Skip to main content

Provenance: Past, Present and Future in Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Perspective

Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

This chapter presents a multi- and interdisciplinary synthesis of ideas about the definition and theoretical conceptualization of provenance, drawing from disciplines such as archival science, law, computer science, library and information science, and visual analytics. Through the lens of these distinct domains, the chapter explores different purposes served by provenance; various ways that diverse fields are capturing, representing and using provenance information; provenance standards and specifications, and a range of open research challenges relating to theorizing about provenance and capturing, representing and using provenance information in increasingly distributed, heterogeneous information eco-systems combining machine and human intelligence. From this blending of perspectives on provenance from different disciplines and ‘interdisciplines’, a rich picture emerges of provenance as a dynamic construct and evolving focus of research.

Keywords

  • Metadata
  • Provenance
  • Sense-making
  • Trust
  • Trusted computing

Membership in the imProvenance Group is fluid, but the core group of individuals who contributed to the development of this synthesis comprise: Lucie Burgess, Adrian Cunningham, Ken Cavelier, David Dubin, Luciana Duranti, Paolo Missier, Bertram Ludäscher, Corinne Rogers, Joe Tennis, Ken Thibodeau, Margaret Varga and Ashley Wheat.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-40226-0_1
  • Chapter length: 43 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-40226-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. 1.

    More specifically, Moreau’s analysis revealed a growing trend of research activity related to provenance, with about half the papers concerning provenance published since 2008. He conjectured that the development of the Grid as a technology for running scientific applications and the UK e-science program have been two significant external triggering factors that have caused increasing numbers of researchers to focus on the provenance problem.

  2. 2.

    Appendix A of this volume provides a complete list of workshop participants.

  3. 3.

    Mixed-initiative systems can be described as systems that augment human cognitive capabilities by developing machines capable of offloading human thought processes and actively supporting individuals in pursuing their goals. In this sense, the focus is less on creating artificial intelligence (AI) than on augmenting human intelligence (IA).

  4. 4.

    There is some debate about whether Terry Cook was referring both to creators (agents) as well as to function in his reference to relationships. In 2010, in his International Council on Archives plenary address, Terry Cook stated his view of the concept of provenance: “provenance is the concept of linking records or archives, or group or series of archives, to their creator, whether an individual or organization. The value of provenance is that it allows archivists and researchers to understand a record and its content in terms of who made it, where, when, how, and why, and what changes have taken place with the record over time, and why” and from this Duranti infers: In short, Cook appeared to equate the term “provenance” with “context”, but his “who made it, where, when, how, and why” definitely refer to persons, not functions. Lemieux (2014), on the other hand, finds evidence that Cook was also referring to functions. She cites his 1992 article “Mind over Matter”, in which he writes in reference to his provenance-based macro-appraisal theory, “Turning to the second part of the model, the citizen-state interaction reflects a convergence of three factors: the programme (function), the agency (structure), and the citizen.”

  5. 5.

    When we trace the history of a concept through revisions of indexing languages, we are studying the concept’s ontogeny. Ontogeny is a term borrowed from biology.

  6. 6.

    See https://www.dataone.org.

  7. 7.

    See http://www.culturesofknowledge.org.

  8. 8.

    The content of Wikidata is available under a free license, exported using standard formats, and can be interlinked to other open data sets on the linked data web. (http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page).

  9. 9.

    397 is between 396 Women’s Treatment and Position and 398 Folklore, Proverbs (s.l.).

  10. 10.

    NARA. Online Public Access. http://www.archives.gov/research/search/.

  11. 11.

    http://vocab.linkeddata.es/p-plan/.

  12. 12.

    http://camelot-dev.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/?page_id=20.

  13. 13.

    http://udfr.org/onto/onto.rdf.

  14. 14.

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Default.aspx.

References

  1. Papritz, J.: Archivwissenschaft. 4 vols. Archivschule Marburg. Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, Marburg (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Moreau, L.: The foundations for provenance on the web. Found. Trends Web Sci. 2(2–3), 99–241 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Yeo, G.: Trust and context in cyberspace. Arch. Rec. 34(2), 214–234 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Duranti, L.: The odyssey of records managers. In: Burke, F.G., Nesmith, T. (eds.) Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, pp. 29–60. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jones, T.G., Burgess, L., Jefferies, N., Ranganathan, A., Rumsey, S.: Contextual and provenance metadata in the Oxford University Research Archive (ORA). In: Metadata and Semantics Research, pp. 274–285. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, F: Digital forensics and electronic discovery. http://all.net (c. 2013)

  7. Socha, G., Gelbmann, T.: Electronic discovery reference model. http://www.edrm.net/resources/edrm-stages-explained (2016)

  8. Tennis, J.T.: A Kaleidoscope perspective: change in the semantics and structure of facets and isolates in Analytico-Synthetic classification. SRELS J. Inf. Manage. 50(6), 789–794 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bearman, D.A., Lytle, R.H.: The power of the principle of provenance. Archivaria. 1(21), (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schon, D.A., DeSanctis, V.: The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. J. Contin. High. Educ. 34, (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Varga, M., Varga, C.: Visual analytics – data, analytical and reasoning provenance. Springer Nature (2016). This volume

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duranti, L.: The concept of appraisal and archival theory. Am. Arch. 57, 328–344 (1994)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Lemieux, V.L.: Applying Mintzberg’s theories on organizational configuration to archival appraisal. Archivaria. 1(46), (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cook, T.: Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts. Arch. Sci. 1(1), 3–24 (2001)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Pearce-Moses, R., Baty, L.A.: A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology. Society of American Archivists, Chicago (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Council on Archives. International Standard Archival Description (General). ICA, Paris (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  17. International Council on Archives. ISAAR (CPF) International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families, 2nd edn. ICA, Paris (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. International Council on Archives. Committee on Best Practices and Standards: Progress Report for Revising and Harmonising ICA Descriptive Standards. ICA, Paris (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Duchein, M.: Theoretical principles and practical problems of respect des fonds in archival science. Archivaria 1(16), 64–82 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Horsman, P.: The last dance of the phoenix or the de-discovery of the archival fonds. Archivaria 1(54), 1–23 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gilliland-Swetland, A.J.: Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment. Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cook, T.: Mind over matter: towards a new theory of archival appraisal. In: Craig, B. (ed.) The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh Taylor, pp. 38–70. Association of Canadian Archivists, Ottawa (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Abukhanfusa, K., Sydbeck, J. (eds.): The Principle of Provenance. Report from the First Stockholm Conference on Archival Theory and the Principle of Provenance. Swedish National Archives, Stockholm (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Douglas, J.: Origins: evolving ideas about the principle of provenance. In: Eastwood, T., MacNeil, H. (eds.) Currents of Archival Thinking, pp. 23–43. Libraries Unlimited, Santa Barbara (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Scott, P.: The record group concept: a case for abandonment. Am. Arch. 29, 493–504 (1966)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Canadian Committee on Archival Description. Rules for Archival Description. Bureau of Canadian Archivists, Ottawa (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Barr, D.: The fonds concept in the working group on archival descriptive standards report. Archivaria. 1(25), 163–169 (Winter 1987–88)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Millar, L.: The death of the fonds and the resurrection of provenance: archival context in space and time. Archivaria 1(53), 1–15 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nesmith, T.: The concept of societal provenance and records of nineteenth-century Aboriginal-European Relations in Western Canada: implications for archival theory and practice. Arch. Sci. 6(3–4), 351–360 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nesmith, T.: Reopening archives: bringing new contextualities into archival theory and practice. Archivaria 60(60), 259–274 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lemieux, V.L.: Toward a ‘Third Order’ archival interface: research notes on some theoretical and practical implications of visual explorations in the Canadian context of financial electronic records. Archivaria 1(78), 53–93 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  32. EDM Council. Financial Industry Business Ontology. http://www.edmcouncil.org/financialbusiness (2012–2016)

  33. World Wide Web Consortium. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dictionary/ (2013)

  34. DCMI. DCMI Specifications. http://dublincore.org/specifications/ (1995–2016)

  35. Buneman, P., Khanna, S., Wang-Chiew, T.: Why and where: a characterization of data provenance. In: Database Theory—ICDT, pp. 316–330. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cheney, J., Chiticariu, L., Tan, W.-C.: Provenance in Databases: Why, How, and Where. Now Publishers Inc., Breda (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Green, T.J., Karvounarakis, G., Ives, Z.G., Tannen, V.: Update exchange with mappings and provenance. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 675–686. VLDB Endowment, Almaden (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Davidson, S.B., Boulakia, S.C., Eyal, A., Ludäscher, B., McPhillips, T.M., Bowers, S., Freire, J.: Provenance in scientific workflow systems. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 30(4), 44–50 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Amsterdamer, Y., Davidson, S.B., Deutch, D., Milo, T., Stoyanovich, J., Tannen, V.: Putting lipstick on pig: enabling database-style workflow provenance. Proc. VLDB Endowment 5(4), 346–357 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. Thomas, J.J., Cook, K.A.: Illuminating the Path: The Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics. National Visualization and Analytics Centre, Richland, WA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jankun-Kelly, T.J.: The Case for Visual Analysis Provenance Cases, Workshop on Analytic Provenance: Process + Interaction + Insight. CHI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Keim, D.A., Kohlhammer, J., Ellis, G., Mansmann, F.: Mastering the Information Age-Solving Problems with Visual Analytics. Florian Mansmann (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Xu, K.: InterPARES Trust Interdisciplinary Workshop on Provenance Participant’s Statement. Unpublished document (May, 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pirolli, P., Card, S.K.: The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Anal. 5, 2–4 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Klein, G., Moon, B., Hoffman, R.R.: Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell. Syst. 4, 70–73 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., Kirsh, D.: Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 7(2), 174–196 (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Roberts, J.C., Keim, D., Hanratty, T., Rowlingson, R.R., Walker, R., Hall, M., Jacobson, Z., Lavigne, V., Rooney, C., Varga, M.: From Ill-defined problems to informed decisions. In: EuroVis Workshop on Visual Analytics. Eurographics Association, Geneva (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Factor, M., Henis, E., Naor, D., Rabinovici-Cohen, S., Reshef, P., Ronen, S., Michetti, G., Guercio, M.: Authenticity and provenance in long term digital preservation: modeling and implementation in preservation aware storage. In: Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance. ACM SIGMOD 38(2), 57–60 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gillean, D., Leveillé, V., Rogers, C.: Records in the Cloud–A metadata framework for cloud service providers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cloud Security Management: ICCSM, p. 166. Academic Conferences Limited, Curtis Farm (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lemieux, V.L., Rogers, C., Thibodeau, K.: InterPARES Trust (international multidisciplinary research into issues of trust in digital objects in online environments) Metadata: Authenticity and Provenance in the Cloud. NATO Specialist Meeting IST-13: Distributed Data Analytics for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lorton, VA, 15–17 October 2014

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sedona Conference: Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production. The Sedona Conference, Sedona (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Missier, P., Ludäscher, B., Dey, S., Wang, M., McPhillips, T., Bowers, S., et al.: Golden trail: retrieving the data history that matters from a comprehensive provenance repository. Int. J. Digit. Curation. 7(1) (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Open Data Charter.net: Open Data Charter. http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/ (c. 2015)

  55. McKinsey Global Institute. Open Data: Unlocking Innovation and Performance with Liquid Information. McKinsey & Co., London (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  56. European Union. Data Portal. http://www.europeandataportal.eu (2016)

  57. Open Government Partnership. About. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about (2016)

  58. Ballard, M.: Poor data quality hindering government open data programme. Computer Weekly (28 August 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Dasu, T., Johnson, T.: Exploratory Data Mining and Data Cleaning, vol. 479. Wiley, New York (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  60. Anderson, S.R., Allen, R.B.: Envisioning the archival commons. Am. Arch. 72(2), 383–400 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  61. Oomen, J., Aroyo, L.: Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, pp. 138–149. ACM, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Eveleigh, A.: Crowding out the archivist? Locating crowdsourcing within the broader landscape of participatory archives. In: Ridge, M., Mia Ridge (ed.) Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage, pp. 211–212. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dewey, M.: Decimal Classification and Relative Index for Libraries, Clippings, Notes, etc, 8th edn. Forest Press, Tionesta (1913)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Trickett, S.B., Trafton, J.G., Saner, L., Schunn, C.D.: I don’t know what’s going on there: the use of spatial transformations to deal with and resolve uncertainty in complex visualizations. In: Lovett, M.C., Shah, P. (eds.) Thinking with Data, pp. 65–86. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Flood, M.D., Lemieux, V.L., Varga, M., Wong, B.L.W.: The application of visual analytics to financial stability monitoring. J. Financ. Stability (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Watts, K.A.: Proposing a place for politics in arbitrary and capricious review. Yale Law J. 119, 2–85 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kelly, J.E.: Welcome to the era of cognitive systems. http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2012/05/welcome-to-theera-of-cognitive-systems.html (May 10, 2012)

  68. Computing Research Association. Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems. CRA, Washington (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cavelier, K.: InterPARES Trust Interdisciplinary Workshop on Provenance Participant’s Statement. Unpublished document (May, 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  70. MacNeil, H.: Trusting description: authenticity, accountability, and archival description standards. J. Arch. Organ. 7(3), 89–107 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Bearman, D.: Description standards: a framework for action. Am. Arch. 52(4), 514–519 (1989)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  72. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility. What is GBIF. http://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif (2016)

  73. Missier, P., Dey, S., Belhajjame, K., Cuevas-Vicenttín, V., Ludäscher, B.: D-PROV: extending the PROV provenance model with workflow structure. In: Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP 13). USENIX Association, Berkeley (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Murta, L., Braganholo, V., Chirigati, F., Koop, D., Freire, J.: Noworkflow: capturing and analyzing provenance of scripts. In: Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes, pp. 71–83. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lerner, B., Boose, E.: RDataTracker: collecting provenance in an interactive scripting environment. In: Proceedings of the 6th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP 2014). USENIX, Berkeley (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Hertzum, M., Hansen, K.D., Andersen, H.H.K.: Scrutinising usability evaluation: does thinking aloud affect behavior and mental workload? Behav. Inf. Technol. 28(2), 165–181 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  77. Gotz, D., Zhou, M.X.: Characterizing users’ visual analytic activity for insight provenance. Inf. Vis. 8(1), 42–55 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  78. Shrinivasan, Y.B., van Wijk, J.J.: Supporting exploration awareness in information visualization. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 29(5), 24–33 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  79. Pike, W.A., May, R., Baddeley, B., Riensche, R., Bruce, J., Younkin, K.: Scalable visual reasoning: supporting collaboration through distributed analysis. In: International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, pp. 24–32. IEEE Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Walker, R., Slingsby, A., Dykes, J., Xu, K., Wood, J., Nguyen, P.H., Stephens, D., Wong, B.L., Zheng, Y.: An extensible framework for provenance in human terrain visual analytics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 19(12), 2139–2148 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Nguyen, P.H., Xu, K., Walker, R., Wong, B.L.W.: SchemaLine: timeline visualization for sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Visualization (IV), pp. 225–233. IEEE Press, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Gotz, D., Wen, Z.: Behavior-driven visualization recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 315–324. ACM, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bavoil, L., Callahan, S.P., Crossno, P.J., Freire, J., Scheidegger, C.E., Silva, C.T., Vo, H.T: Vistrails: enabling interactive multiple-view visualizations. In: Proceedings of IEEE Information Visualization 05, pp. 135–142. IEEE Press, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Dunne, C., Henry Riche, N., Lee, B., Metoyer, R., Robertson, G.: GraphTrail: analyzing large multivariate, heterogeneous networks while supporting exploration history. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1663–1672. ACM, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Lemieux, V.L., Dang, T.: Building accountability for decision-making into cognitive systems. In: Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 575–586. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Missier, P., Belhajjame, K., Cheney, J.: The W3C PROV family of specifications for modelling provenance metadata. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, pp. 773–776. ACM, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  87. Moreau, L., Hartig, O., Simmhan, Y., Myers, J., Lebo, T., Belhajjame, K., Miles, S., Soiland-Reyes, S.: PROV-AQ: provenance access and query. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq (2012)

  88. Gil, Y., Miles, S., Belhajjame, K., Deus, H., Garijo, D., Klyne, G., Missier, P., Soiland-Reyes, S., Zednik, S.: PROV model primer. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ (2012)

  89. Lebo, T., Sahoo, S., McGuinness, D., Belhajjame, K., Cheney, J., Corsar, D., Garijo, D., Soiland-Reyes, S., Zednik, S., Zhao, J.: ProvO: The prov ontology. W3C Recommendation. (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Firth, H., Missier, P.: ProvGen: generating synthetic PROV graphs with predictable structure. In: Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes, pp. 16–27. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  91. Groth, P., Moreau, L: PROV-Overview. An overview of the PROV Family of Documents. https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-overview-20130430/ (2013)

  92. The Bodleian Library. CAMELOT: A contextual data model for the Bodleian digital library. http://camelot-dev.bodleian.ox.ac.uk (2016)

  93. PREMIS Editorial Committee. Data dictionary for preservation metadata, Version 3.0. OCLC, Washington (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  94. ISO/IEC: ISO 14721: 2012– Space data and information transfer systems -- Open archival information system (OAIS) -- Reference model. ISO, Geneva (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  95. PREMIS Editorial Committee. PREMIS OWL Ontology 2.2 now available. https://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/ontology-announcement.html (2013)

  96. Guercio, M.: PREMIS and the long-term preservation of complex digital archives: Lessons learned and critical issues from the CASPAR Research. Round Table on PREMIS – Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies, Rome Italy (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  97. McKemmish, S., Acland, G., Ward, N., Reed, B.: Describing records in context in the continuum: the Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema. Archivaria 1(48), 3–37 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  98. ISO/IEC: ISO 23081: 2006. Information and Documentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records – Part I: Principles. ISO, Geneva (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  99. ISO/IEC: ISO 15489: 2001. Information and Documentation – Records Management – Part I: General. ISO, Geneva (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  100. ISO/IEC: ISO 23081: 2009. Information and Documentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records – Part 2: Conceptual and Implementation Issues. ISO, Geneva (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  101. ISO/IEC: ISO 23081. Information and Documentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records – Part 3: Self-Assessment Method. ISO, Geneva (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  102. Duranti, L.: The long-term preservation of accurate and authentic digital data: the INTERPARES project. Data Sci. J. 4, 106–118 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  103. InterPARES 2 Terminology Database. http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_terminology_db.cfm (2016)

  104. Xie, S.L.: Preserving digital records: InterPARES findings and developments. In: Lemieux, V.L. (ed.) Financial Analysis and Risk Management, pp. 187–206. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  105. InterPARES. Chain of preservation model. http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_models.cfm# (2007)

  106. International Council on Archives. ISAF: International Standard for Activities-Functions of Corporate Bodies. ICA, Paris (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  107. Mitchell, C. (ed.): Trusted Computing. Institution of Electrical Engineers, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  108. Xu, K., Attfield, S., Jankun-Kelly, T.J., Wheat, A., Nguyen, P.H., Selvaraj, N.: Analytic provenance for sensemaking: a research agenda. Comput. Graph. Appl. 35(3), 56–64. IEEE, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Dou, W., Jeong, D.H., Stukes, F., Ribarsky, W., Lipford, H.R., Chang, R.: Recovering reasoning processes from user interactions. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 3, 52–61 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria L. Lemieux .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lemieux, V.L., the imProvenance Group. (2016). Provenance: Past, Present and Future in Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Perspective. In: Lemieux, V. (eds) Building Trust in Information. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40226-0_1

Download citation