[Pasig-discuss] Arguments for keeping an onsite copy of digitally preserved/stored digital content?

[Mark Myers]

Jon

As you know, ☺ we use the delete feature as part of our regular processing workflow for file management.  We technically aren’t deleting files from the repository as much as we are moving files around and deleting redundant copies, or empty container.  We typically upload packages into an “In Process” collection and then move sub-collections and DU’s (Deliverable Units for those not familiar with Preservica parlance) into other collections, then delete the empty container files.  On even rarer occasions, we have to make mass updates to existing metadata for files and DU’s, and it’s easier to upload new objects (with the new metadata) and delete then old ones.  We are very rarely actually removing files from the system, just changing what’s already there in some way.

As for long-term temporary records, this is a major issue.  In TX we don’t put non-permanent records into our Preservation system, but still have to advise agencies on what to do with long-term (10+ year records) they are forced to maintain.  I know that other state archives struggle with this as well.  I think the biggest hurdle (from a state government archive perspective) is more administrative – it deals with issues of custody, access, and legal responsibility, and financing.  I know several states have looked, and are looking, into digital records centers but it’s mostly the legal issues (records management, custody, access and control issues, etc.) that seem to be the impediment.

For most state governments, legal custody and responsibility of permanent records are transferred to the archive with the records.  We (the archive) owns them and become responsible for them.  These records rarely change, allowing for normalization and migration.  (the changes I mentioned previously concern metadata, not the object)  And access is relatively simple – either they are open or closed.

For temporary records (even those with retention periods in the decades) they are still the legal responsibility of the creating agency.  Many states operate records warehouses for long-term temporary records, but these are usually attached to some kind of fee-for-service pay structure, and legal responsibility doesn’t transfer.  Access is another big issue.  Records in the archives are generally more open to a broader audience, but the long-temporary records tend to have more restrictions, and differing restrictions than just being open or closed (may only be open to specific groups, or have differing levels of access).  Also the whole idea of check-in/check-out, again, generally if there is an access request for records in long-term storage, that goes through the creating agency not the holder of records.  And some records may still be active, or become active again after a long pause, in which case the items in the repository may change (which is something that happens very rarely with archival records.)  All this provides more headache to having to administrate that type of system.

Mark J. Myers
Senior Electronic Records Specialist
Texas State Library and Archives Commission
1201 Brazos Street
Austin TX 78711-2516
Phone: 512-463-5434
mmyers at tsl.texas.gov
www.tsl.texas.gov
Texas Digital Archive<https://tsl.access.preservica.com/>

From: Pasig-discuss [mailto:pasig-discuss-bounces at asist.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Tilbury
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 3:25 AM
To: pasig-discuss at asis.org
Subject: Re: [Pasig-discuss] Arguments for keeping an onsite copy of digitally preserved/stored digital content?

I agree with Gail, it has been very interesting hearing about everyone’s approach to keeping lots of copies locally and in different clouds. There is lots of good practice out there and I think good consensus on keeping things in different places with different vendors.

All of this has been discussed from the perspective of permanent retention. The bigger data volumes requiring digital preservation are long term temporary which need deleting at the end of life. Also, some customers get take down requests and need to delete material from the collection in a controlled but prompt manner.

With Preservica we try to balance these two conflicting pressures (long term secure preservation vs quick delete) with various approval cycles, recoverable delete for a defined period and control of backups.

How do the architectures others have suggested cope with this balance?

Jon


Jonathan Tilbury
Chief Technology Officer
Preservica
32 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3YS
T: +44(0)1235 428949   M: +44(0)7808 950580   E: jonathan.tilbury at preservica.com<mailto:jonathan.tilbury at preservica.com>   W: www.preservica.com<http://www.preservica.com>   TW: @dPreservation

[PreservicaLogo]
This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please inform the sender immediately.
Please note that messages sent or received by the Preservica e-mail system may be monitored and stored in an information retrieval system.

Please consider the environment and do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/pasig-discuss/attachments/20170623/a687323e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7903 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/pasig-discuss/attachments/20170623/a687323e/attachment-0001.png>