Skip to content

Releases: DILCISBoard/CITS-SIARD

First version of CITS SIARD

17 May 12:59
@karinbredenberg karinbredenberg
v1.0.0
8369a42
This commit was created on github.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
Expired
Learn about vigilant mode.
Compare
Choose a tag to compare
First version of CITS SIARD Latest
Latest 
Merge pull request #7 from DILCISBoard/rel/v1_finalise

REL: Version 1.0.
Assets 2
Loading

CITS SIARD 1.2 review draft

30 Nov 10:02
@PhillipTommerholt PhillipTommerholt
1.2
1eb42da
This commit was created on github.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
Expired
Learn about vigilant mode.
Compare
Choose a tag to compare
CITS SIARD 1.2 review draft Pre-release
Pre-release

The CITS SIARD specification is a brand new specification that describes how to package SIARD-files and any accompanying external LOBs in CSIP package(s). The specification also describes how to package extra metadata and context documentation so that long term preservation and dissemination can take place for relational databases.

For aiding with understanding the use of SIARD two Case Study documents have been created. Case Study 1 describes experiences with workflows and documentation practices when implementing database preservation with SIARD and Case Study 2 describes experiences working with large databases and their preservation. If you have comments to these two documents please add as comments in the pdf and upload in the designated area.

PDF: 8. Draft CITS_SIARD_v1.2.pdf https://dilcis.eu/images/2020review/8_Draft_CITS_SIARD_v12.pdf

Case Study 1: 9. Draft SIARD_Case_Study 1.pdf https://dilcis.eu/images/2020review/9_Draft_SIARD_Case_Study_1.pdf

Case Study 2: 10. Draft SIARD_Case_Study 2.pdf https://dilcis.eu/images/2020review/10_Draft_SIARD_Case_Study_2.pdf

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

Are there requirements which you think are missing?
Are there requirements which you think are not relevant?
Are there requirements which you think are too ambitious?
Are there requirements which you think are not ambitious enough?
Do you disagree with some of the MoSCoW?
Do you think that there are contradictory requirements? If so, which do you weigh the highest?
Do you think that there is a need for a specification (and supporting tools) for a submission agreement for relational databases?
Are the provided documents Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 a helpful resource for your understanding?

Your feedback can be entered here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/SIARD or as issues at this GitHub site

Assets 2
Loading