Toward a Reference Architecture for Archival Systems

Abstract

Abstract. Long-term preservation of product data is imperative for many organizations. A product data archive should be designed to ensure information accessibility and understanding over time. Approaches such as the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model and the Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ACTDR) provide a framework for conceptually describing and evaluating archives. These approaches are generic and do not focus on particular contexts or content types. Enterprise architecture provides a way to describe systems in their potentially complex environments. This paper proposes a holistic approach to formally describe the architecture and the environment of archival systems. This approach relies on the formal representation of the preservation terminology, including OAIS concepts, using the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). The approach covers the various interactions of other business functions with the archive, and the information models necessary to ensure preservation and accessibility. This approach is a step toward a reference architecture for the formal description of archival systems.

Digitization and Preservation of Cultural Heritage Products

“…This type of obsolescence can have several reasons, mainly the loss of the required knowledge to interpret the data, like what can happen for early CAD formats like GEM or IBM CAD [2]. To overcome these issues, several researchers are focusing on how to preserve the data for long-term archival [3][4][5]. This research ranges from data formats, best practices, to standards and frameworks.…”

Scientometric Study of Product Lifecycle Management International Conferences: A Decade Overview

“…Similar pattern has been observed while performing analysis of the 565 research papers of PLM IC proceedings. Some of the authors didn't mention the keywords at all [15] while others varied the number of keywords by large amount (the lowest number being 2 while the highest number going up to 23). The total number of keywords for all the 565 papers is calculated to be 2068 giving an average of 3.66 keywords per paper.…”