The Korean Journal of Archival Studies (기록학연구)

  • Issue 79
  • /
  • Pages.305-341
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 1229-7941(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-7891(eISSN)
Korea Society of Archival Studies (한국기록학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Toward Developing a Provenance Conceptual Model for Data-driven Electronic Records

데이터형 전자기록을 위한 출처 개념 모델 개발 방향

  • 현문수 (이화여자대학교 문헌정보학과, 충남대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2023.12.31
  • Accepted : 2024.01.16
  • Published : 2024.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explored the possibilities of a new approach to developing the provenance concept to electronic records in the data-driven digital environments by reviewing and adopting data provenance concepts and models. It then conducted basic literature review to develop a ground for a model representing the provenance of data-driven electronic records. In particular, it proposed to embrace to the concepts of retrospective and prospective provenance, and to develop a different model for representing provenance from records management metadata. If the model can be developed that can represent provenance independently while maintaining a dynamic relationship with records, it can be ensure the fluidity of records and even support to secure the record's attributes and play the roles of provenance. Eventually, it proposed the direction to develop the provenance model which can support the fixity of records, the reproducibility of activities, and the trustworthiness of representations. It is expected to be a fit provenance model in the data-driven digital environment.

이 연구는 디지털 환경에서 데이터가 중심이 되는 전자기록의 출처에 새롭게 접근하기 위해, 데이터 출처 개념과 출처 모델을 검토하고 수용하여, 어떻게 전자기록을 대상으로 새롭게 출처 개념을 적용할 수 있을지의 가능성을 살펴보았다. 이어서 데이터 중심의 전자기록을 대상으로 한 출처 표현 모델을 개발하기 위해 기초 연구를 진행하였다. 특히 소급형 출처와 전망형 출처 개념으로 전환할 것과, 기록관리 메타데이터와는 별개의 모델을 통해 출처를 표현하고 기록과 연결할 수 있는 모델을 개발할 것을 제안하였다. 기록과 동적 관계를 맺으면서도 독립적으로 출처를 표현할 수 있는 모델을 개발할 수 있다면, 오히려 기록의 유동성을 보장할 수 있으면서도, 기록의 속성과 이를 지원할 출처의 역할을 더 충실히 수행할 수 있을 것이다. 결국, 이 연구가 제안한 기본적인 모델 개발 방향을 수용하는 출처 모델은 기록의 고정성과 활동의 재현성, 재현의 신빙성을 뒷받침할 수 있을 것이며, 디지털환경에서 적합한 출처 모델로서 역할을 할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2020S1A5A8045436).

References

  1. 김수영 (2022). 행정정보시스템 분류방식을 적용한 행정정보 데이터세트 기록관리의 실제적 실행연구. 기록과 정보.문화 연구, 14, 55-88.
  2. 김수영 (2023). 행정정보 데이터세트 이관 방안 적용 사례 연구. 기록과 정보.문화연구, 16, 7-50.
  3. 변우영, 임진희 (2022). 행정정보 데이터세트 이관도구 SIARD_KR의 개선방안. 정보관리학회지, 39(1), 195-217. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2022.39.1.195
  4. 설문원 (2017). 기록관리 원칙의 해석과 적용을 위한 담론 분석: 출처주의를 중심으로. 기록학연구, 52, 59-117.
  5. 설문원 (2019). 기록이란 무엇인가: 활동의 고정적 재현물로서의 개념 탐구. 기록학연구, 59, 5-46.
  6. 양동민, 최광훈, 김지혜, 유남희 (2023). 행정정보 데이터세트의 이관규격의 다양화 및 재현 방안에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 40(4), 167-200. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2023.40.4.167
  7. 이승억, 설문원 (2017). 전자기록관리정책의 재설계에 관한 연구. 기록학연구, 52, 5-37.
  8. 이정은, 양동민 (2023). 데이터세트 유형 전자기록의 필수보존속성 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 34(4), 259-283.
  9. 이정은, 김지혜, 왕호성, 양동민 (2022). 행정정보 데이터세트의 관리기준표 개선방안 연구. 한국기록관리학회지, 22(1), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2022.22.1.177
  10. 한국기록학회 (2008). 기록학 용어 사전. 서울: 역사비평사.
  11. 현문수 (2022). 전자기록의 신뢰가치 확립을 위한 증거능력 구현체계 연구: 우리나라 공공 전자기록의 신뢰가치 모델 개발을 중심으로. 기록학연구, 73, 5-46.
  12. Bearman, D. & Lytle, R. (1985). The power of the principle of provenance. Archivaria, 21, 14-27.
  13. Buneman, P., Khanna, S. & Tan, W. (2001). Why and where: A characterization of data provenance. In Van den Bussche, J. & Vianu, V. eds. Database Theory- ICDT 2001. ICDT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1973. Berlin: Springer. Available: http://db.cis.upenn.edu/DL/whywhere.pdf
  14. Car, N. (2017.3.15). Intro to PROV. Provenance and Social Science Data Webinar. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elPcKqWoOPg
  15. Cook, T. (1997). What is past is prolgue: A history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria, 43, 17-63.
  16. Corrado, E. & Sandy, H. (2017). Digital Preservation for Libraries, Archives, and Museums (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. [e-Book].
  17. Cuevas-Vicenttin, V., Ludascher, B., Missier, P., Belhajjame, K., Chirigati, F., Wei, Y., Dey, S., Kianmajd, P., Koop, D., Bowers, S., Altintas, I., Jones, C., Jones, M., Walker, L., Slaughter, P., Leinfelder, B. & Cao, Y. (2016). ProvONE: A PROV Extension Data Model for Scientific Workflow Provenance. Available: https://jenkins-1.dataone.org/jenkins/view/Documentation%20Projects/job/ProvONE-Documentation-trunk/ws/provenance/ProvONE/v1/provone.html#
  18. Cunningham, A. (2016). Describing Archives in Context: Peter J Scott and the Australian 'Series' System. In Lemieux, V. ed. Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the frontiers of provenance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 49-57.
  19. Duranti, L. (1989). The odyssey of records manager: Part I: From the dawn of civilization to the fall of the Roman Empire. ARMA Quarterly, 23(3), 3-11.
  20. Duranti, L. (1997). The Archival Bond. Archives & Museum Informatics, 11(3-4), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009025127463
  21. Duranti, L. & Thibodeau, K. (2006). The concept of records in interactive, experiential and dynamic environments: The view of InterPARES. Archival Science, 6, 13-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-006-9021-7
  22. Freire, J., Koop, D., Santos, E. & Silav, C. T. (2008). Provenance for computational tasks: A survey. Computing in Science & Engineering, 10(3), 11-21. DOI: 10.1109/MCSE.2008.79
  23. Fu, L. (2015). Automatic provenance capturing for research publications. Doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. United States.
  24. Gil, Y., Miles, S., Belhajjame, K., Deus, H. Garijo, D., Klyne, G., Missier, P., Soiland-Reyes, S. & Zednik, S. (2013). PROV model primer. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/
  25. Glaudemans, A., Jonker, R. & Smith, F. (2017). Beyond the traditional boundaries of archival theory: An interview with Eric Ketelaar. In Smit, F., Glaudemans, A. & Jonker, R. eds. Archives in Liquid Times. s'-Gravenhage: Stichting Archiefpublicaties, 73-91.
  26. Goudarouli, E., Sexton, A. and Sheridan, J. (2019). The Challenge of the Digital and the Future Archive: Through the Lens of The National Archives UK. Philosophy & Technology, 32, 173~183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0333-3
  27. ICA (2000). ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description (2nd ed.). Available: https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/CBPS_2000_Guidelines_ISAD%28G%29_Second-edition_EN.pdf
  28. ICA EGAD (2023a). Records in Context: Conceptual Model. Version 1.0. Available: https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ric-cm-1.0_0.pdf
  29. ICA EGAD (2023b) Records in Contexts: Foundations of archival description. Version 1.0. Available: https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ric-fad-1.0_1.pdf
  30. InterPARES2 (n.d.). InterPARES 2 Terminology Database. Available: http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_terminology_db.cfm
  31. Jonker, R. (2017). A perfect match? Connecting partners in the labyrinth of information. In Smit, F., Glaudemans, A. & Jonker, R. eds. Archives in Liquid Times. s'-Gravenhage: Stichting Archiefpublicaties, 297-305.
  32. Lemiuex, V. (2016). Preface. In Lemieux, V. ed. Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, vii-viii.
  33. Lemieux, V. & the imProvenance Group (2016). Provenance: Past, present and future in Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspective. In Lemieux, V. ed. Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3-45.
  34. Lim, C., Lu, S., Chebotkot, A. & Fotouhi, F. (2010). Prospective and retrospective provenance collection in scientific workflow environments. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, 449-456. Miami, FL.
  35. Luascher, B. (2016). A brief tour through provenance in scientific workflows and databases. In Lemieux, V. ed. Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 103-126.
  36. Makhlouf Shabou, B. (2015). Digital diplomatics and measurement of electronic public data qualities: What lessons should be learned? Records Management Journal, 25(1), 56-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-01-2015-0006
  37. Michetti, G. (2016). Provenance: An archival perspective. In Lemieux, V. ed. Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 59-68.
  38. Missier, P. (2016). The lifecycle of provenance metadata and its associated challenges and opportunities. In Lemieux, V. ed. Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 127-137.
  39. Missier, P., Dey, S., Belhajjame, K., Cuevas-Vicenttin, V. & Ludascher, B. (2013). D-PROV: Extending the PROV provenance model with Workflow structure. Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP 13), USENIX Association, Berkeley. Available: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/tapp13/tapp13-final3.pdf
  40. Moreau, L. (2010). The foundations for provenance on the web. Foundations and Trends in Web Science, 2(2-3), 99-241. https://doi.org/10.1561/1800000010
  41. Moreau, L., Missier, P., Belhajjame, K., B'Far, R., Cheney, J., Coppens, S., Cresswell, S., Gil, Y., Groth, P., Klyne, G., Lebo, T., McCusker, J., Miles, S., Myers, J., Sahoo, S. & Tilmes, C. (2013). PROV-DM: The PROV data model. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/
  42. SAA (2005-2023). Dictionary of archives terminology. Available: https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/provenance.html
  43. Sweeney, S. (2008). The ambiguous origins of the archival principle of "provenance". Libraries & the Cultural Record, 43(2), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.1353/lac.0.0017
  44. Van Bussel, G. J. (2017). The theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'. An organization oriented view on archives: Part II. An exploration of the 'archive-as-is' framework. In Smit, F., Glaudemans, A. & Jonker, R. eds. Archives in Liquid Times. s'-Gravenhage: Stichting Archiefpublicaties, 43-71.
  45. Yeo, G. (2007). Concepts of Records(1): Evidence, information, and persistent representations. American Archivist, 70(2), 315-343. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.70.2.u327764v1036756q
  46. Yeo, G. (2013). Trust and context in cyberspace. Archives and Records, 34(3), 214-234. DOI: 10.1080/23257962.2013.825207
  47. Zhang J. (2012). Original order in digital archives. Archivaria, 35, 167-193.
  48. 문헌정보-기록관리-제1부: 개념과 원칙. KS X ISO 15489-1:2016.