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
TRAC checklist:

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.