On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Thomas Kula wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:10:40AM -0400, Jacob Ratliff wrote:
>> Hi Ned,
>> The biggest case for SP is boiled down to 2 things in my mind.
>> 1) its terrible at preservation. If you are just using it as a digital
>> asset mgmt system its fine, but if you need the preservation component go
>> with something else.
> I've never used Sharepoint, but really it boils down to coming up with a
> list of requirements for a digital preservation storage system:
> - It must have an audit log of who did what to what when
> - It must do fixity checking of digital assets
> - At minimum, it must tell you when a fixity check fails
> - It really should be able to recover from fixity check
> failures when an object is read
> - Ideally it should discover these *before* an object is
> accessed, recover, and notify someone
> - It must support rich enough metadata for your objects
> - It must meet your preservation needs (N copies distributed over
> X distance within Y hours)
> - It must be scalable to handle anticipated future growth.
> I'm sure there are more, I haven't had much coffee yet this morning so
> I'm missing some. And honestly, you have to scale your requirements to
> what your specific needs are.
> *Only* then can you evaluate solutions. If you've got a list of
> requirements, you can then ask "I need this. How well does SP (or any
> other possible solution) meet this need?"
So it doesn't look like you're just coming up with cases that
Sharepoint doesn't do, you might consider something like the
2007 version, from CRL:
2011 update from CCSDS:
The 2011 update should mirror what's in ISO 16363.
Most of the other certifications that I've seen look more at the
organization, and don't have specific portions for technology.
ps. A quick search for 'SharePoint' and 'OAIS' led me to :
... which as best I can tell is the abstract for a poster at OR2011.