Current reviews

Reviews 2020-2021

We kindly invite you to review the following eArchiving specifications and supporting documents. Originally created by the E-ARK project and enhanced and stabilised by the E-ARK4ALL project now brought forward to the next level by the E-ARK3 project, these specifications are a core component of the CEF eArchiving Building Block.

The specifications and documents will be released for review in four groups: 

  • Group 1 (Closed 15 November 2020, see Closed reviews for details) 
  • Group 2 (Closed 7 January 2021, see Closed reviews for details)
  • Group 3 (Closed 16 May 2021, see Closed reviews for details)
  • Group 4 (Opened 3 May 2021, closes 18 July 2021)

Your completed feedback on each specification and document can be entered on the page given next to each review object.

The closing date for each group of documents to be reviewed is given in the group.



Group 4

Opened on 3 May 2021

Closing date: 18 July 2021

Content Information Type Specification and guideline for eHealth 2

This is the first version of the eHealth2 specification. It defines an approach to preserve data sets exported from a cancer registry. It describes what elements need to be preserved to ensure future reuse of cancer registry export data. The eHealth2 specification defines an information package that aims to provide long-term usability and authentic interpretation of the content and context of the export created when the aggregator (international, national, researchers, etc.) requests data from the cancer registry. The eHealth2 specification is built upon ENCR, and JRC data calls in collaboration with Slovenian Cancer Registry and Slovenian National Archives.

The intended users of this document are:

  1. Cancer registries that preserve their exports long-term (that is, for example, the case in Slovenian Cancer Registry) and aggregators of exports (ENCR at JRC).
  2. Users of cancer registry data (researchers, health policymakers, etc.) who are interested in checking/researching the exports made.
  3. State/local archives, which will eventually decide which export is archival (is submitted to the archive and kept indefinitely).
  4. None of the above.

Attached to the specification is the first draft of the guidelines, indicating the structure and scope of guidelines’ content.

CITS PDF: 22_Draft_CITS_eHealth2.pdf

Guideline PDF: 23_Draft_Guideline_CITS_eHealth2.pdf

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Do you consider yourselves as users under 1), 2), 3), and/or 4)?
  • Do you have any experience with archiving the export from your database?
  • Do you think a document like this would make your work easier?
  • Can you aid us with examples?
  • Is this document self-explanatory?
  • Do you think it needs to be extended in any way?
  • Should mention and accommodation be made of any other international standards for eHealth?
  • Is the glossary of terms and their description appropriate with an adequate level of detail?
  • Does the guidelines document need more tutorial content for you to understand the specification?
  • What should we name this Content Information Type Specification?
  • Do you want to participate in the work?

Your feedback can be entered here:

E-ARK specification for Archival Information Packages (AIP) White Paper

E-ARK deliverable D4.1 (Rörden & Randmäe, 2014) introduced the concept of a pan-european AIP format. This aimed to avoid transfer costs by use of a standardised package format, enabling systems to ingest AIPs directly from storage systems without copying or restructuring. The pan-european AIP format would define standards for building modular and reusable components. These could be shared by the digital preservation community and memory organisations. With this white paper, we present the general position for a proposed change of the specification explaining to repository implementers what the benefits are. Further, it explains in rough lines what the changes would be.

PDF: 24_White_Paper_Re-purposing_the_E-ARK_AIP_format.pdf

The questions we want you to answer in your feedback are the following:

  • Do you agree with the positioning claims made in the white paper?
  • Do you agree with the aim of restructuring the AIP format as outlined in the white paper?

Your feedback can be entered here:

Latest news