From principles to metrics to evaluation, increasing TRUST in data repositories

1. Thinking about what the metrics are for measuring the trustworthiness of a repository, following the TRUST principles. The TRUST principles are an aspirational goal for the repository ecosystem, but with more and more repositories saying that they *meet* the principles, what are the more granular metrics for a (any) repository to self-evaluate how it is doing with respect to the TRUST principles? Moreover, although an external body might ultimately evaluate a repository’s performance through a certification that can be mapped back to the TRUST principles, do general metrics derived from the TRUST principles immediately map to certification standards? 

2. Exploring whether the following groups might be established up the IG: 

a. An ‘Engagement Group’ to help the promotion and implementation of the TRUST principles. This might start with a subgroup of the TRUST Principles authors or endorsers to discuss what is needed, but the IG could facilitate the efforts by including some information in presentations where relevant.

b. A Working Group to perform a mapping exercise between the TRUST principles and various certification/repository evaluation schema. An open question is the intended audience of such a mapping.

c. There is growing interest in ensuring that generalist repositories are integrated into the Trustworthy Data Repository ecosystem. However, the three main certification standards (CoreTrustSeal, nestorSeal, and ISO 16363) are built upon the OAIS reference model, which is concerned largely with the notion of the Designated Community, and hence the standards are not optimal for the certification of generalist repositories.  We will look at current efforts that may help generalist repositories to be recognized as trustworthy, including the latest development on the CoreTrustSeal position paper, and the Data Curation Network—an interesting  model of how generalist repositories can get curatorial expertise.