Implementation and testing of an Authenticity Protocol on a Specific Domain.

In the original definition given in CASPAR, Authenticity Protocols (APs) are the procedures to be followed in order to assess the authenticity of specific type of Digital Resource (DR). The CASPAR definition is quite general and does not make reference to a specific authenticity management model. As part of the activities of APARSEN WP24 we have formalized an authenticity management model, which is based on the principle of performing controls and collecting authenticity evidence in connection to specific events of the DR lifecycle. This allows to trace back all the transformations the DR has undergone since its creation and that may have affected its authenticity. The model is complemented by a set of operational guidelines that allow to set up an Authenticity Management Policy, i.e. to identify the relevant transformations in the lifecycle and to specify which controls should be performed and which authenticity evidence should be collected in connection with these transformations. To formalize the policy we have indeed resorted to CASPAR's AP definition, and we have adapted and extended to integrate it in our authenticity management model. In our methodology the AP therefore becomes the procedure that is to be followed in connection with a given lifecycle event to perform the controls and to collect the AER as specified by the authenticity management policy. Accordingly, the original content of this deliverable, which was aimed at "implementing and testing an authenticity protocol on a specific domain", has been adapted and extended to encompass the whole scope of the authenticity evidence management guidelines. The current aim of the deliverable has therefore become to test the model and the guidelines at the operational level when dealing with the concrete problem of setting up or improving a LTDP repository in a given specific environment, to get to the definition of an adequate authenticity management policy. Moreover, instead of concentrating on a single environment, we have decided to extend the analysis to multiple test environments provided by APARSEN partners. Shifting to a practical ground and facing the actual problems that arise in the management of a repository has indeed been an important move to fill the gap that still divides the mostly theoretical results of the scientific community from the actual practices carried on in most repositories, and to reduce the fragmentation among the different approaches that prevents interoperability. And the case studies have proved the validity of this approach. On the one hand they have proved to be easily applied and well understood in all the test cases, and on the other hand the simple and yet rigorous concepts introduced by the model may provide a common ground for the management of authenticity evidence and for exchanging it among different systems. In at least one of the case studies, the guidelines have been applied to their full extent, i.e. from the preliminary analysis, to the identification of the relevant lifecycle events, to the detailed specification of the authenticity evidence to be collected, to the formal definition of the authenticity management policy, that is to the specification of the AP. In all cases, referring to the guidelines has provided valuable help, both in pointing out any weakness in the current practices and in providing a reasonable way to fix the problems.