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.

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.

The material to be reviewed can be found here:


Group 1

Opened on: 31 August 2020

Closing date: November 15, 2020

 

Guideline (Primer) for the Common Specification for Information Packages (CSIP), SIP, AIP, DIP, Preservation Metadata and Archival Information

This guideline (primer) describes the core IP specifications with the accompanying preservation metadata and archival information needed to create a complete package. The underlying standards, such as the OAIS Reference Model, XML, and METS, are described in a user-friendly way. Some notes regarding implementation are also present, but, in most cases, these will not be enough to explain how it is conducted in each system because of the complexity of all the systems. The principles for a package are also described and explained. The guideline will be an evolving document, and thoroughly explained examples will be added continuously. In this review, we would like you to focus on the questions below.

PDF: 1. Draft Guideline IP.pdf

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

  • Is this kind of document useful for you as a user?
  • Does the document need more detail for you to understand the specifications and the standards they are built upon?
  • Does the document need more tutorial content for you to understand the specifications and the standards they are built upon?
  • This document is a first draft version, is there anything missing that should be included?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the Guidelines within the eArchiving Building Block?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EARK_review_G1-1_guideline_for_CSIP-SIP-AIP-DIP

 

Guidelines for creating a new Content Information Type Specification

A series of procedures are required to create and maintain the specifications within the eArchiving Building Block. These include the creation of a specification, the review of a specification, and update of a specification. The following procedure considers the creation of a Content Information Type Specification (CITS).

PDF: 2. Draft Specification creation guideline v1.1.pdf

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

  • Is this kind of document useful for you as a creator of a specification to be used in the eArchiving Building Block?
  • Can you provide any input to improve this procedure and document?
  • Based on your experience are there any steps missing in this procedure?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the Procedures within the eArchiving Building Block?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EARK_review_G1-2_procedure_for_CITS_creation

 

Open review guidelines for eArchiving Building Block specifications and documentation

A series of procedures are required to create and maintain the specifications within the eArchiving Building Block. These include the creation of a specification, the review of a specification, and update of a specification. The following procedure considers the open review guidelines for eArchiving Building Block specifications and documentation.

PDF: 3. Draft Specification review guideline v0.1.pdf

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

  • As a creator of a specification to be used in the eArchiving Building Block, is this kind of document useful for you when the specification will be subject for an open review?
  • Can you provide any input to improve this procedure and document?
  • Based on your experience are there any steps missing in this procedure?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the Procedures within the eArchiving Building Block?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EARK_review_G1-3_review_procedure_for_CS_or_CITS

 

Guidelines for revision of Common Specifications and Content Information Type Specifications

A series of procedures are required to create and maintain the specifications within the eArchiving Building Block. These include the creation of a specification, the review of a specification, and update of a specification. The following procedure considers the Guidelines for revision of Common Specifications and Content Information Type Specifications.

PDF: 4. Draft Specification revision guideline v1.1.pdf

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

  • As a maintainer of a specification to be used in the eArchiving Building Block, is this kind of document useful for you when the specification will be subject for an update through revision?
  • Can you provide any input to improve this procedure and document?
  • Based on your experience are there any steps missing in this procedure?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the Procedures within the eArchiving Building Block?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EARK_review_G1-4_revision_procedure_for_CS_or_CITS

 

Figure production for eArchiving Building Block specifications and their guidelines

A series of procedures are required to create and maintain the specifications within the eArchiving Building Block. These include the creation of a specification, the review of a specification, and update of a specification. The following procedure considers figure production for eArchiving Building Block specifications and their guidelines.

PDF: 5. Draft figure creation guideline v0.1.pdf

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

  • As a creator of a specification to be used in the eArchiving Building Block, is this kind of document regarding figure production useful for you?
  • Can you provide any input to improve this procedure and document?
  • Based on your experience are there any steps missing in this procedure?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the Procedures within the eArchiving Building Block?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EARK_review_G1-5_figure_production_procedure_for_CS_for_CITS

 

Procedure for vocabulary creation in a Common Specification or Content Information Type Specifications

A series of procedures are required to create and maintain the specifications within the eArchiving Building Block. These include the creation of a specification, the review of a specification, and update of a specification. The following procedure considers vocabulary creation for a Common Specification or Content Information Type Specifications.

PDF: 6. Draft Vocabularies guideline v0.1.pdf

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

  • As a creator of a specification to be used in the eArchiving Building Block, is this kind of document regarding vocabulary creation useful for you?
  • Can you provide any input to improve this procedure and document?
  • Based on your experience are there any steps missing in this procedure?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding the Procedures within the eArchiving Building Block?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EARK_review_G1-6_vocabularies_procedure


 

Group 2

Opened on: 20 October 2020

Closing date: 17th of January 2021

 

Content Information Type Specification for Electronic Records Management Systems

The CITS ERMS have been extended with the textual document as well as undergone some changes in the XML-schema. The draft of the CS ERMS document is supplied as a supplementary document for understanding the XML-schema as well as the schema generated documentation. We would like you to focus your comments on the usability of the specification. We would also like your input into the name of the specification considering records management is not a solemnly system anymore; instead, it is built upon many different parts all possible to transfer using this CITS. If you want to give suggestions in the document please add these as comments in the pdf document and upload it in the designated area.

PDF: 7. Draft CITS_ERMS_ v2.0.0.pdf

ERMS Schema documentation: Schema Documentation

XML-schema: ERMS.xsd

Schematron: erms.sch

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

  • What should we name this Content Information Type Specification?
  • Can you aid us with examples that show the use of the specification? Please upload these to us when replying to the survey.
  • Do you have any further comments regarding CITS ERMS? Make these as comments in the pdf and upload these to us when replying to the survey.

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

 

CITS SIARD (Content Information Type Specification for Relational Databases using SIARD)

The CITS SIARD specification is a brand new specification that describes how to package SIARD-files and any accompanying external LOBs in CSIP package(s). The specification also describes how to package extra metadata and context documentation so that long term preservation and dissemination can take place for relational databases.

For aiding with understanding the use of SIARD two Case Study documents have been created. Case Study 1 describes experiences with workflows and documentation practices when implementing database preservation with SIARD and Case Study 2 describes experiences working with large databases and their preservation. If you have comments to these two documents please add as comments in the pdf and upload in the designated area.

PDF: 8. Draft CITS_SIARD_v1.2.pdf

Case Study 1: 9. Draft SIARD_Case_Study 1.pdf

Case Study 2: 10. Draft SIARD_Case_Study 2.pdf

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

  • Are there requirements which you think are missing?
  • Are there requirements which you think are not relevant?
  • Are there requirements which you think are too ambitious?
  • Are there requirements which you think are not ambitious enough?
  • Do you disagree with some of the MoSCoW?
  • Do you think that there are contradictory requirements? If so, which do you weigh the highest?
  • Do you think that there is a need for a specification (and supporting tools) for a submission agreement for relational databases?
  • Are the provided documents Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 a helpful resource for your understanding?

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

 

Request For Comments on the standard SIARD 2.2 RFC

The SIARD file format version 2.2 Request for Comments is based on SIARD 2.1.1 and is strictly focused on what is needed to ensure scalability, esp. handling large objects outside the SIARD file according to SQL:2008, chapter 9 SQL/MED. SIARD 2.2 should be fully backward compatible with SIARD 2.1.1. All other requests for change, be it additions, replacements or removals to the SIARD File format specification have been ignored and postponed to the next revision, which we expect will come soon after this, led by the DILCIS Board. We urge all current and coming users of SIARD to give their comments to this Request for Commons version 2.2 of SIARD. And those being part of the process of creating this RFC should hold themselves back from commenting again. Having received these comments the DILCIS Board will modify the specifications and issue a new version of SIARD named SIARD 2.2.

PDF: 11. SIARD 2.2.0.10 RFC.pdf

XML-schema: metadata.xsd

Example of a SIARD file: ech-0165_oe.siard

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are collected in this PDF: 12. Questions for SIARD 2.2 RFC.pdf

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

 

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

The GeoCITS v 2.0.4 is an updated version of the specification, defining the approach to preserve digital geospatial records. It describes what elements need to be preserved in order to ensure future reuse of geospatial records and enable creation of information products that are based on those records. Key changes in this version include a revised structure of geodata elements and its placement within the eArchiving Information Package, additional examples of possible formats and technical standards to define representation information and documentation.

PDF: 13. Draft CITS Geospatial v2.0.4.pdf

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

  • This document is a first draft version of version 2.1, is there anything missing that should be included?
  • Does the document need more detail for you to understand the specification and the standards it is built upon, and what specifically?
  • Can you aid us with examples of the formats and standards you use when transferring geospatial records?
  • Do you have any further comments regarding CITS Geospatial data? Make these as comments in the pdf and upload these to us when replying to the survey

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

 

Content Information Type Specification for eHealth 1

The eHealth1 specification is built upon work done by the Directorate for Health in Norway on the establishment of a standard for electronically extracting health records from healthcare provider Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems and their submission to a central health archive. The use cases envisaged for the central health archive are: a. to provide records to next of kin in compliance with open information regulation and b. to harvest the vast amount of historical healthcare-related data for medical research. The CITS takes input from the Norwegian specification on the structure of extractions from submitting systems and puts this into a framework that is compliant with the EARK common and package specifications. The eHealth1 specification also recommends the use of international domain standards for descriptive metadata. The specification is accompanied by two METS profiles for the Root and Representations within the packages.

The specification is extending the CSIP and E-ARK SIP with more elements found in the two METS Profiles attached as extra information. The extending vocabulary is also present.

PDF: 14. Draft CITS_eHealth1_v1.0.pdf

METS Profile for ROOT: E-ARK-eHealth1-ROOT.xml

METS Profile for REPRESENTATION: E-ARK-eHealth1-REPRESENTATION.xml

Vocabulary for eHealth1: eHealth1Vocabulary.xml

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

  • Are the scenarios described and the data structures defined adequate for all likely examples of extractions from host EMR systems?
  • Should the specification be extended to allow for extraction from for example centralised Electronic Health Record systems (EHRs) and for the archiving of clinical documents such as HL7 CDAs or eHealth DSIs?
  • Should any other international standards for eHealth be mentioned and accommodated in the specification?
  • Should any other use cases for a centralised health archive be considered other than those described by the Norwegian example?
  • What should we name this Content Information Type Specification?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/eHealth1

 

Content Information Type Specification for Preservation Metadata

There is now a draft of a content information type specification for preservation metadata based upon the standard Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS). The CITS specification has extended and contains the information previously found in CSIP, SIP, AIP and DIP and will be extended with an XML-schema with validation rules following the CITS. The specification itself is only a starting point giving the minimum needed since preservation planning and the implementation of PREMIS will differ in all available solutions.

If you want to give suggestions in the document please add these as comments in the pdf document and upload it in the designated area when replying to the survey.

PDF: 15. Draft CITS_Preservation_metadata_v1.0.pdf

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

  • Is a specification for Preservation Metadata needed?
  • Do you see that this basic preservation metadata setup is enough or do you want to propose extensions and changes?
  • We are using the environment description part in PREMIS for describing softwares that can be used to show the digital object. We would like your input on this approach.
  • The specification only gives recommendations on identifiers. Do you think it should be more regulated and if yes can you aid with giving input on how it should look.

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

Content Information Type Specification for Archival Information

When the digital information is transferred, it needs to be accompanied in most cases by archival information giving the order of the material, and information about the creator. This specification endorses the use of currently available profiles using the formats, EAD, EAD2002, EAD3, EAC-CPF, EAG and RiC. The use of the Archives Portal Europe Profiles is specifically encouraged because they allow information to be transferred to the portal and Europeana thereby making digital objects available globally.

PDF: 16. Draft CITS_Archival_Information_v1.0.pdf

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

  • Are the proposed types of archival information types sufficient for describing all the types of archival information needed? If, No, please give us examples of which more standards do you propose we should define to be used from the beginning?
  • In your experience of using the different available archival information standards what more can the eArchiving building block provide you with to be able to use them?
  • What do you see should be explained more regarding this CITS in the Guideline which covers the CSIP as well as the archival information?

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


 

Group 3

Opening in February 2021

Closing date: TBA

Guidelines


 

Group 4

Opening in May 2021

Closing date: TBA

Content Information Type Specifications and Guidelines