LTDP-TF-RecommendationConsultation-Feedback_v00_05

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1	LTDP-TF-RecommendationConsultation-Feedback_v00_05			Reccomendation?	Suggest Clarification	Comment	Priority
2	Assertions and Recommendations for Optimal Preservation Outcomes
3	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	1	Digital objects are constructs of data and metadata including, but not limited to, research outputs such as datasets, and software.
4	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	2	Numerous types of digital objects exist. Some characteristics are applicable to many types of objects, others are more specialised.
5	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	3	In addition to disciplinary-specific requirements and digital objects stored as files in a single location there are numerous complex or new and novel digital objects including distributed artefacts such as ontologies.
6	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	4	Coverage of all objects by type is important, but beyond the scope of this task force.
7	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	5	Projects collect or create digital objects of relevance to research.
8	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	6	Digital objects must be appropriately cared for during research.
9	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	7	The Principles that digital objects should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) define desirable outcomes of digital objects’ care
10	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	8	Projects are often time limited, reducing their ability to offer operational services required for preservation for the longer term.
11	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	9	Digital objects can retain their value beyond the life time of the project that curated or created them.
12	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	10	The value of digital objects is derived in part from different reuse cases including for replication, reproducibility, supporting assertions made in published papers or integration into new and novel research.
13	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	11	During or after a research project other digital object services may support the care of data and metadata.
14	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	12	Different data and metadata services are required to support research across the full digital object lifecycle.
15	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	13	Any digital object service holding data or metadata at any level of care (retention, curation or preservation) can be very broadly defined as a repository.
16	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	14	@Additional work is needed to define different types of digital object systems that offer (meta)data services, including the functions and activities they require and the levels of care they provide for data and metadata.
17	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	15	Effective storage, including multi-copy redundancy and integrity measures, is necessary but not sufficient for preservation.
18	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	16	@Minimum criteria for acceptable storage practices in different scenarios should be defined as a foundation for all levels of retention, curation and preservation services.
19	Digital Objects, Research Projects, Repository and (meta)data Services	17	Different types of data services benefit from being transparent on their current level of storage, curation and preservation practice, as this increases trust by the user and funders alike.
20	Curation & Preservation Levels	18	This paper defines the different service levels that a repository may apply as follows : Z. Level Zero. Content distributed as deposited. Unattended deposit-storage-access. No curation or long-term preservation. D. Deposit Compliance. Data content and supporting metadata deposited are checked at the point of deposit for compliance with defined criteria e.g. data formats and metadata elements. If these criteria are not met the digital objects are either returned to the depositor for change, or the repository undertakes the necessary curation steps to ensure they comply (reaching level C, below). C. Initial Curation. Data content and supporting metadata deposited are curated to meet defined criteria e.g. for data formats and metadata elements. Curation for initial access and use, but no long-term preservation. B. Logical-Technical Preservation. In addition to D and/or C above the repository takes long-term responsibility for ensuring that the data and metadata are updated over time to newer standards and formats in response to technical risks (e.g. file format or software obsolescence), the changing needs of the designated community (e.g. newer alternate formats become necessary for reuse). A. Conceptual preservation for understanding and reuse. In addition to B above, the repository monitors changes to the definition and demands of their designated community, including their knowledge base, and takes responsibility for the preservation actions that ensure digital objects can be understood and re-used. Often this will involve updates to the content of metadata elements and other semantic artefacts such as controlled vocabularies and ontologies. For some repositories it may include responsibility for editing the structure and content of deposited data.
21	Curation & Preservation Levels	19	@Data services, including repositories should specify all the levels of care they apply to objects within their collection, including through repository and digital object registry metadata.
22	Curation & Preservation Levels	20	@Digital objects should include metadata that specify their level of care and the timeframes or criteria for reappraisal of the level of care.
23	FAIR + Time	21	Objects may be made FAIR before deposit in a repository (Level D) or made FAIR by initial curation within the repository (Level C).
24	FAIR + Time	22	As technical infrastructure and the needs of user communities evolve, digital objects that were initially made FAIR may require additional preservation actions over time to ensure they remain FAIR.
25	FAIR + Time	23	@FAIR-enabling practices to be undertaken by all data services should be defined.
26	FAIR + Time	24	@FAIR-enabling practices undertaken by data services should be made transparent to users and funders to increase trust in services.
27	Preservation Systems, Actions & Outcomes	25	Preservation systems (organisations, partnerships, archives, repositories, libraries, galleries, museums) provide a sustainable organisational infrastructure to monitor the evolution of a technical infrastructure and the needs of user communities and to undertake preservation actions as necessary.
28	Preservation Systems, Actions & Outcomes	26	Preservation actions include any action on a digital objects’ data, metadata (e.g. format of schema updates) or an environment provided to interact with the digital object (e.g. emulation) that ensure the object retains desirable characteristics (e.g. FAIRness).
29	Preservation Systems, Actions & Outcomes	27	Preservation outcomes are defined as an object maintaining desirable characteristics (e.g. FAIRness) over time.
30	Preservation Systems, Actions & Outcomes	28	Many (meta)data services, functions and activities are necessary for preservation, but preservation also requires additional actions with associated roles and costs.
31	Preservation Systems, Actions & Outcomes	29	@ Unique preservation functions and activities should be defined alongside functions and activities that apply to all (meta)data services.
32	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	30	Repositories that undertake to offer preservation services and can meet defined criteria for their organisational infrastructure, digital object management, technical infrastructure and security provision are candidates to be a Trustworthy Digital Repository (TDR).
33	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	31	The CoreTrustSeal is a not-for-profit foundation, developed in response to an RDA mission and maintained through the RDA that provides 16 Requirements and an associated peer review and certification process for TDRs.
34	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	32	The LTDP TF reasserts the conclusion of previous EOSC-relevant papers and groups that the CoreTrustSeal provides an appropriate mechanism to define core expectations of TDR and an exemplar for offering assessment and certification services.
35	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	33	With the exception of the requirements for offering preservation services (CoreTrustSeal Requirement 09) and considering reuse (CoreTrustSeal Requirement 13) the CoreTrustSeal is relevant to all (meta)data services.
36	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	34	@Other ongoing work to define repository and data service characteristics and expectations exist and should be encouraged and supported.
37	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	35	@To maintain clarity and alignment these other efforts should map and crosswalk their own criteria to the CoreTrustSeal. Any reductions, additions or variations versus the CoreTrustSeal should be documented and explained to support interoperability of standards and approaches.
38	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	36	Transparency on the current status of repositories for organisational infrastructure, digital object management actions, technology and security, as well as the roadmap towards improvement of TRUST and FAIR, will increase the knowledge base of funders, repositories and other data services, and increase the trust of digital object depositors and reusers.
39	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	37	The CoreTrustSeal applies to both generic and specialist repositories. It is domain aware (applicants must state any disciplinary communities that are supported) but domain agnostic.
40	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	38	@Efforts to define more specific domain/disciplinary criteria, or criteria that define expectations for specific types of digital objects should adopt the CoreTrustSeal requirements where possible, and elaborate around them where necessary.
41	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	39	@Additional work is needed to define different types of digital object systems, the functions and activities they undertake and the levels of care they provide for data and metadata.
42	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	40	@Roles and responsibilities including for complex partnerships, third party relationships and outsourcing should be understood and transparent.
43	Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) and other (meta)data Services	41	@Technical repository service providers’ (storage providers, ARCHIVER etc) portfolio of service offerings should be clear and comparable for client end-users .
44	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	42	The development and application of standards provides mechanisms for agreeing and implementing a range of consistent practices.
45	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	43	Indicators, metrics and tests can be designed to assess compliance with standards.
46	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	44	Standards may be used to support, self-, peer- or third-party assessment approaches.
47	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	45	Assessments can be used to acknowledge quality (e.g. certification of repositories) and help service providers understand their current state and plan actions for future priorities and goals.
48	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	46	When an assessed entity has changed, the assessment may no longer be valid and may need to be repeated.
49	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	47	Repeated assessment may support an understanding of trends and progress over time.
50	Standards, Assessment, Certification & Alignment	48	@ standards and guidance should be developed, coordinated and maintained to provide full lifecycle information on preservation to researchers and preservation practitioners.
51	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	49	Outcomes of assessments may include certification of repositories, assessing objects for their degree of FAIRness or compliance with a wide range of other criteria.
52	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	50	Perceptions of negative judgement due to outcomes of assessments could negatively impact services and reduce transparency.
53	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	51	Unnecessary gatekeeping of participation in or access to services (including EOSC) risks excluding potentially high-quality services and high-value digital objects from research infrastructures.
54	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	52	Any cases where an assessment may result in binary inclusion/exclusion outcome must be clearly justified and documented, e.g. a strict assessment outcome may be justified to protect sensitive data through information security measures, or to protect critical services through technical interoperability criteria
55	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	53	@Digital Objects and the services that enable their FAIRness, deposit, storage, curation, access and preservation should be supported in transparent efforts to use assessment as a route to improvement.
56	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	54	@Efforts by repositories and other data services to share transparent information about their functions, activities and objects should be rewarded by targeted investment towards improvement.
57	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	55	@No data service or digital object should be unnecessarily excluded from any part of EOSC.
58	Outcomes, Judgement and Gatekeeping	56	@FAIRness and TRUSTmust continue to be a supported journey for all parties.
59	Retention, Appraisal & Re-Appraisal	57	A long-tail of data exists that has not been brought into a managed storage, curation, or preservation system.
60	Retention, Appraisal & Re-Appraisal	58	Any decision taken to evaluate a digital object with a view to delete it, retain it or assign or change a level of care is an appraisal decision.
61	Retention, Appraisal & Re-Appraisal	59	The role and nature of data vary widely, and so there are different perspectives and insights into the kinds of preservation action that may be required.
62	Retention, Appraisal & Re-Appraisal	60	Knowing which elements matter, and what metadata they might require is a subject specialist skill that in many cases can only be captured at the point of creation.
63	Retention, Appraisal & Re-Appraisal	61	@Retention and reappraisal decisions and timescales, including guaranteed preservation timescales, should be transparent.
64	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	62	Transparency of metadata, supporting artefacts (policies, preservation plans, data management plans) and digital objects fosters understanding, interoperability and continuous improvement between peer services.
65	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	63	Information shared through transparency can be designed to mitigate any risks to information security or competitive advantages.
66	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	64	Transparency supports the establishment of feedback mechanisms to engage expert communities of practice in the evaluation and improvement of services and objects.
67	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	65	@Each service should be transparent about the levels of service provided.
68	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	66	@Each object should have a clear level of care associated with the service(s) that take responsibility for them.
69	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	67	@Living and machine actionable data management plans should form the basis of continuity through the research data lifecycle.
70	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	68	@Registries of repositories and other data services should align service level metadata and supporting information.
71	Transparency of Services, Artefacts and Levels of Care for Objects	69	@Registries of digital objects should align metadata relating to retention periods, appraisal periods and levels of curation and preservation.
72	Generic versus Domain, Discipline and Object Type Specific Issues	70	@ Addressing the challenges of metadata and interoperability in and across scientific domains and disciplines must be supported in further investment to identify granular needs for specific types of digital objects and disciplines.
73	Roles and Responsibilities	71	Preservation roles, responsibilities and accountability remain unclear, this includes for data stewards as individuals and for organisations such as libraries, archives and institutional repositories.
74	Roles and Responsibilities	72	Preservation roles and skills are not limited to technical manipulation of digital objects: optimal preservation outcomes depend on a conceptual understanding of the data and metadata being cared for.
75	Roles and Responsibilities	73	Assigning clear responsibilities within groups, partnerships and across lifecycles makes outcomes, including preservation, more effective and accountable.
76	Roles and Responsibilities	74	Assigning roles to individuals with clear responsibility makes outcomes, including preservation, more effective and accountable.
77	Roles and Responsibilities	75	@Where responsibility is distributed, accountability should remain clear, including accountability for (meta)data loss or destruction.
78	Roles and Responsibilities	76	Lack of clarity and transparency of roles and responsibilities presents a risk to digital objects and their preservation.
79	Roles and Responsibilities	77	@Digital object management outcomes, including preservation, should be integrated into a roles and responsibilities framework that integrates all actors and actions.
80	Roles and Responsibilities	78	@The roles and responsibilities framework should be aligned with clear process models that meet the needs of different stakeholder communities.
81	Roles and Responsibilities	79	Preservation roles must include monitoring the changing needs of communities at the point of reuse. This community watch must be aware of the knowledge base, methodologies and technologies of the user communities.
82	Roles and Responsibilities	80	Preservation roles must include monitoring the changing nature of available technologies for the deposit, storage, curation, discovery, access and reuse of data and metadata. This technology watch must continue to meet the needs identified through community watch and be proactive as well as reactive.
83	Roles and Responsibilities	81	@Defined roles should be in place to take responsibility from the point of conception to ensure that preservation actions are considered throughout the life cycles.
84	Roles and Responsibilities	82	Roles and responsibilities include the early definition of preservation actions in a data management plan such as multi-copy/multi-location redundancy, integrity, data protection, digital object design, provenance information, appraisal criteria, desirable retention and preservation periods and future repositories.
85	Roles and Responsibilities	83	@Risk analysis approaches should be used to identify when in the lifecycle it is appropriate to take preservation actions. This includes the availability of individual researcher expertise about the digital objects (conception/collection/creation phase) versus the broader expertise and opportunities for economies of scale at the repository phase.
86	Roles and Responsibilities	84	@Different roles should use a living data management plan as a key artefact for periodic audit, review and revision.
87	Roles and Responsibilities	85	@Policy makers must make the development and implementation of digital preservation explicit in policy applicable to all stakeholders and across the lifecycle. They are accountable for periodic review and revision of policy.
88	Roles and Responsibilities	86	@Executives must adopt preservation policy into their operational and strategic planning.
89	Roles and Responsibilities	87	@Managers must integrate preservation planning into operational management including staffing, funding, service development and procurement.
90	Roles and Responsibilities	88	@Practitioners must provide guidance, community and technical monitoring and, where necessary, take preservation actions to ensure optimal preservation outcomes.
91	Roles and Responsibilities	89	Technicians develop and maintain the hardware and software infrastructure that supports preservation systems including integrity, data protection, automation and audit.
92	Roles and Responsibilities	90	@Data and metadata creators, collectors and reusers, including researchers, should develop the knowledge and skills at a general level and within their own disciplinary and domain area of expertise, so that their actions are preservation-aware.
93	Roles and Responsibilities	91	@All of the preservation-specific and supporting research data management roles across the data lifecycle require sustained training based on a rich knowledge base of preservation information.
94	Roles and Responsibilities	92	@Clear responsibilities must be in place for developing standards and guidance, for communication and for training.
95	Roles and Responsibilities	93	Transparency about and analysis of current roles and responsibilities associated with data services functions and activities are necessary inputs into financial calculations related to salaries and funding streams.
96	Finance & Funders	94	"Researchers, disciplinary and cross-disciplinary research communities, Member States and the EOSC Community are all expecting commitments from each other but lack the support to make commitments of their own”.
97	Finance & Funders	95	@Further research and analysis are necessary to support business planning based on qualitative and quantitative risks and benefits.
98	Finance & Funders	96	@Funders should clarify to all grant holders that the FAIR Principles and the potential need for preservation are full lifecycle issues.
99	Finance & Funders	97	@Funders should integrate into their calls the costs required to meet the needs for compliance with the FAIR Principles and any long-term preservation.
100	Finance & Funders	98	Data management plans are the critical reference point across partners and lifecycles.