and listen to the crowds rejoice!.

Randy, thank you so very much for this addition to our conversation. This is
exactly the type of conversation I enjoy monitoring this list for and yours
is a wonderful contribution (not to belittle the contributions of others on
this topic.)

I will be reviewing the links you included for my own edification as will,
I'm sure many others following this thread.

There is probably more to say on this but it is late here so for now, Good
night.

Dana.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Randy Preston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> I think that part of the confusion emerging in this thread in relation to
> the practice of "metadata scrubbing" is based on the assumption that all
> metadata are "created equal" in terms of maintaining or preserving the
> authenticity of a record and that, therefore, the deletion of any metadata
> will inherently impact the authenticity of the record. To demonstrate why
> this, in fact, is not the case requires a bit of background discussion
> about
> authenticity of a record and the metadata that relate to that particular
> characteristic of a record.
>
> Authenticity comprises two elements: identity and integrity (one often sees
> integrity discussed as distinct from authenticity, which is unfortunate).
>
> Identity refers to the attributes of a record that uniquely characterize it
> and distinguish it from all other records. In general, these include: the
> names of the persons concurring in its creation (i.e., author, addressee,
> writer and, if applicable, originator and/or recipient); its date(s) of
> creation and transmission; an indication of the matter or action in which
> it
> participates; the expression of its relationships with other records; and
> an
> indication of any attachment(s).
>
> The integrity of a record refers to its wholeness and soundness: a record
> has integrity when it is complete and uncorrupted in all its essential
> respects. That is to say that a record has integrity if the message that it
> is meant to communicate to achieve its purpose is unaltered. In practical
> terms, this means that a digital record's physical integrity, such as the
> proper number of bit strings, may be compromised, provided that the
> articulation of the content and its required elements of form remain the
> same. In other words, certain changes to the form and/or content of a
> record
> (including the deletion of certain metadata) are permissible to the extent
> that those changes to not compromise the requirements set by the creator
> and/or by the juridical system (requirements that will, of course, vary
> from
> one creator to another, and from one juridical system to another) for the
> record to reach the consequences or produce the effects for which it was
> intended.
>
> The presumption of a record's authenticity is strengthened by knowledge of
> certain basic facts about it, some of which are embodied in the record's
> attributes. In many cases, these attributes are expressed as metadata.
>
> The attributes that establish the identity of a record (e.g., name of the
> author) may be explicitly expressed in an element of the record (e.g., a
> signature), in metadata related to the record, or they may be implicit in
> its various contexts (i.e., documentary, technological,
> juridical-administrative, provenancial and procedural). Metadata that speak
> to the identity of a record are referred to as identity metadata. The
> InterPARES 2 Project identified the following attributes as important for
> conveying the identity of a record (these typically are expressed as
> identity metadata attached to the record or linked to the record--e.g., in
> a
> record profile):
>
> a. Names of the persons involved in the creation of the digital record
> (i.e., author, writer, addressee, originator, recipient).
> b. Name of the action or matter (in other words, the title or subject).
> c. Documentary form (e.g., report, letter, contract, etc.).
> d. Digital presentation (e.g., file format, wrapper, encoding, etc.).
> e. Date(s) of creation and transmission (i.e., chronological date, date(s)
> of transmission and/or receipt, archival or filing date).
> f. Expression of documentary context (e.g., a classification code).
> g. Indication of attachments, if applicable.
> h. Indication of copyright or other intellectual rights, if applicable.
> i. Indication of the presence or removal of a digital signature, if
> applicable.
> j. Indication of other forms of authentication, if applicable.
> k. Indication of the draft or version number, if applicable.
> l. Existence and location of duplicate materials outside the digital
> system,
> if applicable (i.e., an indication of which copy of a record is the
> official
> or authoritative copy, in cases where multiple copies exist)
>
> Likewise, the integrity of a record may be demonstrated by evidence found
> on
> the face of the record, in metadata related to the record, or in one or
> more
> of its various contexts. Metadata that speak to the integrity of a record
> are referred to as integrity metadata. The InterPARES 2 Project identified
> the following attributes as important for conveying the integrity of a
> record (again, these typically are expressed as integrity metadata attached
> to the record or linked to the record):
>
> a. Name of handling person/office (i.e., person or office using the record
> to carry out business).
> b. Name of person or office with primary responsibility for keeping the
> record (may be the same as the handling person/office).
> c. Indication of annotations added to the record, if applicable.
> d. Indication of any technical change(s) to the record or to the
> application(s) responsible for managing and providing access to the record
> (e.g., change of encoding, wrapper or file format).
> e. Access restriction code (i.e., indication of the person, position or
> office authorized to read the materials), if applicable.
> f. Access privileges code (i.e., indication of the person, position or
> office authorized to annotate the materials, delete them, or remove them
> from the system), if applicable.
> g. Vital record code (i.e., indication of the degree of importance of the
> record to continue the activity for which it was created or the business of
> the person/office that created it), if applicable.
> h. Planned disposition.
>
> [For further elaboration about these two types of metadata, see
> recommendations 3 and 4 in the InterPARES 2 Project's Creator Guidelines,
> which are available in report form in Appendix 20 of the InterPARES 2 book
> at http://www.interpares.org/ip2/book.cfm, and in a colour booklet form at
>
> http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_file.cfm?doc=ip2(pub)creator_guideline
> s_booklet.pdf.]
>
> In the digital environment, the use of metadata to identify or document the
> necessary identity and integrity attributes of a record are far more
> critical for establishing a presumption of authenticity than is the case in
> the paper environment. As outlined in the InterPARES 1 Project's Benchmark
> Requirements (http://www.interpares.org/book/interpares_book_k_app02.pdf),
> to maintain the authenticity of a digital record, it is imperative that the
> relevant identity and integrity attributes be expressed explicitly and
> linked inextricably to the record during its life, and carried forward with
> it over time and space. In other words, to be able to provide a strong
> foundation on which to establish a record's identity and demonstrate its
> integrity (i.e., to verify and declare its authenticity), it is imperative
> that the record's identity and integrity metadata are persistently attached
> or linked inextricably to the record.
>
> Thus, returning to the issue of "metadata scrubbing," it is clear that the
> removal of any of a record's relevant identity and integrity metadata
> through "metadata scrubbing" or any other similar activity will adversely
> impact one's ability to verify and declare the authenticity of the record.
> Accordingly, if it is important for the records creator to be able to
> maintain the authenticity of its records, then this issue should be taken
> into consideration before proceeding with any such scrubbing.
>
> Now, another aspect to this discussion that appears to be causing some
> confusion turns on whether we are talking about "scrubbing" metadata from a
> record (A) that will continue to be used for the purpose for which it was
> originally created, or whether we are talking about scrubbing metadata from
> a copy of a record (A2) that will be "repurposed" for a new use. If the
> latter, then we are in fact talking about, at least potentially, the
> creation of a new record (B). In which case, in relation to the issue of
> authenticity, there is no concern about "scrubbing" the identity and
> integrity metadata from the document (derived from record copy A2) that is
> then used to create record B--at least not in relation to concerns about
> adversely impacting the authenticity of record A. (This assumes, of course,
> that record A remains unchanged in its original context, if it is still
> needed by its creator).
>
> The example that Dana mentioned, where the company used metadata scrubbing
> to "strip away any reference to the former client from underlying metadata
> before sending along [an existing document] to the new client" so as "to be
> able to re-use documents from one case to another," appears to be an
> example
> of this latter situation where a copy of an existing record is repurposed
> in
> a different context (and hence, becomes a different record than the one
> from
> which it was derived, and to which integrity and identity metadata specific
> to that new record should be generated and attached).
>
> If, on the other hand, we are talking about scrubbing metadata from a
> record
> that will continue to be used for the purpose for which it was originally
> created, then it is important to understand the distinction between the
> different types of record metadata and ensure that those identity and
> integrity metadata that are necessary to maintain the authenticity of the
> record are not scrubbed.
>
> Regards,
> Randy
>
> --
> Randy Preston
> Project Coordinator, InterPARES Project
> The University of British Columbia
> Suite 470, 1961 East Mall
> Vancouver, British Columbia  V6T 1Z1  Canada
> tel: +1(604)822-2694  fax: +1(604)822-6006
> [log in to unmask]
> www.interpares.org
>
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
> present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
> message.
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]