Difference between revisions of "DCH-RP:PoC 1 Belgium"
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Combining Scenario 1 and 2 together the following PoC outline may be implemented: | Combining Scenario 1 and 2 together the following PoC outline may be implemented: | ||
KIK-IRPA, one of the Belgian DCH organisations, has already a local preservation system for their data. They have described their preservation system in a “Best practices” document that is accepted throughout the organisation. However one of their main concerns is to maintain the integrity of their data. Their exist auditing and certification schemes for trustworthy repositories, see: “Trustworthy Repositories – Audit and Certification” http://www.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReferenceInputDocuments/trac.pdf and "Risk-analysis for E-depots:DRAMBORA" http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/. Such an audit also equals a risk analysis of the chosen archiving method. How esay this all may sound, real life shows that almost no one ever terminates the whole procedure, hence there is no common “best practices” available. | |||
Doing an audit in a consequent way requests to use the necessary tools. | |||
In this scenario we want to use existing tools and document the auditing process. We will do this on the local data that is in the KIK-IRPA preservation scheme and on data of other partners if possible. | |||
Such an audit is in fact independent of where the data is stored but it is certainly a “tool” that will be very valuable for preservation done on data stored with e-infrastructures or other storage service providers. | |||
Once done it would be useful to execute the procedure on preservation done on grid and cloud. This could be done in the PoC 2 projects as then experience with grid and cloud in the project will be available. | |||
Suggested test data: KIK-IRPA will use their existing repository to do the audit | |||
[[Category:Proofs Of Concept 1]] | [[Category:Proofs Of Concept 1]] |
Revision as of 17:15, 2 May 2013
WP5: Proofs of Concept | Scenarios | PoC Phase 1 | PoC Phase 2 | DCH Glossary |
Proof of Concept 1 | | Belgium | | Estonia | | Hungary | | Italy | | Poland | | Sweden |
In Belgium, the first Proof of Concept will involve the following CH institutes:
- KIK
- KMKG
- KB
- RA
EGI Resources
EGI, as an e-Infrastructure provider, is supporting the DCH-RP project with resources as follows:
Grid storage Resources
Provider: Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) - EGI site name "begrid-vub-ulb"
Storage: Grid SE storage, based on DPM, with SRM interface(?)
Cloud Storage
Cloud storage will be handled through the EGI Federated Clouds Task Force. The exact provider needs to be determined.
Proof of Concept scenarios
The Belgian partners would like to investigate Scenarios 1 and 2 (coming from DCH-RP Deliverable D3.1) as follows in PoC 1:
For Scenario 1, we should like to do the following: check the integrity/audit the data that is archived locally. In fact this equals a risk analysis of the chosen archiving method. We do not have to invent what needs to be done, all this is described in the document: “Trustworthy Repositories – Audit and Certification” http://www.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReferenceInputDocuments/trac.pdf More information is also available at: "Risk-analysis for E-depots:DRAMBORA" http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/
Of course we want to do this with other partners.
Not to find in the current scenarios is a grid storage solution. I think this is mentioned in the project with the use of the eCSGW. In Belgium we are very interested to test the possibilities of such a storage solution. In the sense: how fast can data be retrieved from the grid storage, how easy is it to search for the data, also for the general public (in fact for all those that already use the existing local archive today).
Tentative architectural outline
Combining Scenario 1 and 2 together the following PoC outline may be implemented:
KIK-IRPA, one of the Belgian DCH organisations, has already a local preservation system for their data. They have described their preservation system in a “Best practices” document that is accepted throughout the organisation. However one of their main concerns is to maintain the integrity of their data. Their exist auditing and certification schemes for trustworthy repositories, see: “Trustworthy Repositories – Audit and Certification” http://www.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReferenceInputDocuments/trac.pdf and "Risk-analysis for E-depots:DRAMBORA" http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/. Such an audit also equals a risk analysis of the chosen archiving method. How esay this all may sound, real life shows that almost no one ever terminates the whole procedure, hence there is no common “best practices” available.
Doing an audit in a consequent way requests to use the necessary tools. In this scenario we want to use existing tools and document the auditing process. We will do this on the local data that is in the KIK-IRPA preservation scheme and on data of other partners if possible. Such an audit is in fact independent of where the data is stored but it is certainly a “tool” that will be very valuable for preservation done on data stored with e-infrastructures or other storage service providers.
Once done it would be useful to execute the procedure on preservation done on grid and cloud. This could be done in the PoC 2 projects as then experience with grid and cloud in the project will be available.
Suggested test data: KIK-IRPA will use their existing repository to do the audit