Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital

Records Management Challenges

Guanyan Fan

1,2

School of Library, Archival and Information Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

School of Information Resource Management, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Keywords: InterPARES Project, Digital Challenges, Digital Records, Technology and Information.

Abstract: The challenges presented to records and archival professionals by digital records have been extensively

researched since the early 1990s. The InterPARES project is one of these early efforts. It progresses along

with the evolution of information technologies in the past 20 years of its four phases, and continues to

update, enhance and extend its professional knowledge and expertise today. This paper, by setting

InterPARES as an example, offers a view on how traditional discipline response to and evolves with the

rapidly changing technologies. The project’s theoretical foundation and methodological design is first

briefly introduced. The main part then elaborates on its research path and contributions via a thread that

links the development of digital technologies, their impacts on the management of digital records, and the

corresponding responses from the InterPARES project. The paper concludes with a set of meaningful

insights drawn from the research experience of the InterPARES project.

1 INTRODUCTION

The International Research on Permanent Authentic

Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES) is a

large, multinational collaborative research endeavor

focusing on the preservation of authentic records

created and/or maintained in digital forms. The

project was launched in 1999 by Professor Luciana

Duranti at the School of Library, Archival and

Information Studies at the University of British

Columbia. Up to now, the InterPARES Project have

developed through four phases: phase 1 (1999-2001)

focused on the long-term preservation of authentic

records created and maintained in databases and

document management systems; phase 2 (2002-

2007) focused on records created in dynamic,

experiential and interactive systems in the course of

artistic, scientific and governmental activities; phase

3 (2007-2012) implemented findings of the first two

phases in digital systems in small and medium-sized

archival organizations; phase 4 (2013-2018), which

is still underway, explores aspects of trust and online

digital records.

Back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, records

and archival profession, who deals with documented

information as primary duty and has its discipline

developed and matured in paperwork, was one of the

first communities that experienced the challenges

imposed by the digital revolution. InterPARES was

a pioneer in this community that had the expertise as

well as resources to carry out comprehensive

studies. So far, InterPARES has been running

consecutively for 20 years with an enduring research

interest in the issues of digital records as to their

management and preservation. During its four

research phases set up with different focuses and

goals corresponding to challenges imposed by

evolving technologies, InterPARES set a good

example by showing how a non-technology

community could react in a rapidly changing

information age. This paper aims to sort out its

research path and contributions via a thread that

links the development of digital technologies, their

impact on the management of digital information, in

particular digital records, and the corresponding

responses from the InterPARES project. It includes

an introduction to the project’s theoretical

foundation and methodological design and

interpretations of InterPARES findings against the

technological background in its four research phases.

The paper concludes on the implications drawn from

the research experience of InterPARES project.

Fan, G.

Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges.

DOI: 10.5220/0007230803870397

In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2018) - Volume 1: KDIR, pages 387-397

ISBN: 978-989-758-330-8

387

2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

AND METHODOLOGIES

2.1 Theoretical Foundations

The InterPARES project was based on findings of a

previous research project, titled “The Preservation of

the Integrity of Electronic Records”, otherwise

known as the UBC Project. The UBC project was

undertaken by researchers including Luciana Duranti

and Terry Eastwood, in collaboration with the

United States Department of Defence, aimed at

establishing standards for creating reliable electronic

records and maintaining their authenticity during

their active and semi-active life. One of its major

findings is a two-phased records lifecycle model:

one phase is to the control of the creation and

maintenance of reliable and authentic active and

semi-active records by the creator, who is supposed

to be associated with records management, and the

other phase is directed to the preservation of

authentic inactive records by the preserver, who is

supposed to be associated with archival

administration. Yet, the division between the two

stages focuses on the different states of the objects

under care, the varied goals of ensuring their

existence and persistence, and the distinct activities

required to achieve the goals, rather than the

working relationships between professions affiliated

with the two types of management activities (Xie,

2013). The model later became one of the theoretical

foundations for the whole InterPARES Project.

The other theoretical basis for the general

premises concerning the nature of records and the

conditions necessary for ensuring their

trustworthiness are theories and methodologies of

diplomatics and archival science. Diplomatics is a

science originally developed in the 17th century for

determining the authenticity and legal validity of

individual documents (Duranti, 1999). Over the

centuries it has evolved “into a very sophisticated

system of ideas about the nature of records, their

genesis and composition, their relationships with the

actions and persons connected to them, and with

their organizational, social, and legal context.”

(Duranti et al., 2011) To establish the authenticity of

a record, diplomatics analyses a record by breaking

down it into various elements contributing directly

and indirectly to the establishment of the record’s

authenticity, then assesses those elements against the

environment in which the record claims to be

generated and kept. Whereas diplomatics studies

records as individual entities, archival science

studies them as aggregations, which are records

linked by “archival bonds” (Duranti, 2010). Archival

bond is the network of relationships that each record

has with the records belonging to the same records

aggregation (Duranti, 1997). Both the professions of

records and archives center their work on these

aggregations and the organizations originating them

(Xie, 2013). During the course of the research, the

principles and concepts of diplomatics were

integrated with those of archival science to

reconstruct the definition of “record” within the

framework of electronic systems. A record is

defined as “a document made or received in the

course of a practical activity as an instrument or a

by-product of such activity, and set aside for action

or reference. " An electronic record is decomposed

into elements that fall into four categories:

documentary form, annotations, context, and

medium (MacNeil, 2000). This conceptual analysis

set the foundation for identification of records in

digital environment.

Despite the above theoretical concepts and

principles shared by the whole project, the fourth

phase links record with another new concept –

“trust”. Trust records are records that can be

presumed authentic, reliable and accurate, relying on

such factors that can be assessed as intellectual

controls, protective measures, data partitioning and

processing, legal compliance and risk management,

identity and access management, service integrity,

and endpoint integrity, etc (Duranti and Rogers,

2016). The relationship of “Trust” links records with

activities in every sector and works as the core for

the exploration of the fourth phase – InterPARES

Trust.

2.2 Research Methodologies

The overall methodological principles the

InterPARES Project follows are interdisciplinarity,

transferability and multi-method design. Researchers

with various disciplinary background have been

convened as a whole team to better understand

records generated in activities of different sectors.

They contribute to shaping research processes,

analysing data, and formulating final research

products with their knowledge of concepts,

principles and techniques in different disciplines.

Yet as the Project is archival in nature, the work

carried out in various disciplinary areas has to be

constantly translated into archival terms and linked

back to archival concepts as research findings. But

once completed, the research outcomes will then be

paraphrased against the unique background of each

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

388

discipline to make use of them. The whole research

process highlights the interdisciplinarity and

transferability feature of the project.

To take best advantage from this

interdisciplinary intellectual team, the project has

applied the principle of openness and flexibility,

meaning that each task force, domain, national team,

and project/study makes their own choices of

methods and tools considered to be the most

appropriate. Over the years, specific research

methodologies include surveys, case studies, general

studies, modelling, prototyping, diplomatic and

archival analysis, and text analysis.

3 INTERPARES 1 (1999-2001)

3.1 Technological Background and

Challenges

In the late 1990s, many records that would have

traditionally been created and preserved on paper

were in electronic form. Databases were applied in

organizations and governments to help manage large

quantity of data. The proprietary nature of software

applications, media obsolescence, and hybrid

paper/digital environments were the main challenges

faced by phase 1 when considering preserving

authentic digital records in systems. Idiosyncratic

software systems generated, managed, and stored

digital information using proprietary technologies

and media that were subject to the dynamism of the

computer industry. Most digital information got lost

in a self-perpetuating and expensive cycle of

obsolescence and incompatibility. Even when

luckily reserved, they still needed to experience one

or more migrations with radical changes in the

configuration and architecture of electronic systems

(Duranti, 2005). Furthermore, organizations and

individuals generated records in a variety of media

and formats (Penn, 1994). In most modern offices it

was already quite common for records related to a

single matter to exist partly in traditional paper

format, partly in an email box, word processing file,

spreadsheet file, multiple database tables, or even

hypertext linking. Lack of authenticity presented a

problem as serious as lack of accessibility, which

would render great problems when records were

needed as evidence for legal compliance, typically in

the court. As computer technology were still under

development and staffs in organizations were just

getting to be familiar with these “advanced tools”,

records were largely exposed to the risk of

inadvertent or intentional alteration, either in form or

content, and such alteration might not be readily

perceptible. The preservation of records created in

electronic systems was thus posing a critical

challenge for the archival and records profession.

3.2 Responses by IP1

3.2.1 Ways of Investigation by IP1

The InterPARES 1 project, by contrast with the

UBC project, took the perspective of the preserver in

the two-phased lifecycle model, and sought to

establish the means against the digital technological

background for assessing and maintaining the

authenticity of electronic records once they become

inactive and are selected for permanent preservation

(InterPARES 1 Project, 2011). The records

examined were primarily textual documents

produced and maintained in databases and document

management systems. InterPARES 1 set up four task

forces to investigate the domains of records

authenticity, appraisal, preservation, and

preservation strategy (Duranti, 2005). Domain 1 by

Authenticity Task Force first established a

theoretical framework represented by the Template

for Analysis to identify the elements of electronic

records that are necessary to maintain their

authenticity over time. Researchers conducted

twenty-two purposively selected, interpretive case

studies of electronic systems that contained, or were

deemed likely to contain, electronic records. Data

gathered through these case studies were then used

to test and extend the Template, as to lay the

foundation for establishing conceptual requirements

for preserving authentic electronic records over the

long term. Domain 2 by the Appraisal Task Force

set out to determine whether the theory and

methodology of appraisal for electronic records

differ from those for traditional records, and what

role the activities of appraisal play in the long-term

preservation of electronic records. It reviewed

literature on electronic records appraisal and

examined available documentation from archival

institutions on their appraisal policies and

procedures, as well as reports on actual appraisals of

electronic records in practice. Domain 3,

Methodologies for Preservation, aimed at identifying

and developing the procedures and resources

required for the implementation of the requirements

and the criteria identified in the first two domains. It

gathered empirical survey data about existing

programs, plans, and technologies for preserving

electronic records. Domain 4 by the Strategy Task

Force sought to define the principles that should

Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges

389

guide the development of international strategies and

standards for the long-term preservation of authentic

electronic records, and the criteria for developing

from them national and organizational policies and

strategies.

3.2.2 Findings and Proposed Solutions by

IP1

The Authenticity Task Force defined “authentic

record” as a record that is what it purports to be and

that is free from tampering or corruption. To assess

the authenticity of an electronic record, the preserver

must be able to establish its identity and demonstrate

its integrity. The identity of a record refers to the

attributes of a record that uniquely characterize it

and distinguish it from other records. The integrity

of a record refers to its wholeness and soundness: a

record has integrity when the message that it is

meant to communicate in order to achieve its

purpose is unaltered, which implies that its physical

integrity, such as the proper number of bit strings,

may be compromised due to fragility of the media,

the obsolescence of technology, and the

idiosyncrasies of system. Both the identity and

integrity can be demonstrated in metadata related to

the record, or in one or more of its various contexts.

Based on this conceptual finding, the task force

developed the Benchmark Requirements that support

the presumption of the authenticity of electronic

records before they are transferred to the preserver’s

custody when maintained by the creator, and the

Baseline Requirements that support the production

of authentic copies of electronic records followed by

the preserver after the transfer.

The Appraisal Task Force confirmed the shared

perception by archivists that electronic records must

be appraised from the same theoretical and

methodological standpoint as traditional records.

They believed that monitoring change and

determining its effects on selection decisions is

nothing new in traditional appraisal but more

pressing in the digital environment. It was the same

with the need to appraise records early in their life.

They developed a function model of selection using

IDEFØ, a U.S. Federal Information Processing

Standard, in which selection is decomposed into four

main activities: (1) managing the selection function,

(2) appraising electronic records, (3) monitoring

electronic records selected for preservation, and (4)

carrying out the disposition of electronic records.

The Preservation Task Force assumed the

existence of a paradigmatic shift in the concept of

preservation of electronic record: it is not possible to

preserve an electronic record in terms of storage – it

is only possible to preserve the ability to reproduce

the record. They observed that much attention to the

preservation of electronic records focused on the

twin technological problems of the relatively short

life expectancy of digital media and the rapid

obsolescence of hardware and software in practice.

But it was the archival and records management

criteria instead of technology that determine the best

preservation solution, with its appropriateness and

adequacy as to the goal of preservation. A "Preserve

Electronic Records" model following the IDEF

method was designed to set a framework for

organizations in developing solutions to the

challenges of preserving electronic records. The

model includes four main activities: (1) manage the

preservation function, (2) bring in electronic records,

(3) maintain electronic records and (4) output

electronic records.

The main product of The Strategy Task Force

was an intellectual framework through analysis and

synthesis of results of work in the first three

InterPARES domains. The framework contained a

set of fourteen principles and corresponding criteria

for the development of consistent policies,

strategies, and standards adopted in contexts that are

administratively, legally, and culturally diverse.

4 INTERPARES 2 & 3 (2002-2012)

4.1 Technological Background and

Challenges

The challenges facing InterPARES in the second and

third phase shifts from textual documents produced

and maintained in database and static documentary

system to records of multimedia form in

Experiential, Interactive, Dynamic systems. This

change owed to the rise of the technologies featured

with “web 2.0”, which included broadband internet,

better browsers, Ajax and JavaScript framework,

dynamic HTML, Adobe Flash and the mass

development of web-based widgets. They resulted in

the great evolution of World Wide Web, from the

static websites with proprietary applications to a

more interactive web with various applications. It

was characterized by its mass participation,

flexibility and interoperability for end users. It

allowed users to interact and collaborate with each

other in a social media dialogue in a virtual

community and provided users with information

storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that

were not possible in the previous environment

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

390

(O'Reilly, 2018). These unique features contributed

to the uprising of large numbers of complex systems

which were active, experimental and dynamic. An

interactive system is one in which each user entry or

input from another system causes a response from or

an action by the system. An experiential system is

one that immerse the user in a sensory experience.

An dynamic system describes flexible and adaptable

approaches tailoring computing resources to

demands. A system may be simply interactive, or

both experiential and dynamic as usually an

experiential or dynamic system is also interactive.

These complex systems, while providing more

experimental and dynamic web experience for end

users, posed great challenges for records

management and preservation. First, what is a

record? The interactive and dynamic environment

composes various digital entities including but not

limited to multi-media websites, online magazines,

digital animation products, multimedia performance

art pieces, Internet-based filing systems and

untraditional databases, like GIS database

(InterPARES 2 Project, 2007). There are not only

“traditional” records as evidence of the result of

action, but also digital documentation relating to the

execution process, like original footage and footage

logs, so the primary question is “what are necessary

to be maintained and preserve”. Issues of reliability

and authenticity of records is another problem. Are

there proper enforcement of access privileges and

good control of system security? Are there effective

measures of protection against loss and corruption of

digital records? Has the creator capture adequate

documentary evidence of the occurrence of the

information exchange through the systems, as well

as enough metadata to verify the identity and

integrity of potential digital records? The virtual and

hybrid context further exacerbate the problem. Use

of traditional hardcopies coexist with the digital

movements in office. Digitized copies of analogue

material and born-digital entities mix together,

manifesting themselves in various kinds of forms.

With varied file formats generated by plenty of

fancy software and applications, Media fragility and

technology obsolescence are always at the core of

access and preservation. Apart from those physical

technological changes, much more is transforming in

the structure and mode of organization transactions,

as well as the mechanism of stakeholders and

responsibilities. Divergences upon responsibilities

and legal liabilities, authorship as well as intellectual

property are sure to emerge.

4.2 Responses by IP2 & 3

4.2.1 Ways of Investigation by IP2

InterPARES 2: Experiential, Interactive, Dynamic

Records focused on preservation of authentic records

in the context of artistic, scientific and government

activities (Duranti and Preston, 2008). The convened

a multidisciplinary team with two thirds of its

researchers from professions of art, government and

government sectors to better understand the nature of

the activities generating the records and their function

and use in the context of those activities. Each focus

was further divided into three domains of inquiry,

including records creation & maintenance, reliability,

accuracy & authenticity, and appraisal & preservation

methods. Another four cross-domains addressed

research questions common to all areas of inquiry,

and they are: Terminology Cross-domain, Policy

Cross-domain, Description Cross-domain and

Modelling Cross-domain. All together three focus

groups completed 22 specific case studies, that is, 10

in art, 8 in government, and 5 in science. The cases

were required to describe in detail, through sets of

templates designed by domain 1 and 3, the creator

context, analyse the activities resulting in document

creation, and examine all kinds of digital entities in

complex systems using the diplomatic method. Each

case included in its reports a bibliography and a

glossary. The literature in the bibliographies were

combed by domain 2 to find discussions of

authenticity, reliability and accuracy, and of related

but differently named concepts. The glossary defined

the key terms used in the case study, both for

purposes of possible inclusion in the IP2 glossary, and

to allow the same definitions to be compared within

different disciplines. The findings of the case studies

provided much of the data necessary to answer the

research questions of all domains and cross-domains.

At the same time, each research unit carried out their

own General studies, i.e., investigations within its

scope for the purpose of achieving its objectives, but

not related to specific cases. Topics of general studies

included typology of interactive digital music

compositions, recordkeeping practices of composers,

photographers, GIS archaeologists, preservation

practices of scientific data portals, survey of

government web site interactivity, and digital formats

for long-term preservation.

4.2.2 Findings and Proposed Solutions by

IP2

The project, upon the observed realities drawn from

Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges

391

complex system cases of different sectors, refined

the concept of electronic record as articulated by the

first phase. The findings showed those complex

systems contain documents which exhibit some

variability in form and content, but can be

considered records, as when the variability is due to

technology rather than to the intention of the author

or writer of the document. In addition, authors or

writers can generate digital records that embed

intentional variability, provided they are properly

maintained and managed as intellectually

interrelated parts of records aggregations. There

were cases, most notably in the arts, but also in

government and science of documents whose

presentation or rendering always show some unique

or spontaneous variation in content or form. This

conclusion broadened, rather than contradicted, the

finding of InterPARES 1 (Duranti and Thibodeau,

2005).

Domain 1 of Records Creation and Maintenance

found that most case studies claimed to be—and

were in fact—carrying out a new, non-traditional

activity. However, through virtual equation of

traditional corresponding activities, it was clear that

there isn’t such great differences between the

traditional and electronic environments. The main

change is an increase in the speed with which the

process is accomplished and the inclusion of

additional steps for verification or to take into

account certain features or limitations of the

technology used. Domain 2 of Records Reliability,

Accuracy and Reliability found that artists, scientists

and bureaucrats have very different ideas about the

documents they create and reference, what needs to

be kept and the features that are essential. However,

despite their diversity, the cases shared common

problems: technological obsolescence, lack of

control over creation procedures, insufficient

documentation and uncertainty about what digital

objects needed to be saved. This finding resulted in

the drafting of the Creator Guidelines, which outline

a series of activities to carry out in practice to create

and maintain authentic digital materials. The

Guidelines were primarily for individuals, but may

also be useful for small organizations or groups of

individuals. Domain 3 of Records Appraisal and

Preservation observed that too many records creators

were still neglecting the long-term preservation of

their digital files, whether they be static or dynamic,

evidential or experiential, historically significant or

interactive. They would rather adopt a put-it-on-the-

Web preservation strategy, see digitization as a

solution, outsource to the vendor or transfer the

responsibility to somebody else. Preservation

problems posed by hardware dependencies

(especially in arts) and customized or proprietary

technologies were obvious as well. In this case,

Domain 3 produced the Preserver Guidelines for

Organizations. The guidelines are organized

according to the sequence of preservation activities

presented in the COP model (which will be referred

to later) and reflected two perspectives: Actions that

would have to be undertaken to avoid some of the

situations encountered in most problematic case

studies and actions that address the appraisal and

preservation concerns.

The cross-domains also generated rich findings

and solutions. Policy Cross-domain developed the

Framework of Principles Guiding the Development

of Policies for records creating and preserving in

organizations. The Description Cross-domain

developed a Metadata Schema Registry to register

relevant metadata schemes and sets and a Literary

Warrant Database to identify existing literature

requiring the creation and maintenance of archival

description and other metadata supporting the

preservation of authentic records. Terminology

Cross-Domain developed an online terminology

database that contains three instruments: Glossary,

Dictionary and Ontologies. Modeling Cross-domain

developed Unified Models (in IDEFØ) of creating,

managing and preserving digital objects, including

the Chain of Preservation (COP) Model and the

Business-Driven Recordkeeping (BDR) Model. The

COP model, which depicts all the activities and the

inputs and outputs that are needed to create, manage

and preserve reliable and authentic digital records

and consists of a series of diagrams depicting all the

activities involved in the life-cycle management of

digital records together with a glossary of all the

terms appearing on the diagrams. Th model

distinguishes four main records activities: (1)

managing the framework for the chain of

preservation, (2) managing records creation, (3)

managing records in a recordkeeping system and (4)

preserving selected records. The team also modeled

on the business processes of 14 case studies of the

total 26 to better understand the environment in

which the information (records) was created and

used.

4.2.3 Ways of Investigation by IP3

InterPARES 3 “Theoretical Elaborations into

Archival Management (TEAM)” phase took the

perspective of the preserver translated the theory and

methods of digital preservation developed by

InterPARES into concrete action plans for archives

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

392

and archival/records units within organizations

endowed with limited resources (Duranti, 2007).

The whole project was organized into 12 national

teams, including Canada, Italy, Brazil, China and

active participants from other countries. Each

national team carried out specific case studies and

general studies. Case studies were the investigations

carried out by each team, in collaboration with test-

bed partners. The 31 Cases initiated all together can

be categorized into three types: records cases,

recordkeeping cases and policy cases. For each case,

context and research data concerning records

program of the test-bed organization were first

collected for later articulation of research questions

and contextual and diplomatic analysis. Then all

team members, in form of workshop, reflected on

the data and collectively proposed possible solutions

as from which action plans for each case would

emerge. The plans of action included strategy,

protocols, functional requirements, procedures and

expected outcomes as needed. The development of

action plan took iterative form with several tests

before being put into implementation in test-beds

(InterPARES 3 Project, 2012a). Compared with the

action research in case studies, general studies were

the investigations carried out by each Team

concerning their own interest against their national

background. They were carried out within its scope

for the purpose of achieving their own research

objectives, but not related to specific cases or test-

bed partners (InterPARES 3 Project, 2012b).

4.2.4 Findings and Proposed Solutions by

IP3

The investigation of 31 specific case studies

produced tailored plans of action for test-bed

partners. The general studies resulted in fruitful

achievements as well. However, realizing the

inability to present the detailed findings of all the

studies, this chapter will only introduce the work of

one of the leading teams, i.e., Team Canada as to

reveal the research of the whole project. The studies

Team Canada undertook can be categorized as

preservation foundation, preservation mechanism,

and preservation technological system (Xie, 2013).

Team Canada received 20 proposals from

testbeds and researchers. It carried out two rounds of

data collection and found that none of the digital

objects proposed for preservation satisfied all the

conditions for being qualified records set by the

diplomatic analysis, which indicated a lack of

systematic organizational management. The team

realized that strong need to build a preservation

foundation, i.e., records management, for those

organizations. They identified real records

management issues and developed pertinent

solutions in terms of action plans. The solutions

generated include: organization-wide records

management policies and procedures, activity-driven

records classification systems, records retention

schedules and retrospective records appraisal

guidelines. The team went further with open-sourced

records management software, e-mail management

and records authenticity metadata application

profiles. For test-bed partners that already held a

better preservation foundations, improved

preservation advises include: acquisition policies for

university and community records incorporating

appraisal guidance in InterPARES 1 that

emphasizes authenticity and technological

feasibility; documentation framework for acquiring

and preserving digital-art works incorporating

redefined concept of digital record in InterPARES 2;

preservation policies and procedures for university

records based on InterPARES 2 principles for the

preserver; preservation of educational materials as

community archives based on InterPARES 2

guidelines for individual records creators and

preservation strategy for a website with identified

technology and metadata based on the COP model

of InterPARES 2. The team produced various reports

with general studies as well, covering such diverse

subjects as concrete strategies to preserve access to

digitized and born digital records (emails, digital

images, social media, websites), management

concerning data warehouse and ERDMS Software,

better recordkeeping system, and policies, procedures

and concrete strategies for digital records preserva-

tion. Based on these studies, teaching modules were

developed for in-house training programs, continuing

education workshops, and academic curricula that

provided professionals with the competence

concerning preservation of authentic records.

5 INTERPARES TRUST

(2013-2018)

5.1 Technological Background and

Challenges

Challenges faced in this new era is featured by the

problems of trust residing upon issues of security,

privacy, risk control and legal compliance against

the technological background of cloud computing,

big data and open data. Cloud computing is

Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges

393

generally recognized as a model of services

delivered to multiple users through a connecting

network, regardless of the location of the user and

the provider’s facilities, provisioned on demand and

paid proportionally to usage (Duranti, 2012). Driven

by lower costs, organizations today are increasingly

moving their records into the cloud. However, a

mass of challenges presents when control for records

is relinquished to a third-party provider, only to

name a few here (Franks, 2015): retained records

when should have been destroyed, failed back-ups

and unauthorized access by sub-contractors and

hackers; proprietary issue when considering system

and management metadata and legal compliance

issues with unrecognizable jurisdictions. It may also

be impossible prove the chain of custody as to verify

the authenticity of the records (Duranti, 2015a); to

ensure protection of legal privilege or trade secrets

when using a third party; and to guarantee that the

records that need to be permanently preserved are

kept according to archival standards (Bushey et al.,

2015). The ultimate essence of all these risks lie in

one question: Can you trust the service provider and

the records in the cloud (Duranti, 2015b)?

“Big Data” is also causing problems concerning

trust. First defined by “three Vs” (volume, variety

and velocity) in the IBM report, big data requires

extensive data manipulation and mining through the

intervention of various non-traditional technologies

and tools (Zikopoulos and Eaton, 2011). Online

governments, businesses and social media are

amassing huge volumes of data to provide a host of

services today. Big data thus fosters a range of

democratic objectives, from promoting government

transparency to supporting research to contributing

to public-private sector goals and priorities – the

reliability of data in big data is vital. The same is

true with “open data". Open data is a term derives

from the original concept of "open information"

(McDonald and Léveillé, 2014). As one of the

initiative that composes “open government”, it is

rooted in the objective to increase government

transparency, generate public input and interest and

stimulate social and economic development (Herly

et al., 2016). The issues presented by this scenario of

“big data and open data” are clear: Can the data be

trusted? How and where are they stored? How

secure are they? Will your privacy be protected

(Duranti and Jansen, 2013)? With exponential

growth of and reliance on Internet services today,

and the waning level of public confidence in public

and private organizations across, people are

increasingly questioning how much they can trust

digital information available on the Internet.

5.2 Responses by ITrust

5.2.1 Ways of Investigation

The fourth phase, InterPARES Trust (ITrust) starts

from 2013 and related studies are still underway

today. The project presumes the existence of an

advanced technological infrastructure and a

widespread use of complex technology embedded in

the daily routines of people and organizations

(InterPARES Trust, 2012). Centering around the

topic of “trusted online records”, the research is

mainly carried out in five domains: infrastructure,

control, security, access and legal domain. The

infrastructure domain considers issues relating to

system architecture and related infrastructure as they

affect records held in online environments. The

control domain focuses on classical records and

archival issues concerning the management of

digital material in online environments. The security

domain considers online data security issues like

security methods, data breaches, risks associated

with shared servers, information assurance and risk

assessment. The access domain researches open

access and open data, the right to know and to be

forgotten, privacy, accountability and transparency.

The legal domain considers such issues as legal

hold, chain of evidence and authentication of

evidence offered at trial, etc. There are also five

cross-domains, namely terminology, resources,

education, policy and social domains. The whole

project comprises 7 regional teams and each team

investigates topics specified by those domains and

cross-domains through individual studies involving

trusted records in online environment.

5.2.2 Findings and Proposed Solutions

As some of the studies by InterPARES Trust are still

in progress and not ready to be integrated to produce

a complete book as InterPARES 1 and 2, this section

will only give a brief summary of the ongoing

investigations under different domains

Up to now, more than 90 studies have been

launched with the efforts of more than 300

researchers and research assistants around the world,

most of which go to the leading teams of North

America and Europe (InterPARES Trust, 2018).

Nearly half of the studies fall under the control

domain, with a centralized interest in metadata,

email management, government e-service and

traditional records management issues like

arrangement, description, retention and disposition.

The 13 investigations carried out under the

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

394

infrastructure domain focused on the cloud service

and covered topics of types of cloud and their

reliability; cloud contractual agreements and their

negotiation, cloud storage and repository and trusted

certification. The access domain contains 13

investigations as well and researches topics on

internet archives, open government (open data and

information disclosure), and online public service.

The security domain now has 6 studies underway

around topics of security methods, risks associated

with records management, forensic readiness and

protection of authoritative records. The 4 studies

initiated under legal domain discuss such specific

issues concerning privacy and contracts of and

legislations for cloud service. It seems that ITrust

researchers show less interest in the cross-domains,

but there are still some remarkable efforts to be

named. The resource cross-domain has 5

investigations concerned with data sharing and

archival services. In education, the North American

Team incorporated the InterPARES Trust findings

into a Mapping of Archival Competencies. Team

Africa also investigated Curriculum Alignments at

Institutions of Higher Learning in Africa for

professionals to manage records created in

networked environments. As for the terminology

domain, there is a multinational vocabulary drawn

from the emerging and evolving intersection of

recordkeeping and information technology, which

continues the work of previous InterPARES projects

by exploring aspects of trust in cloud environments.

Apart from those national and international

studies, preliminary findings related with the theme

of the project are published as chapters of books or

articles on refereed journals and conference

proceedings. ITrust researchers have addressed more

than 100 speeches on conference, workshops and

seminars. In 2016, The Canadian Journal of

Information and Library Science devoted a special

issue for the Team North America to discuss data,

records and archives in the cloud. The “Preservation

as a Service for Trust” project, another effort by

ITrust targeting preservation in the cloud, developed

a set of requirements that establish a foundation for

trusting the preservation of digital information.

6 CONCLUSIONS

With its 20 years exploration of the digital world,

InterPARES as an example shows how it progresses

along with the evolution of information technologies

while persisting with its keen interest in preservation

of authentic and trustworthy records. Despite the

concrete practices seemingly only valid to the

records and archival field, InterPARES provides

some significant enlightenments that can be shared

by similar communities challenged by this digital

trend.

 An adequate and sufficient understanding of

the digital technologies. Understanding

technologies relating to your discipline is

extremely essential. As pioneers of digital

records in its field, InterPARES has long

realized this truth in its continuing efforts of

four evolving phases. The team pointed out

the insufficiency of records professionals in

grasping and understanding of the digital

technologies relating to digital records

management tasks (Xie, 2011) and suggested

an urgent need to know the new technologies

in managing and preserving trusted digital

records (Lemieux, 2016). What’s more,

InterPARES team is trying to incorporate this

insight into education of young professionals.

A new interdisciplinary education program

named “Digital records forensics” was

initiated under its effort in 2011 and now well

established as a new stream of study in the

Master of Archival Studies (MAS) programme

in the University of British Columbia, in

partnership with the School of Information at

the University of Washington. This program

provides courses of digital forensics and

information technology other than traditional

knowledge of records management and

archival science.

 Adaptation and evolution of traditional

disciplinary theories. Based on classic

thinking in diplomatic and archival science,

InterPARES extracted the essence of its basic

theories, and refined these traditional

concepts, principles and methods by applying

them in the digital environment. This indicates

a wise and efficient way of thinking for non-

technological community when handling with

digital issues: to first reflect on traditional

concepts and methods and then innovate on

existing knowledge instead of a total

reconstructing of the theory basis of the

discipline, or surging of totally new concepts.

This evolutionary progress demonstrates a

profession’s capacity to continue enhancing

and extending its existing professional

knowledge and expertise.

 Interdisciplinary integration and cooperation.

InterPARES was born as an interdisciplinary

project at its very beginning. This distinctive

Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges

395

nature was particularly manifested in its

second and fourth phases, with its most

participating experts from professions other

than records and archives, including Library,

Computer, History, Law, Music, Film,

Journalism, Geography, Engineering and

Health Sector, to name only a few. This

dependence and intersection among

disciplines is not only emphasized by the

InterPARES project, but also witnessing as a

general trend by communities from various

fields. Communications between professions

shall be facilitated to encourage emerging

areas of investigation, eliminate the

duplication of theoretical efforts in different

fields, and promote consistency of scientific

knowledge.

Information and communication technologies

have changed and will continue to change the world.

Advanced information infrastructures and

widespread use of complex technologies have

already embedded in the daily routines of people and

operations of organizations. Blockchain has become

a buzzword, Artificial intelligence is already on its

way. With more unpredictable new technologies to

come, only those who grasp the key know how to

react, survive and expand in this revolutionary

information age.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express her sincere thanks

to Professor Sherry L. Xie in Renmin University of

China for her guidance and comments on the first

draft of the paper.

REFERENCES

Bushey, J., Demoulin, M. and McLelland, R., 2015. Cloud

Service Contracts: An Issue of Trust. Canadian

Journal of Information and Library Science, 39(2),

pp.128-153.

Duranti, L., 1997. The archival bond. Archives and

Museum Informatics, 11(3-4), pp.213-218.

Duranti, L., 1999. Concepts and principles for the

management of electronic records, or records

management theory is archival diplomatics. Records

Management Journal, 9(3), 149-171.

Duranti, L.. 2005. The long-term preservation of authentic

electronic records: Findings of the InterPARES

Project. [San Miniato, Italy]: Archilab. Accessible at

http://www.interpares.org/book/index.cfm.

Duranti, L. and Thibodeau, K., 2005. The concept of

record in interactive, experiential and dynamic

environments: The view of InterPARES. Archival

Science, 5(2-4), pp.13-68.

Duranti, L., 2007. An Overview of InterPARES 3 (2007-

2012). Archives & Social Studies, 1(1), 577-603.

Duranti, L. and Preston, R., 2008. International research

on permanent authentic records in electronic systems

(InterPARES) 2. Padova: CLEUP. Available at:

http://www.interpares.org/ip2/book.cfm.

Duranti, L., 2010. Concepts and principles for the

management of electronic records, or records

management theory is archival diplomatics. Records

Management Journal, 20(1), pp.78-95.

Duranti, L., Eastwood, T. and MacNeil, H., 2011.

Preservation of the integrity of electronic records.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Duranti, L., 2012. Preserving Digital Records:

InterPARES Findings and Developments. In: P.

Bantin, ed., Building trustworthy digital repositories:

theory and implementation. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishing Group.

Duranti, L. And Jansen, A., 2013. The InterPARES Trust

Project–Trust and Digital Records in an Increasingly

Networked Society. In Future2013: information

governance. Zagreb: Department of Information and

Communication Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and

Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, pp.63-68.

Duranti, L., 2015a. Preface, Canadian Journal of

Information and Library Science, 39(2), pp.91-96.

Duranti, L., 2015b. Digital Records and Archives in the

Commercial Cloud.” In CS. Yoo and Blanchette, J.

eds., Regulating the Cloud: Policy for Computing

Infrastructure. Cambridge, Massachusetts and

London, England: The MIT Press, pp. 197-214.

Duranti, L., & Rogers, C., 2016. Trust in records and data

online. Integrity in Government through Records

Management. Essays in Honour of Anne Thurston, pp.

203-214.

Franks, P.C., 2015. New Technologies, New Challenges:

Records Retention and Disposition in a Cloud

Environment/Nouvelles technologies. Canadian

Journal of Information and Library Science, 39(2),

pp.191-209.

Herly, G., Léveillé, V., McDonald, J., Rovegno, K.,

Suderman, J. and Timms, K., 2016. The Implications

of Open Government, Open Data, and Big Data on the

Management of Digital Records in an Online

Environment. [online] Available at: https://interpares

trust.org/assets/public/dissemination/IPT_NA08_Final

Report_1Oct2016_fordistribution_.pdf [Accessed 10

Jun. 2018].

InterPARES 1 Project., 2002. Project Summary. [online]

Available at: http://www.interpares.org/ip1/ip1_index.

cfm [Accessed 9 Jun. 2018].

InterPARES 2 Project., 2007. Case Studies. [online]

Available at: http://interpares.org/ip2/ip2_case_stu

dies.cfm [Accessed 9 Jun. 2018].

InterPARES 3 Project., 2012a. Case Studies. [online]

Available at: http://www.interpares.org/ip3/ip3_ca

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

396

se_studies.cfm [Accessed 10 Jun. 2018].

InterPARES 3 Project., 2012b. General Studies. [online]

Available at: http://www.interpares.org/ip3/ip3_gene

ral_studies.cfm [Accessed 10 Jun. 2018].

InterPARES Trust., 2013. Formal Partnerships. [online]

Available at: https://interparestrust.org/trust/about_re

search/partnership [Accessed 10 Jun. 2018].

InterPARES Trust, 2018. Research Dessimination.

[online] Available at: https://interparestrust.org/trust/

research_dissemination [Accessed 10 Jun. 2018].

Lemieux, V. L., 2016. Trusting records: is Blockchain

technology the answer?. Records Management

Journal, 26(2), pp.110-139.

MacNeil, H., 2010. Providing Grounds for Trust:

Developing Conceptual Requirements for the Long-

Term Preservation of Authentic Electronic Records.

Archivaria, 50, pp.56–67.

McDonald, J. and Léveillé, V., 2014. Whither the

retention schedule in the era of big data and open data?

Records Management Journal, 24(2), pp.99-121.

O'Reilly, T., 2018. What Is Web 2.0. [online] Oreilly.com.

Available at: https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/

archive/what-is-web-20.html? [Accessed 10 Jun.

2018].

Penn, I., 1994. Records Management Handbook. 2nd ed.

[S.l.]: Routledge.

Xie, S., 2011. Building foundations for digital records

forensics: A comparative study of the concept of

reproduction in digital records management and digital

forensics. The American Archivist, 74(2), pp.576-599.

Xie, S., 2013. Preserving Digital Records: InterPARES

Findings and Developments. In: V. Lemieux, ed.,

Financial Analysis and Risk Management. Heidelberg:

Springer, pp.187-206.

Zikopoulos, P. and Eaton, C., 2011. Understanding big

data: Analytics for enterprise class hadoop and

streaming data. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.

Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges

397