Scenario 4: Curation/preservation

Many of the digital objects in a repository will continue to exist over the long term, possibly with modifications relating to preservation requirements. It is essential from a preservation point of view that provenance/audit information is preserved about these objects (who did what, when and how); otherwise the authenticity of the objects and the trust placed in the repository cannot be guaranteed. These scenarios also require personal identification that is either persistent and immutable, or at least that accommodates changes to the personal identifiers (e.g. by allowing identifiers for a common individual to be linked).

Proposed actions:

This scenario may be regarded as a special case of Scenario 3 (b)/(c) above, and actions for JISC would be special cases of the actions arising from Scenario 3. Specifically, we would need to develop a model of the actions that can be taken and the events that can occur in curation, and analyse the corresponding curation use cases. JISC could use its contacts with the curation/preservation community to determine to what extent it is important to record “who” (person name, role, etc.) took particular actions.


Submitted by
Share this idea:

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

1 vote

Idea Details

Vote Activity

  1. Downvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Upvoted

Similar Ideas [ 4 ]


  1. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Discussions around preservation of content authored at institutions has been discussed in various places recently, with many institutions choosing to destroy information about members rather than manage complex auditing and data protection rules. Institutional repositories need to have a clear policy on not only preservation of content, but relationships between that content and identities.

  2. Comment

    I think I', in favour of this, but there's a question on whether it really needs to extend to "external" people, rather than being simply part of the institution's own access management system. Because of the prevalence of extended, cross-institutional projects these days, I think federated access management for this use case would be sensible. I would like to delegate someone from a partner to manage the curation actions, or alternatively, I might want materials from all 4 partners to be curated in the lead institution.

  3. Comment

    The question of a very long term identifier and/or a reliable way to link identities is something which is a problem in identity management generally. (See the Identity Project report on the subject.) Identities in HEI are usually established initially with reference to external objects such as passports, but these are also not truly long term.

    I think this is a difficult problem and should probably not be tackled as part of the repository subculture alone (particularly if it is to be added to the preservation problem, which is hard enough already). If there is ever a UK HEI-wide solution, then it shouldn't be too hard to apply to repositories, at least from that point onwards (doing it retrospectively is likely to be much more intractable).

    For that reason, I'm voting this down.

Add your comment