UNT and UF Pilot Project of a Peer-to-Peer Process for Becoming a Trusted Digital Repository Handout for Joint Chairs Me...


Material Information

UNT and UF Pilot Project of a Peer-to-Peer Process for Becoming a Trusted Digital Repository Handout for Joint Chairs Meeting on 1 Oct. 2014
Physical Description:
Project Charter
Phillips, Mark
Taylor, Laurie N.
Dinsmore, Chelsea
Yellapantula, Suchitra
Shorey, Christy
Perry, Laura
Alemneh, Daniel
Tarver, Hannah
Krahmer, Ana
Waugh, Laura
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publication Date:


Project Charter for collaborative project with the University of North Texas (UNT) and University of Florida (UF) for a collaborative process to each complete a full self-audit using the Trusted Repository Audit Checklist (TRAC). In addition to the self-audit, each institution agreed to participate in a peer review process evaluating and scoring each others self-audit and supplied documentation. The goals of the project were as follows: demonstrate the maturity of repository services, infrastructure and governance at both institutions, increase collaboration among project teams at UF and UNT, and pilot a peer review option that aims at offers more rigor and external feedback. The goals of the project are as follows: *Document the current repository services and systems, technical and human infrastructures, and overall operations following the TRAC process *Demonstrate the maturity of repository services, infrastructure and governance at both institutions *Share information and knowledge to support increasing the collaboration between project teams at UF and UNT *Pilot a peer review option that aims at offers more rigor and external feedback than a self-audit, but which also does not have the same financial requirements as a full external certification by a third party *Leverage the process internally at each institution to share information and knowledge to support increasing collaboration among different internal and external groups, including Research Computing and High Performance Computing groups at each institution

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:

This item is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution License. This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this work, even commercially, as long as they credit the author for the original creation.
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


UNT and UF Pilot Project of a Peer to Peer Process for Becomi ng a Trusted Digital Repository Handout for Joint Chairs Meeting on 1 Oct. 2014 TRAC Sections and Goal Schedule A. Organizational Infrast r u cture : Sept. Dec. 2014 B. Digital Object Management : Jan. April 2015 C. Technologies, Technical Infrastructure, & Security : May August 2015 U pcoming Activities Sept. Oct.: Kickoff meeting with UNT, DLF presentation preparation for Oct. 27, CNI submission on Oct 13, and ongoing documentation creation: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/ AA00017119 Oct. 8: Meeting with SASC to review and update information for aggregations (list: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/AA00017119/00033 ) Review and updating the notes for the aggregation list Upd ating contact email addresses (stop using AskA) Rights Statements (p lans for bulk updates or next steps for manual updates) Collection support updates o If the collections should have OCLC records, getting the requests in for that o Ensuring all curators have rights to their collections for editing homepages o Updating/assisting on any collection homepage updates o E stablishing standard homepage text for archivalbased collections and/or other collections. Section A. Organizational Infrastructure A1. Governance & organizational viability A1.1 Repository has a mission statement that reflects a commitment to the long term retention of, management of, and access to digital information. A1.2 Repository has an appropriate, formal succession plan, contingency plans, and/or escrow arrangements in place in case the repository ceases to operate or the governing or funding institution substantially changes its scope. A2. Organizational structure & staffing A2.1 Repository has identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and has appo inted staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties. A2.2 Repository has the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services. A2.3 Repository has an active professional development program in place that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities. A3. Procedural accountability & policy framework (documentation) A3.1 Repository has defined its designated community(ies) and associated knowledge base(s) and has publicly accessible definitions and pol icies in place to dictate how its preservation service requirements will be met.


A3.2 Repository has procedures and policies in place, and mechanisms for their review, update, and development as the repository grows and as technology and community practice evolves. A3.3 Repository maintains written policies that specify the nature of any legal permissions required to preserve digital content over time, and repository can demonstrate that these permissions have been acquired when needed. A3.4 Repository is c ommitted to formal, periodic review and assessment to ensure responsiveness to technological developments and evolving requirements. A3.5 Repository has policies and procedures to ensure that feedback from producers and users is sought and addressed over t ime. A3.6 Repository has a documented history of the changes to its operations, procedures, software, and hardware that, where appropriate, is linked to relevant preservation strategies and describes potential effects on preserving digital content. A3.7 Re pository commits to transparency and accountability in all actions supporting the operation and management of the repository, especially those that affect the preservation of digital content over time. A3.8 Repository commits to defining, collecting, track ing, and providing, on demand, its information integrity measurements. A3.9 Repository commits to a regular schedule of self assessment and certification and, if certified, commits to notifying certifying bodies of operational changes that will change or n ullify its certification status. A4. Financial sustainability A4.1 Repository has short and longterm business planning processes in place to sustain the repository over time. A4.2 Repository has in place processes to review and adjust business plans at least annually. A4.3 Repositorys financial practices and procedures are transparent, compliant with relevant accounting standards and practices, and audited by third parties in accordance with territorial legal requirements. A4.4 Repository has ongoing commitment to analyze and report on risk, benefit, investment, and expenditure (including assets, licenses, and liabilities). A4.5 Repository commits to monitoring for and bridging gaps in funding. A5. Contracts, licenses, & liabilities A5.1 If repository manages, preserves, and/or provides access to digital materials on behalf of another organization, it has and maintains appropriate contracts or deposit agreements. A5.2 Repository contracts or deposit agreements must specify and transfer all necessary preservation rights, and those rights transferred must be documented. A5.3 Repository has specified all appropriate aspects of acquisition, maintenance, access, and withdrawal in writ ten agreements with depositors and other relevant parties. A5.4 Repository tracks and manages intellectual property rights and restrictions on use of repository content as required by deposit agreement, contract, or license. A5.5 If repository ingests digi tal content with unclear ownership/rights, policies are in place to address liability and challenges to those rights.