Suggestions which emerge from RDA discussions (RDA)
- Suggestions from other initiatives such as FAIR
- Suggestions for RDA Recommendations (RDA REC) which will be the result of RDA interactions
If there are more statements that relate to this bundle that come from other initiatives we should add them.
REP1. RDA DFT1.9: A digital repository is an infrastructure component that is able to store, manage and curate Digital Objects and return their bistreams when a request is being issued.
REP2. RDA DFT1.13: A digital metadata repository is a digital repository that is able to store, manage and curate metadata.
REP3. FAIR-A1: (meta) data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol. (this statement indirectly refers to the existence of digital repositories by stressing accessibiity via a protocol, i.e. a digital repository must offer a standardized protocol to access data)
REP4. RDA: Trustworthy repositories are digital repositories that untertake regularly quality assessments successfully such as Data Seal of Approval / World Data Systems. (these two initiatives harmonized their requirements)
REP5. RDA: Digital objects need to be stored in trustworthy digital repositories.
REP6. RDA DFT: Digital repositories should have a repository software system that supports the data organisation as defined in DFT.
REP7. RDA: digital repositories should expose their characteristics and services in widely recognized schemas to enable service providers to create useful services for human and machine processing.
REP8. RDA: One of the services of a digital repository to be indicated in the schema is the metadata harvesting port supporting a standard protocol such as OAI-PMH.
REP9. RDA-PP: A trustworthy repository must specify auditable practical policies for its various tasks, turn them into executable procedures and workflows, and systematically apply them in all cases to document provenance of all its digital objects.
REP10. RDA-DFT: Data copies will reside in several trustworthy digital repositories. It is recommended to indicate in the PID record which repository is the original one and thus has authority about setting access permissions and original metadata descriptions.
REP11. RDA: The global Internet of Data is domain of registered digital objects, at registration with a digital repository a PID is associated and metadata are created.
REP12. DSA4: The data repository has an explicit mission in the area of digital archiving and promulgates it.
REP13. DSA5: The data repository uses due diligence to ensure compliance with legal regulations and contracts including, when applicable, regulations governing the protection of human subjects.
REP14. DSA6: The data repository applies documented processes and procedures for managing data storage.
REP15. DSA7: The data repository has a plan for long-term preservation of its digital assets.
REP16. DSA8: Archiving takes place according to explicit work flows across the data life cycle.
REP17. DSA9: The data repository assumes responsibility from the data producers for access and availability of the digital objects.
REP18. DSA10: The data repository enables the users to discover and use the data and refer to them in a persistent way.
REP19. DSA11: The data repository ensures the integrity of the digital objects and the metadata.
REP20. DSA12: The data repository ensures the authenticity of the digital objects and the metadata.
REP21. DSA13: The technical infrastructure explicitly supports the tasks and functions described in internationally accepted archival standards like OAIS.
From these statements we can draw a number of obviously widely agreed recommendations:
REC1: (to come as a process of finding convergence in an open discussion)