Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/article/view/1177 |
Resumo: | This study analyzes comparatively the criteria of the Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories (NESTOR), the Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) and Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR), comparing them with the requirements of the Guidelines for the Implementation of Trusted Digital Archival Repositories (RDC-Arq). The similarities and differences were observed regarding the agents of preservation actions, the preservation actions, and the target digital objects of these preservation actions, listed in each requirement, as well as the effectiveness of the audit and certification actions in each of the digital preservation models. The methodology used was a bibliographic review of scientific research on long-term digital preservation, particularly those cited in the RDC-Arq. The requirements and criteria of the models for auditing and certification of digital repositories were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, in search of conceptual similarities and differences. It was concluded that TRAC presents great conceptual similarity to RDC-Arq, as well as that there is already software available to assist in the audit work. The NESTOR Catalog presented criteria of great conceptual amplitude, but that, for the most part, were not similar to the RDC-Arq. ACTDR proved to be more complex and detailed than RDC-Arq, and it is possible to infer that there is relative conceptual similarity between the two. |
id |
UFSC-20_62232b4003e439e53cdeccf21c2cbf27 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.agora.emnuvens.com.br:article/1177 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-20 |
network_name_str |
Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-ArqCatalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTORAudit and Certification of Trusted Digital RepositoriesTrusted Digital Archive Repository (RDC-Arq)Audit and Certification of Reliable Digital Repositories (ACTDR)Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC)Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTORAuditoria e Certificação de repositórios digitais confiáveisRepositório Arquivístico Digital Confiável (RDC-Arq)Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR)Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC)This study analyzes comparatively the criteria of the Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories (NESTOR), the Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) and Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR), comparing them with the requirements of the Guidelines for the Implementation of Trusted Digital Archival Repositories (RDC-Arq). The similarities and differences were observed regarding the agents of preservation actions, the preservation actions, and the target digital objects of these preservation actions, listed in each requirement, as well as the effectiveness of the audit and certification actions in each of the digital preservation models. The methodology used was a bibliographic review of scientific research on long-term digital preservation, particularly those cited in the RDC-Arq. The requirements and criteria of the models for auditing and certification of digital repositories were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, in search of conceptual similarities and differences. It was concluded that TRAC presents great conceptual similarity to RDC-Arq, as well as that there is already software available to assist in the audit work. The NESTOR Catalog presented criteria of great conceptual amplitude, but that, for the most part, were not similar to the RDC-Arq. ACTDR proved to be more complex and detailed than RDC-Arq, and it is possible to infer that there is relative conceptual similarity between the two.O presente estudo analisa comparativamente os critérios do Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories (NESTOR), do Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) e Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR), comparando-os com os requisitos das Diretrizes para a implementação de repositórios arquivísticos digitais confiáveis (RDC-Arq). Foram observadas as semelhanças e diferenças quanto aos agentes das ações de preservação, quanto às ações de preservação e quanto aos objetos digitais alvo dessas ações de preservação, elencadas em cada requisito, bem como se efetivam as ações de auditoria e certificação em cada um dos modelos de preservação digital. A metodologia utilizada foi a revisão bibliográfica em pesquisas científicas voltadas para a preservação digital em longo prazo, notadamente, as citadas no RDC-Arq. Comparou-se, quantitativamente, e qualitativamente, os requisitos e critérios de modelos voltados à auditoria e certificação de repositórios digitais, em busca de similaridades e diferenças conceituais. Concluiu-se que o TRAC apresenta grande similaridade conceitual ao RDC-Arq, bem como já se dispõe de softwares para auxiliar os trabalhos de auditoria. O Catálogo NESTOR apresentou critérios de grande amplitude conceitual, mas que, em grande parte, não eram similares ao RDC-Arq. O ACTDR mostrou-se mais complexo e detalhado que o RDC-Arq, e é possível inferir que há relativa similaridade conceitual entre ambos.CIN - CED - UFSC2023-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/article/view/1177ÁGORA: Arquivologia em debate; Vol. 33 No. 66 (2023); 1-22ÁGORA: Arquivologia em debate; v. 33 n. 66 (2023); 1-222763-90450103-3557reponame:Ágora (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/article/view/1177/1032Copyright (c) 2022 Fabio Lopes de Andrade , Cintia Aparecida Chagas http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLopes de Andrade , FabioAparecida Chagas , Cintia 2023-01-01T17:47:52Zoai:ojs.agora.emnuvens.com.br:article/1177Revistahttps://agora.emnuvens.com.br/raPUBhttps://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/oairevista.agora@contato.ufsc.br||ursula.blattmann@ufsc.br2763-90450103-3557opendoar:2023-01-01T17:47:52Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
title |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
spellingShingle |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq Lopes de Andrade , Fabio Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTOR Audit and Certification of Trusted Digital Repositories Trusted Digital Archive Repository (RDC-Arq) Audit and Certification of Reliable Digital Repositories (ACTDR) Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTOR Auditoria e Certificação de repositórios digitais confiáveis Repositório Arquivístico Digital Confiável (RDC-Arq) Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR) Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) |
title_short |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
title_full |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
title_fullStr |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
title_full_unstemmed |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
title_sort |
Repositórios digitais confiáveis: a verificação de compatibilidade entre modelos internacionais de critérios de preservação digital no longo prazo e o RDC-Arq |
author |
Lopes de Andrade , Fabio |
author_facet |
Lopes de Andrade , Fabio Aparecida Chagas , Cintia |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Aparecida Chagas , Cintia |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Lopes de Andrade , Fabio Aparecida Chagas , Cintia |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTOR Audit and Certification of Trusted Digital Repositories Trusted Digital Archive Repository (RDC-Arq) Audit and Certification of Reliable Digital Repositories (ACTDR) Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTOR Auditoria e Certificação de repositórios digitais confiáveis Repositório Arquivístico Digital Confiável (RDC-Arq) Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR) Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) |
topic |
Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTOR Audit and Certification of Trusted Digital Repositories Trusted Digital Archive Repository (RDC-Arq) Audit and Certification of Reliable Digital Repositories (ACTDR) Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories NESTOR Auditoria e Certificação de repositórios digitais confiáveis Repositório Arquivístico Digital Confiável (RDC-Arq) Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR) Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) |
description |
This study analyzes comparatively the criteria of the Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories (NESTOR), the Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) and Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR), comparing them with the requirements of the Guidelines for the Implementation of Trusted Digital Archival Repositories (RDC-Arq). The similarities and differences were observed regarding the agents of preservation actions, the preservation actions, and the target digital objects of these preservation actions, listed in each requirement, as well as the effectiveness of the audit and certification actions in each of the digital preservation models. The methodology used was a bibliographic review of scientific research on long-term digital preservation, particularly those cited in the RDC-Arq. The requirements and criteria of the models for auditing and certification of digital repositories were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, in search of conceptual similarities and differences. It was concluded that TRAC presents great conceptual similarity to RDC-Arq, as well as that there is already software available to assist in the audit work. The NESTOR Catalog presented criteria of great conceptual amplitude, but that, for the most part, were not similar to the RDC-Arq. ACTDR proved to be more complex and detailed than RDC-Arq, and it is possible to infer that there is relative conceptual similarity between the two. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/article/view/1177 |
url |
https://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/article/view/1177 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://agora.emnuvens.com.br/ra/article/view/1177/1032 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Fabio Lopes de Andrade , Cintia Aparecida Chagas http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Fabio Lopes de Andrade , Cintia Aparecida Chagas http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
CIN - CED - UFSC |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
CIN - CED - UFSC |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
ÁGORA: Arquivologia em debate; Vol. 33 No. 66 (2023); 1-22 ÁGORA: Arquivologia em debate; v. 33 n. 66 (2023); 1-22 2763-9045 0103-3557 reponame:Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) |
collection |
Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Ágora (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revista.agora@contato.ufsc.br||ursula.blattmann@ufsc.br |
_version_ |
1792206946195996672 |