Current reviews

Reviews 2020-2021

We kindly invite you to review the following eArchiving specifications and supporting documents. Originally created by the E-ARK project and enhanced and stabilised by the E-ARK4ALL project now brought forward to the next level by the E-ARK3 project, these specifications are a core component of the CEF eArchiving Building Block.

The specifications and documents will be released for review in four groups: 

  • Group 1 (Closed 15 November 2020, see Closed reviews for details) 
  • Group 2 (Closed 7 January 2021, see Closed reviews for details)
  • Group 3 (Closed 16 May 2021, see Closed reviews for details)
  • Group 4 (Opened 3 May 2021, closes 18 July 2021)
  • Group 5 (Opened 14 June 2021, closes 18 July 2021)

Your completed feedback on each specification and document can be entered on the page given next to each review object.

The closing date for each group of documents to be reviewed is given in the group.

 

Group 4

Opened: 3 May 2021

Closing: 18 July 2021

Content Information Type Specification and guideline for eHealth 2

This is the first version of the eHealth2 specification. It defines an approach to preserve data sets exported from a cancer registry. It describes what elements need to be preserved to ensure future reuse of cancer registry export data. The eHealth2 specification defines an information package that aims to provide long-term usability and authentic interpretation of the content and context of the export created when the aggregator (international, national, researchers, etc.) requests data from the cancer registry. The eHealth2 specification is built upon ENCR, and JRC data calls in collaboration with Slovenian Cancer Registry and Slovenian National Archives.

The intended users of this document are:

  1. Cancer registries that preserve their exports long-term (that is, for example, the case in Slovenian Cancer Registry) and aggregators of exports (ENCR at JRC).
  2. Users of cancer registry data (researchers, health policymakers, etc.) who are interested in checking/researching the exports made.
  3. State/local archives, which will eventually decide which export is archival (is submitted to the archive and kept indefinitely).
  4. None of the above.

Attached to the specification is the first draft of the guidelines, indicating the structure and scope of guidelines’ content.

CITS PDF: 22_Draft_CITS_eHealth2.pdf

Guideline PDF: 23_Draft_Guideline_CITS_eHealth2.pdf

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Do you consider yourselves as users under 1), 2), 3), and/or 4)?
  • Do you have any experience with archiving the export from your database?
  • Do you think a document like this would make your work easier?
  • Can you aid us with examples?
  • Is this document self-explanatory?
  • Do you think it needs to be extended in any way?
  • Should mention and accommodation be made of any other international standards for eHealth?
  • Is the glossary of terms and their description appropriate with an adequate level of detail?
  • Does the guidelines document need more tutorial content for you to understand the specification?
  • What should we name this Content Information Type Specification?
  • Do you want to participate in the work?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/eHealth2

E-ARK specification for Archival Information Packages (AIP) White Paper

E-ARK deliverable D4.1 (Rörden & Randmäe, 2014) introduced the concept of a pan-european AIP format. This aimed to avoid transfer costs by use of a standardised package format, enabling systems to ingest AIPs directly from storage systems without copying or restructuring. The pan-european AIP format would define standards for building modular and reusable components. These could be shared by the digital preservation community and memory organisations. With this white paper, we present the general position for a proposed change of the specification explaining to repository implementers what the benefits are. Further, it explains in rough lines what the changes would be.

PDF: 24_White_Paper_Re-purposing_the_E-ARK_AIP_format.pdf

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Do you agree with the positioning claims made in the white paper?
  • Do you agree with the aim of restructuring the AIP format as outlined in the white paper?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/AIP_White_Paper

 

Group 5

Opened: 14 June 2021

Closing: 18 July 2021

Specification for the E-ARK Content Information Type Specification for digital geospatial data records archiving (CITS Geospatial)

The CITS Geospatial draft version 3.0.0 is an updated version of the specification, defining the approach to preserve all types of digital geospatial records. Key changes in this version include a revised structure of geodata elements and its placement within the eArchiving Information Package. In addition, CITS GIS has now been integrated into CITS Geospatial.

CITS PDF: 25_DRAFT_CITS_Geospatial_v3.pdf

METS Profile for ROOT: E-ARK-Geospatial-ROOT.xml

METS Profile for REPRESENTATION: E-ARK-Geospatial-REPRESENTATION.xml

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Do you agree that a separate CITS GIS is not needed?
  • Are the requirements for data in CITS Geospatial specification suitable for your purpose in your organisation (archive, library, company, etc.)?
  • Do the proposed requirements for Documentation and Metadata cover your needs for preserving geospatial records?
  • Do you agree that the proposed subfolders of a documentation folder should be mandatory?
  • If the proposed subfolders of a documentation folder shouldn’t be mandatory how would you ensure that the mandatory elements are present?
  • Do you agree with the naming of the documentation subfolders?
  • Does this way of grouping documentation and data make sense to you?
  • Would you want to differentiate between “Rendering” and “Behaviour”?
  • Are the proposed requirements appropriate for your need for validation?
  • Do you already use any Long Term Preservation Profiles for geospatial records and its validation?
  • If you are using a Long Term Preservation Profile would you be willing to share it with us?
  • Do you use METS for describing information packages?
  • If you already are a METS user, is the level of information in the METS files suitable for your need for validation?
  • Do you need further requirements for how to group and reference files in an Information Package using the METS file?
  • Should files in the Information Package with relations between them be grouped using subfolders?
  • Would you be able to implement the CITS Geospatial specification as a suitable Information Package structure for preserving and documenting Geospatial data?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/CITS_Geospatial

 

Guideline for the specification for the E-ARK Content Information Type Specification for digital geospatial data records archiving (CITS Geospatial)

The purpose of this guideline is to further explain and describe the “specification for the E-ARK Content Information Type Specification for digital geospatial data records archiving” (also called CITS Geospatial). The goal is that as many people as possible will be able to understand the specification and, therefore, to also preserve geodata.

Guideline PDF: 26_DRAFT_Guideline_CITS_Geospatial.pdf

Guideline Appendix 1 PDF: 27_DRAFT_Guideline_CITS_Geospatial_Appendix_1.pdf

Guideline Appendix 2 PDF: 28_DRAFT_Guideline_CITS_Geospatial_Appendix_2.pdf

Guideline Appendix 3 PDF: 29_DRAFT_Guideline_CITS_Geospatial_Appendix_3.pdf

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Does this guideline adequately describe the requirements in the CITS?
  • If the guideline does not fulfill your needs, where would more explanation be beneficial?
  • Do you have some further comments regarding this Guideline?
  • Can you help us with examples of the formats and standards you use when transferring geospatial records to aid with creating more profiles?
  • Will appendix 1 help you in preserving geodata in the form of GML 3.2.1?
  • Will appendix 2 help you in preserving geodata in the form of TIFF baseline 6?
  • Will appendix 3 will aid you in mapping the INSPIRE directive metadata to a finding aid?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the appendixes?
  • Do you want to help with the future development of this guideline and its appendices?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/CITS_Geospatial_Guideline

Guideline for using the specification for the E-ARK Content Information Type Specification for digital geospatial data records archiving (CITS Geospatial) with GIS

The purpose of this document is to extend the Guideline for CITS Geospatial with content describing preservation of selected elements from Geographical Information Systems (GIS). This document aims to extend the scope of preservation beyond the geospatial data records themselves and focus more on GIS elements defining geospatial information products.

Guideline for using CITS Geospatial with GIS PDF: 30_DRAFT_Guideline_CITS_Geospatial_with_GIS.pdf

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Does this guideline adequately describe the requirements in the CITS?
  • If the guideline do not fulfill your needs, where would more explanation be beneficial?
  • Are there topics you would like the guideline to address which are currently not mentioned?
  • Do you have some further comments regarding this Guideline?
  • Do you have your own guidelines for preservation of GIS that you could share?
  • Do you want to help with the future development of this guideline?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/CITS_Geospatial_with_GIS_Guideline

Latest news