Common use of Remember & Forget Layer Clause in Contracts

Remember & Forget Layer. ‌ The Remember & Forget Layer introduces brain-inspired functionality into the PoF Ref- erence Model, which targets the concepts of managed forgetting and contextualized re- membering. For this purpose, the Remember & Forget Layer extends the two workflows Preservation Preparation and Re-activation from the Core Layer with further, more ad- vanced functionalities: Content Value Assessment, Managed Forgetting & Appraisal, De-contextualization, Contextualization, Re-contextualization and Search & Navi- gation, which are all described in the following. All of those listed functionalities create additional metadata, which have to be managed in a systematic way. Therefore, the Re- member & Forget Layer also contains a functional entity for Metadata Management. In more detail, the Preservation Preparation workflow, which still consists of the five steps select, provide, enrich, package and transfer (see Figure 6), now uses the additional functionalities of Content Value Assessment and Managed Forgetting in the phase of selecting content for preservation: aims to determine the value of a resource. This value may change over time and there are different value dimensions, which reflect the value considering different purposes or perspectives and which may influence each other. There is, for exam- ple a value dimension reflecting current importance, e.g. Memory Buoyancy (MB), and a dimension reflecting the long term importance or relevance of a resource, the Preservation Value (PV). For assessing content value, the content value assess- ment component takes evidences from the Active System, e.g. about information use, content creation, and further knowledge about the role of resources in the Active System. Content value can be used as a basis for making preservation deci- sions, e.g. if a resource should be preserved or how much should be invested in the preservation of a resource. Content value can also be used in the Active System, e.g. for especially highlighting resources with high content value. Managed Forgetting & Appraisal With the dramatic growth of the amount of content, nowadays it becomes more and more important to make conscious decisions about preservation. Clear decisions on what to put into the DPS and explicit content ap- praisal have always been part of the processes of an archive [▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006], al- though not always as much in personal archiving [▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2011]. The component for appraisal and managed forgetting aims to help in automating such decisions, a need that has been identified earlier [▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇], for both per- ▇▇▇▇▇ archiving as well as organizational settings. This is encapsulated in the con- cept of managed forgetting, which uses the results of content value assessment for deciding about preservation and forgetting actions. The effects of managed forget- ting functionality is not restricted to the preservation functionality. It can also be used in the Active System for improved information access. Furthermore, the workflow steps provide and enrich are extended with De-Contextualization and Contextualization functionality, respectively: Active System context in preparation of packaging it for archiving. Decoupling the object under preservation from its Active System context is non-trivial, since it has to be decided how much of its current context has to be taken for its future contex- tualization and where a cutting can and should be made. De-contextualization and contextualization (see below) are conceptually closely related. Contextualization Contextualization consists in providing sufficient additional informa- tion for the content to be preserved, in order to allow archived items to be fully and correctly interpreted at some undefined future date. This entity is responsible for defining and assigning the appropriate context to content to be archived. Contextu- alization can leverage other processes (similarity analysis, concept detection) to ex- plicate context. Contextualization provides the basis for the management of context evolution over time (see Evolution Layer in Section 3.1.3) and Re-contextualization (see Re-activation workflow in Figure 7). The Preservation Preparation workflow is linked to the Pre-Ingest functionality as it is de- scribed for Preservation Systems, e.g. in the OAIS model. In order to facilitate easy (seamless) ingest into the DPS and make sure that the packages contain metadata needed for both the DPS as well as for access, pre-ingest aids the Active Systems as well as the DPS systems adhering to standard protocols and metadata. This also means that the Pre-ingest function puts up some requirements on the Active Systems to follow certain protocols (which can/should be domain specific). Our Preservation Preparation workflow, from the perspective of the preservation system serves as a rich pre-ingest function. In general, before the DPS process of transferring digital collections from Active System to DPS, a submission agreement has to be established between the participating orga- nizations, following a standard approach, as described in the Producer-Archive Interface Methodology Abstract Standards (PAIMAS) [CCSDS, 2004]. The agreement should contain accurate information about package content, structure, and metadata. It should also include requirements for security and privacy mechanisms at transfer and storage. There should be stated in the agreement if there is a need for migration at ingest. Other examples is a specification to what extent metadata should be obtained and generated during the pre-ingest process and if there is specific demand on storage. In the case of the PoF, this agreement is mainly reduced to an agreement on in- terfaces between the Active System and the Remember & Forget Layer. In addition, there are however, still needs for agreements e.g. about security and privacy requirements. For the Re-activation workflow, two types of additional functionality are used, with the respect to the Core Layer, namely Re-contextualization and Search & Navigation: before it is put back into active use, the context information, which has been pro- vided by the contextualization functionality, stored together with the content object and possibly updated or extended over time is retrieved. This context information is used for Re-contextualization, i.e. to relate the content object to the current usage context. Re-contextualization can also include the re-construction or extension of context information for content archived with no or not sufficient original context. Search & Navigation The Search & Navigation functional entity is responsible to enable finding things that have been preserved. Various types of search and navigation will be supported here. This includes search in the metadata, full-text search in the content (or more general content-based search also including non-textual con- tent), search in the context information and in other types of annotation, exploratory search for understanding the archive content, etc. What is crucial for the integra- tive and forgetful approach we are following here, is (a) to manage the interaction between the search in the Active System and the search in the DPS and (b) to understand how the forgetful approach and search support interact. Since we are following an integrative approach, it makes sense for (a) to consider the information in the Active System and the DPS as a type of a joint virtual information space, which are both considered for search in the Active System. However, it might still make sense to differentiate the two types of content taking into account the cost that might be attached to accessing content from the DPS. Archive content might, for example, only be considered on demand or if nothing can be found in the Ac- tive System. Furthermore, content stemming from the preservation store might be marked in result lists. For aspect (b), the influence of the forgetful approach, the results of content value assessment, namely MB and PV, can be considered in re- ▇▇▇▇ ranking (or even indexing): this would prefer results with higher content value balancing content value and relevance as it is for example done in diversification approaches. Furthermore, this includes adequate filtering and ranking approaches for handling versioned archive content. Finally, in both workflows metadata are generated and used for different purposes. This metadata is taken care of by the functional entity for Metadata Management:

Remember & Forget Layer. ‌ The Remember & Forget Layer introduces brain-inspired functionality into the PoF Ref- erence Model, which targets the concepts of managed forgetting and contextualized re- membering. For this purpose, the Remember & Forget Layer extends the two workflows Preservation Preparation and Re-activation from the Core Layer with further, more ad- vanced functionalities: Content Value Assessment, Managed Forgetting & Appraisal, De-contextualization, Contextualization, Re-contextualization and Search & Navi- gation, which are all described in the following. All of those listed functionalities create additional metadata, which have to be managed in a systematic way. Therefore, the Re- member & Forget Layer also contains a functional entity for Metadata Management. In more detail, the Preservation Preparation workflow, which still consists of the five steps select, provide, enrich, package and transfer (see Figure 6), now uses the additional functionalities of Content Value Assessment and Managed Forgetting in the phase of selecting content for preservation: aims to determine the value of a resource. This value may change over time and there are different value dimensions, which reflect the value considering different purposes or perspectives and which may influence each other. There is, for exam- ple a value dimension reflecting current importance, e.g. Memory Buoyancy (MB), and a dimension reflecting the long term importance or relevance of a resource, the Preservation Value (PV). For assessing content value, the content value assess- ment component takes evidences from the Active System, e.g. about information use, content creation, and further knowledge about the role of resources in the Active System. Content value can be used as a basis for making preservation deci- sions, e.g. if a resource should be preserved or how much should be invested in the preservation of a resource. Content value can also be used in the Active System, e.g. for especially highlighting resources with high content value. Managed Forgetting & Appraisal With the dramatic growth of the amount of content, nowadays it becomes more and more important to make conscious decisions about preservation. Clear decisions on what to put into the DPS and explicit content ap- praisal have always been part of the processes of an archive [▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006?], al- though although not always as much in personal archiving [▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2011?]. The component for appraisal and managed forgetting for- getting aims to help in automating such decisions, a need that has been identified earlier [▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇?], for both per- ▇▇▇▇▇ personal archiving as well as organizational settings. This is encapsulated in the con- cept concept of managed forgetting, which uses the results of content con- tent value assessment for deciding about preservation and forgetting actions. The effects of managed forget- ting forgetting functionality is not restricted to the preservation functionalityfunc- tionality. It can also be used in the Active System for improved information access. Furthermore, the workflow steps provide and enrich are extended with De-Contextualization and Contextualization functionality, respectively: Active System context in preparation of packaging it for archiving. Decoupling the object under preservation from its Active System context is non-trivial, since it has to be decided how much of its current context has to be taken for its future contex- tualization and where a cutting can and should be made. De-contextualization and contextualization (see below) are conceptually closely related. Contextualization Contextualization consists in providing sufficient additional informa- tion for the content to be preserved, in order to allow archived items to be fully and correctly interpreted at some undefined future date. This entity is responsible for defining and assigning the appropriate context to content to be archived. Contextu- alization can leverage other processes (similarity analysis, concept detection) to ex- plicate context. Contextualization provides the basis for the management of context evolution over time (see Evolution Layer in Section 3.1.3) and Re-contextualization (see Re-activation workflow in Figure 7). The Preservation Preparation workflow is linked to the Pre-Ingest functionality as it is de- scribed for Preservation Systems, e.g. in the OAIS model. In order to facilitate easy (seamless) ingest into the DPS and make sure that the packages contain metadata needed for both the DPS as well as for access, pre-ingest aids the Active Systems as well as the DPS systems adhering to standard protocols and metadata. This also means that the Pre-ingest function puts up some requirements on the Active Systems to follow certain protocols (which can/should be domain specific). Our Preservation Preparation workflow, from the perspective of the preservation system serves as a rich pre-ingest function. In general, before the DPS process of transferring digital collections from Active System to DPS, a submission agreement has to be established between the participating orga- nizations, following a standard approach, as described in the Producer-Archive Interface Methodology Abstract Standards (PAIMAS) [CCSDS, 2004?]. The agreement should contain accurate information about package content, structure, and metadata. It should also include requirements for security and privacy mechanisms at transfer and storage. There should be stated in the agreement if there is a need for migration at ingest. Other examples is a specification to what extent metadata should be obtained and generated during the pre-ingest process and if there is specific demand on storage. In the case of the PoF, this agreement is mainly reduced to an agreement on in- terfaces between the Active System and the Remember & Forget Layer. In addition, there are however, still needs for agreements e.g. about security and privacy requirements. For the Re-activation workflow, two types of additional functionality are used, with the respect to the Core Layer, namely Re-contextualization and Search & Navigation: before it is put back into active use, the context information, which has been pro- vided by the contextualization functionality, stored together with the content object and possibly updated or extended over time is retrieved. This context information is used for Re-contextualization, i.e. to relate the content object to the current usage context. Re-contextualization can also include the re-construction or extension of context information for content archived with no or not sufficient original context. Search & Navigation The Search & Navigation functional entity is responsible to enable finding things that have been preserved. Various types of search and navigation will be supported here. This includes search in the metadata, full-text search in the content (or more general content-based search also including non-textual con- tent), search in the context information and in other types of annotation, exploratory search for understanding the archive content, etc. What is crucial for the integra- tive and forgetful approach we are following here, is (a) to manage the interaction between the search in the Active System and the search in the DPS and (b) to understand how the forgetful approach and search support interact. Since we are following an integrative approach, it makes sense for (a) to consider the information in the Active System and the DPS as a type of a joint virtual information space, which are both considered for search in the Active System. However, it might still make sense to differentiate the two types of content taking into account the cost that might be attached to accessing content from the DPS. Archive content might, for example, only be considered on demand or if nothing can be found in the Ac- tive System. Furthermore, content stemming from the preservation store might be marked in result lists. For aspect (b), the influence of the forgetful approach, the results of content value assessment, namely MB and PV, can be considered in re- ▇▇▇▇ ranking (or even indexing): this would prefer results with higher content value balancing content value and relevance as it is for example done in diversification approaches. Furthermore, this includes adequate filtering and ranking approaches for handling versioned archive content. Finally, in both workflows metadata are generated and used for different purposes. This metadata is taken care of by the functional entity for Metadata Management: