Preserving digital heritage: assessing the compliance of digital repositories in South Africa with OAIS and TDR standards Open Access

Diplomatics, a discipline that originated in the 17th and 18th centuries, focuses on verifying the authenticity and reliability of archival documents (Rogers, 2015). It is based on the idea that all records can be analysed through a universal system of formal elements, regardless of their context. However, the rise of digital records disrupted the link between identity and integrity (Duranti and Eastwood, 1995). The InterPARES project at the University of British Columbia integrated traditional diplomatics with modern recordkeeping practices, creating a hybrid discipline called archival diplomatics. This approach blends archival science and diplomatic theory to develop long-term strategies for preserving the authenticity of digital records (Duranti, 2010; Duranti and Jansen, 2011). The research led to the development of a new interdisciplinary approach, combining archival diplomatics, digital forensics and evidence law, increasingly applied in archives and cultural heritage institutions to preserve digital records (Rogers, 2015).

While traditional diplomatics provided a foundation for assessing the authenticity of physical records, its principles are increasingly relevant in the digital era. The rise of digital records challenges the long-standing concepts of identity and integrity in diplomatics, necessitating new frameworks such as the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model, which extends these ideas to the preservation of digital heritage. One of the greatest challenges in digital systems is ensuring the authenticity of records over time (Duranti, 2010). There is often an assumption that digital documents are equivalent to physical records, but this can lead to misjudgments about the authenticity and trustworthiness of digital information (Rogers, 2015). The trustworthiness of digital records depends on three key attributes:

1. reliability;

2. accuracy; and

3. authenticity (Duranti, 2010).

Reliable records are created by competent individuals or systems and maintain their accuracy over time, while authentic records remain unaltered and verifiable by their claimed source [International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), 2001]. Duranti and Rogers (2012) emphasize that trust is built on the reputation, performance and competence of the custodians responsible for creating and maintaining records. However, the rapid growth of the Internet and the increasing use of online data management systems have eroded public confidence in the trustworthiness of digital records (Duranti and Rogers, 2014).

The OAIS and Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) models provide frameworks for addressing these challenges in the digital era. These frameworks ensure that digital records remain reliable, accessible and authentic over time, despite the rapidly changing technological landscape. Critical challenges to trust in digital records include accountability, transparency, accessibility and preservation (Duranti and Rogers, 2014). In the context of rapidly changing technologies, questions about authorship, ownership and jurisdiction are increasingly complex, reflecting the inherent risks in managing digital records and data. As such, the preservation of trust in digital systems requires continuous research and adaptation to new technological realities.

Similar to global institutions (e.g., Thurston, 2020), South African public institutions face significant challenges in managing and preserving digital records, which are crucial for e-government initiatives. However, while some of these challenges, such as inadequate infrastructure, distrust in cloud storage and legal complexities, reflect unique manifestations tied to South Africa’s socio-political and economic context, they are not entirely unique. Similar barriers, including insufficient funding, inadequate staffing and rapidly changing technology, have been observed in other lower-resource environments globally (Shibambu and Ngoepe, 2020; Ahmad and Rafiq, 2023; Masenya and Ngulube, 2019). These shared challenges highlight the importance of addressing structural barriers to compliance with international standards like OAIS and TDR. The absence of proper digital preservation strategies may lead to a “digital dark age,” jeopardizing the sustainability of e-government services (Ngulube, 2012). The complexity of the legal framework and the disparate nature of information systems further complicate digital records management in South African public institutions (Katuu and Ngoepe, 2015).

The OAIS reference model is widely adopted for digital preservation in repositories, offering a structured framework for long-term preservation strategies and promoting interoperability among digital libraries and archives (Allinson, 2006; Chandra and Gokhale, 2012). Maturity models, such as the DPC Rapid Assessment Model (DPC RAM), offer an alternative approach for assessing digital preservation capabilities, providing a scalable, widely adopted methodology for identifying strengths and gaps in digital preservation practices (DPC, 2020). Integrating maturity models into compliance assessments could enhance the comparability of results across contexts, although their application in environments with lower resources may require further contextual adaptation. However, the implementation of OAIS in South Africa faces distinct challenges, including a lack of institutional commitment, resource constraints and the threat of technological obsolescence. Additionally, the idea of TDRs has gained attention over the past few years as a solution to address these challenges. TDRs offer a standard framework for ensuring that digital materials remain accessible, authentic and secure, even in the context of the rapid technological changes experienced in South Africa (Shibambu and Ngoepe, 2020).

Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the compliance of digital repositories in South Africa with the standards of a TDR and the OAIS model. This study assesses the capacity of these repositories to preserve digital cultural heritage and ensure long-term access to authentic digital records.

TDR is a concept that is associated with digital preservation and the trust of digital records in general. Much of the emphasis on trust in the digital preservation community has been centred on the concept of maintaining trusted digital repositories (Corrado, 2019). The Nestor working group considers TDRs to be a system that is quite complex and interrelated (Nestor Working Group Trusted Repositories, 2009). To determine trustworthiness, it is important to consider the quality of an entire digital infrastructure, “in which the digital information is managed, including the organization running the repository” [Trusted Digital Repositories and Audit Checklist (TRAC), 2007, p. 3]. According to Jantz and Giarlo (2007, p. 193), digital repositories are expected to “preserve electronic materials for periods at least comparable to existing preservation methods”. According to Johnston (2012), a TDR is a set of metrics that certifies a repository’s suitability for digital asset custodianship, encompassing a stable organization, sound management policies and a secure technical platform.

In 2000, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) and the Online Computer Library Centre (OCLC) recognized the need to develop national and international systems of digital repositories that will be responsible for long-term access to the world’s social, economic, cultural, and intellectual heritage (Franks, 2018). The RLG-OCLC working group emphasized that to contribute to the system of digital repositories, content creators, information owners and the current and potential users must have trust in the repositories that conform to certain responsibilities, which include the preservation and provision of access to the content (Franks, 2018, p. 342). The RLG-OCLC report prepared in 2002 described a trusted digital repository as a repository with a mission to provide its designated community with reliable, long-term access to managed digital resources, now and in the future. Solodovnik and Budroni (2015, p. 258) re-echoed the mission of the TDR by noting that it aims to provide long-term access to managed digital resources for designated communities, ensuring administrative responsibility, organizational viability, financial sustainability and procedural accountability. The RLG-OCLC document has been a vital reference point in most literature related to TDRs. The report identified the general operational repositories and characteristics of TDRs, based on the OAIS framework (Dryden, 2011). Any TDR is expected to meet a certain expectation to be affirmed as a TDR [RLG-OCLC Digital Archive Attributes Working Group, 2002, p. 5]. These expectations clearly describe certain activities required to be performed by a trusted repository on behalf of its users. These activities include ensuring that there are measures to evaluate the repository to ascertain that it meets the community’s expectations on trustworthiness (RLG-OCLC, 2002). Bak (2016, p. 382), however, criticized the report by arguing that the RLG and OCLC working group’s understanding of trust is technocratic and that it is mainly “understood in terms of internal processes and analysis, rather than a relationship with external users or partners.” Not many studies have been conducted to determine or establish that specific factors require establishing trust between a digital preservation repository and its designated community. For example, Bak (2016, pp. 396–7) states that studies on TDRs have mainly focused on repositories that serves a sophisticated and educated user community “such as proteomics researchers, social scientists and archaeologists”, and studies have not focused on areas related to how trust is perceived when the designated community includes the general populace. Corrado (2019) examined trust in digital repositories, focusing on CoreTrustSeal and other repository certifications, which are tools organizations can use to determine their level of preparedness for long-term preservation and access to data. Johnston (2012) discussed TDRs at Scholar Portal and Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and the data repository at the University of Guelph.

In comparison, Jantz and Giarlo (2007) studied system architecture and technology-assisted preservation process, which are the more technical aspects. Schmidt (2011) took a fresh approach and studied the concept of TDR in the preservation of Humanities and Social Sciences Online (HNET) email lists. The study revealed that Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC) could be applied to preserving emails. The study of the H-NET email list as a preservation environment, is believed to be the first formal application of TRAC to email list archives, which demonstrated a successful audit of a repository functioning as a live access system. In addition, Yakel et al. (2013) identified several factors influencing trust in repositories, including the repository’s functions as indicators of trust, the importance of transparency, and the need to expand the definition of structural assurance to encompass guarantees of preservation and sustainability. They also highlighted the impact of discipline and expertise level on trust. Through interviews, the study revealed that trust was primarily defined by concerns over data validity, particularly accuracy and the assessment of the repository’s integrity (Yakel et al., 2013, p. 153).

A widely accepted framework for evaluating TDRs is the RLG-OCLC model, which outlines essential attributes to ensure that repositories can reliably manage and preserve digital content. The RLG-OCLC framework emphasizes compliance with standards, organizational responsibilities and long-term sustainability. These expectations include adherence to the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model, which is fundamental as it requires repositories to align their systems with the OAIS structure, either by fully integrating or adapting key aspects of it [National Research Foundation (NRF), 2010]. Administrative responsibility is another critical attribute, highlighting the need for explicit commitments from organizations to preserve digital content while maintaining security, performance and transparency. This includes contingency planning and the maintenance of external certifications to ensure ongoing reliability (RLG-OCLC, 2002).

Organizational viability, a key element of the framework, refers to an organization’s ability to preserve digital content through policies that address its life cycle, supported by long-term commitments outlined in mission statements, legal status, and staffing resources, including professional development (NRF, 2010). Financial sustainability is equally important, as repositories must demonstrate their ability to bear the costs of digital preservation, including investments in technology and human resources. Without financial stability and long-term planning, preservation efforts risk becoming unsustainable (RLG-OCLC, 2002). In addition to organizational responsibilities, the technological and procedural suitability of repositories is emphasized, underscoring the importance of maintaining proper infrastructure for preservation. Regular audits and adherence to best practices ensure that technology remains an essential component of successful repositories (NRF, 2010). System security is also vital in protecting digital content from vulnerabilities, with repositories required to implement disaster recovery plans, backup systems, and protocols to maintain data integrity and ensure content remains secure (RLG-OCLC, 2002). Procedural accountability further reinforces trust in TDRs by requiring organizations to engage in internal and external audits, providing transparency and documentation that allow for community evaluation and the validation of preservation strategies (RLG-OCLC, 2002).

International standards, such as ISO 16363, provide a comprehensive framework for assessing and certifying TDRs. This standard focuses on organizational infrastructure, digital object management, and technical security, ensuring repositories meet rigorous criteria for long-term digital preservation (Johnston, 2012). Other standards, such as DRAMBORA, Data Seal of Approval (DSA) and NESTOR, offer alternative approaches, reflecting a global emphasis on trusted digital preservation (Dryden, 2011). The development of ISO 16363 demonstrates the international community’s effort to unify and streamline preservation standards, ensuring that TDRs operate consistently and effectively across the globe. Compliance with these standards ensures that repositories are well-equipped to manage and preserve digital content securely and sustainably.

An OAIS is an electronic archive maintained by organizations or a group of people responsible for providing information access for the stakeholders of the electronic archive as a system (Ward, 2012). The OAIS Reference Model was published by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 2002 and became an ISO standard (ISO 14721) in 2003. The Reference Model for an OAIS was designed before standards were developed to describe and analyse digital preservation issues. According to Franks (2018, p. 342), the OAIS Reference Model provides “a basis for future standards-building activity and serves as a point of reference for vendors interested in building digital preservation products and services.”

There are mandatory standards expected to be discharged for an organization to operate an OAIS archive [Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS), 2012; Beedham et al., 2005; Allinson, 2006]. These responsibilities “offer a small set of high-level goals, providing a loose framework for best practice and communication between repositories” (Allinson, 2006, p. 6). However, the OAIS Reference Model is not considered an implementation plan or a blueprint but is seen as a conceptual framework for system designs (Dryden, 2010). According to Hockx-Yu (2006, pp. 6–7), the “OAIS Reference Model is a conceptual framework for a generic system, which is committed to a dual role of preservation and providing access to information”.

The OAIS Reference Model has three concepts, namely the “OAIS Environment”, the “OAIS Information” and the “OAIS High-Level External Interactions”. The OAIS Environment consists of the environment which surrounds an OAIS archive are the “Producer”, “Consumers” and the “Management” (Ward, 2012). According to Lavoie (2014, p. 9), “An OAIS-type archive does not operate in a vacuum; it carries out its preservation and access responsibilities in an environment populated by key external stakeholders with which it must cooperate. The reference model identifies and describes the external entities constituting an OAIS’s environment and characterizes the interfaces between these entities and the OAIS.” Ward (2012) explains that the “Producer” provides preserved data, the “Consumer” accesses it, and “Management” sets OAIS policy, with the latter not involved in daily archive operations.

Several aspects of the functional entity of the model are based on the distinction between SIPs (Submission Information Packages), AIPs (Archival Information Packages) and DIPs (Dissemination Information Packages). The six functional entities in the model represented are Ingest, Data Management, Archival Storage, Preservation Planning, Administration and Access.

These entities are at the core of the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model and play a key role in preserving and ensuring access to digital content. For example, the Ingest function includes the services and processes that accept information from producers, preparing it for long-term storage and management within the archive. Also known as authoring, acquisition or accession, this function ensures that digital objects are adequately accepted and prepared for archival retention (Lavoie, 2014). Pre-ingest activities, such as the Preliminary Phase, Formal Definition Phase, Transfer Phase and Validation Phase, are critical for establishing a reliable archiving service (Beedham et al., 2005; RLG-OCLC, 2002).

The Archival Storage function focuses on the long-term storage and maintenance of digital materials entrusted to the OAIS, ensuring that the contents remain complete and accessible over extended periods. This includes tasks such as media replacement, disaster recovery and error checking, making archival storage integral to the model by providing the necessary infrastructure to maintain the integrity of the archived data (Ward, 2012). The Data Management function is responsible for maintaining descriptive metadata essential for supporting the search and retrieval of archived content. Its primary duties involve administering databases, performing queries, generating reports and updating records as added information arrives or existing information changes (Lavoie, 2014). By effectively managing metadata, this function facilitates user access to archived materials, ensuring they can be located and retrieved efficiently (Michael, 2016). The Preservation Planning function addresses the strategic aspects of preservation, ensuring that archived content remains accessible and understandable over time. This involves monitoring the technological environment and developing strategies to mitigate risks associated with obsolescence (CCSDS, 2012). It also focuses on maintaining up-to-date policies and procedures that adapt to changing technologies and user needs, thereby ensuring long-term access for the designated community (Ward, 2012). The Administration function oversees the overall operation of the OAIS archive, which includes negotiating submission agreements with producers, auditing submissions for compliance with archive standards and maintaining configuration management of the system’s hardware and software. Additionally, this function involves monitoring and improving archive operations and establishing archive policies and standards (CCSDS, 2012; Ward, 2012). The administration entity is critical for coordinating the activities of the other functional entities, ensuring that the archive operates effectively. Finally, the Access function manages the processes and services that allow consumers to locate, request and receive digital content from the archive. This includes communicating with users to handle requests, applying necessary controls to protect sensitive information and delivering responses in various formats (Beedham et al., 2005; CCSDS, 2012). Effective access management is essential for facilitating user engagement and ensuring that archived information is readily available to the designated community.

In addition to these six functional entities, the OAIS Reference Model also includes a seventh category known as Common Services, although not explicitly represented in the framework’s diagram. Common Services encompass essential computing and networking support necessary for the operation of the archive, such as operating system services, network communication mechanisms and security protocols (Lavoie, 2014). These services underpin all other functions, ensuring that the archive operates smoothly and securely.

However, despite its strengths, the OAIS model has faced criticism from scholars. For instance, Cunningham (2008) highlights the assumption that Submission Information Packages (SIPs) are easily available for ingestion, arguing that this oversimplifies a complex process. Beedham et al. (2005) also points out the complexities of the ingest function, which may appear straightforward in theory but involve intricate steps in practice. Ward (2012) notes that repository managers have criticized the preservation planning function for not accurately reflecting the complexities of real-world archival operations. Nevertheless, the OAIS Reference Model remains a foundational framework for managing digital materials, providing a comprehensive approach to the challenges of digital preservation (Cunningham, 2008).

This study used a qualitative research method to assess the compliance of digital repositories across five institutions in South Africa with the standards of a TDR and the OAIS model. The repositories were purposefully selected based on their significance in preserving the country’s digital cultural heritage, with criteria including the diversity of institutions (such as academic and cultural heritage) and their existing infrastructure for digital preservation. A coding system “DR” was adopted to anonymize the digital repositories assessed in this study. Therefore, “DR01” refers to Digital Repository 1, “DR02” to Digital Repository 2 and so on. These digital repositories are also spread across different institutions across South Africa. Data collection involved several complementary methods, including semi-structured interviews with key personnel responsible for managing each repository, which aimed to gather insights into their practices, challenges and understanding of OAIS and TDR standards. In addition to interviews, a thorough content analysis was conducted on existing documentation related to each repository, such as policies, procedures and mission statements, to evaluate the operational frameworks and compliance with OAIS and TDR standards. Direct observations of the repository environments were also carried out to assess the physical and technical infrastructure that supports digital preservation efforts, focusing on data management, security, and access control. Observations were validated with staff-provided information and documentation to ensure objectivity. For example, processes such as the ingestion, preservation and access of digital files were assessed for alignment with OAIS responsibilities. The evaluation of digital preservation was based on internationally recognized standards, including the OAIS Reference Model and the RLG-OCLC Trusted Digital Repositories report. Key benchmarks included staffing, financial sustainability, independent understandability and preservation policies. Specific criteria included staffing levels, adequate budget, financial viability and collection development policies. These evaluations ensured the preservation of digital resources for long-term use.

A comprehensive literature review was integral to the methodology, providing context within the broader field of digital preservation. This review covered key texts on OAIS and TDR frameworks and previous assessments of digital repositories, aiding in the identification of best practices and standards that informed the development of the assessment criteria for the study. Data from interviews, content analysis and observations were triangulated to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings, with thematic analysis used to identify common themes and patterns in the data.

Ethical considerations were paramount throughout the research process, with ethical approval obtained prior to conducting interviews and informed consent secured from all participants. Confidentiality was maintained, ensuring that participant identities were anonymized. While this methodology offers a robust framework for assessing compliance with OAIS and TDR standards, the reliance on qualitative data introduces potential subjectivity. To address this, triangulation was employed, integrating interviews, document analysis and observations. Future research may benefit from incorporating quantitative metrics to enhance the comprehensiveness of the assessment. This systematic methodology provided a comprehensive framework for evaluating the compliance of South African digital repositories with OAIS and TDR standards, allowing for a robust assessment of the challenges and opportunities these repositories face in preserving the nation’s digital heritage.

As the literature has highlighted, the preservation of digital heritage, particularly in the context of TDR and the OAIS model, requires institutions to adhere to a range of technical, organizational and financial standards to ensure long-term accessibility and authenticity of digital records. While these standards have been widely adopted internationally, their implementation in the South African context remains underexplored. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap by assessing the compliance of selected South African digital repositories with OAIS and TDR standards. The following section presents the findings from interviews, document analysis and observations, shedding light on the current state of digital repositories in South Africa and their alignment with international preservation standards. To present the research data, the digital repositories in each institution were coded to maintain anonymity of the institutions. Therefore, the term DR is a code for digital repository and all the digital repositories are in different institutions spread across South Africa. That is, DR01 refers to Digital Repository 1 and so on. The repositories studied include both academic institutional repositories and repositories involved in cultural heritage preservation. The academic institutional repositories focus on research outputs and institutional memory, while the cultural heritage repositories emphasize preserving Indigenous knowledge and national historical assets.

Selected digital repositories were assessed for their compliance with the OAIS responsibilities. These elements were assessed because they are key responsibilities to ensure that a repository is OAIS compliant. Table 1 shows the assessment of the digital repositories in selected institutions in South Africa, based on the interview responses and content analysis. The findings from this assessment of compliance with the OAIS responsibilities and TDR elements are presented below.

Any organization conforming to OAIS is required to have established criteria that determine the kinds of information it is willing or required to accept (Beedham et al., 2005). All the institutions collect data for preservation including resources related to cultural heritage. They are required to preserve the materials and promote the use of cultural heritage including indigenous knowledge (IK) related resources in South Africa. The data collected includes photos, audio, video, and other materials in document form. This shows that the institutions are involved in negotiating and accepting information from the producers through primary and other sources. The data shows that the institutions meet the requirement for negotiating for and accepting information from producers.

The OAIS standard recommends that the acquisition of content from the producer ensures that legalities involving the valid transfers of intellectual property rights, rights granted and any other limitations imposed by their rights holders, are carefully considered (Beedham et al., 2005). While ensuring that the preservation and availability of the materials conform to these limitations and rights, the OAIS repository must be in full control of the objects and their metadata to ensure their long-term preservation. The repositories conform to this OAIS responsibility. For instance, in the capture of important cultural heritage resources into the digital repositories, tools such as the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Catalogue forms are used to ensure that the right holders give their consent to transfer the recorded materials to the repositories for storage. This criterion is fulfilled by ensuring that the information producers sign the necessary forms, such as the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) form, which protects the institution from IP right issues that might arise in the future.

The expected consumers or designated community of the submitted information must be predetermined (CCSDS, 2012). This ensures that the presented information will be understandable to the designated community (Beedham et al., 2005). The study revealed that the institutions were clear about their designated community and their target group being academic researchers. However, the follow-up questions from the interviews showed that the interviewees from DR04 and DR05 were not clear about the specific designated community for its cultural heritage materials.

Fulfilling this OAIS responsibility poses formidable challenges because further digital information is required to ensure that the information remains meaningful (RLG-OCLC, 2002). An OAIS repository is responsible for determining what needs to be added to ensure that the collection’s understandability is maintained (Beedham et al., 2005). This responsibility may be fulfilled through a well-documented and maintained technical metadata or technology watch to manage potential risks as technology evolves. The findings revealed that none of the institutions exhibited traits in compliance with this OAIS responsibility. However, a respondent from DR01 indicated that the repository is currently working towards fully meeting the requirement of ensuring that the information to be preserved is independently understandable to the designated community.

One of the essential features of an OAIS-compliant repository is the presence of well-documented and readily adopted policies and procedures to guide the preservation of its Archival Information Packages (AIPs) (CCSDS, 2012; RLG-OCLC, 2002). These must be followed strictly (Beedham et al., 2005). However, the study revealed that the repositories do not have well-documented policies and procedures guiding the preservation of digitized cultural heritage materials. A respondent from DR03 mentioned that the National Policy on the Digitization of Heritage Materials is adopted for this specific collection in the digital repository. However, this policy framework is not a one-size-fits-all framework and places the responsibility of formulating strategic policies at the institutional level. As indicated in Table 1, only one of the repositories met the requirement of following a documented policy and procedure in managing their digital materials.

Access is one of the key OAIS functional entities and includes the components that enable the delivery of archival contents to the authorized users, whether for internal or external use. Some collections may have access restrictions, requiring a published access and restriction policy to protect the rights of all parties involved (CCSDS, 2012; RLG-OCLC, 2002; Beedham et al., 2005). This study revealed that while these institutions currently provide access to researchers and the public, there is limited access to certain collection in the digital repositories. The restricted access applies to cultural heritage resources, especially Indigenous knowledge related material. However, DR01 provides subscription-based online access to this special collection, while DR02 and DR04 plan to make them publicly available in future. As presented in Table 1, only DR01 and DR03 met this requirement by ensuring that the preserved information is available to the designated community. Regarding access to special collection like related to cultural heritage, DR01 offers subscription-based access, while DR03 makes the information available on an open-access platform.

An assessment of the repositories’ mission statements, to ascertain if they reflect a commitment to long-term retention, management, and access to digital cultural assets on behalf of depositors and users, revealed that only three of the repositories met this requirement, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 also reflects a lack of adequate staff to perform necessary tasks related to preserving digital assets, and only one institution is financially viable.

The availability of adequate staff is a critical factor for ensuring the successful management and long-term preservation of digital repositories. In the current study, Table 1 reveals that only one institution, DR05, has sufficient staffing to support its digital preservation efforts. The other repositories lack the necessary human resources, which can significantly hinder their ability to meet the requirements of a TDR. In additional to the issue of inadequate staff, the lack of technical expertise among staff is also an issue. In DR01 for example, only one staff member work on the cultural heritage collection. The findings also show that the staff rely on IT specialists in another organization for technical support. The shortage of qualified staff in most of these institutions could be attributed to several factors, including limited budget allocations, lack of specialized training programs and a general underestimation of the complexity involved in digital preservation activities. Without adequate staff, these repositories face challenges in maintaining the technical and administrative tasks essential to OAIS compliance, such as metadata management, risk assessments and the implementation of preservation policies and procedures.

The findings align with previous studies that emphasize the importance of skilled personnel in digital curation and preservation. As shown by Tshweu’s (2016), this issue is not unique to the South African context, as many repositories worldwide struggle with under-resourcing, particularly in staffing. To address this gap, these institutions need to prioritize the recruitment and retention of personnel with expertise in digital preservation, through collaboration with academic institutions or professional development programs.

The presence of an adequate budget is another key requirement for the sustainability of a TDR, as highlighted by the OAIS Reference Model. In Table 1, only DR05 is identified as having sufficient financial resources to support its digital preservation activities, while the other repositories do not have the necessary budget to fully comply with the OAIS standard.

This lack of adequate funding severely constrains the ability of these repositories to invest in essential components of digital preservation, such as acquiring and maintaining appropriate technological infrastructure, hiring skilled staff and developing comprehensive policies. Budget limitations also impact the ability to implement long-term preservation strategies and manage the evolving nature of digital content. For example, inadequate funding could delay the adoption of advanced technologies for managing metadata or storage systems, which are critical to ensuring that information remains accessible over time. The budgetary constraints noted in the study suggest that many of these repositories may rely on short-term funding or external grants, which may not provide the stability required for sustained digital preservation efforts. As reported by Tshweu (2016), limited financial resources are a common challenge for digital repositories in South Africa, especially those dealing with cultural heritage collections. To mitigate these challenges, the institutions might explore alternative funding models, including public–private partnerships, government funding or international grants aimed at supporting cultural heritage preservation.

While certain OAIS responsibilities, such as negotiating with producers and obtaining control for preservation are widely met, there are substantial gaps in more critical areas like independent understandability, documented policies and adequate resourcing. These deficiencies indicate that none of the repositories can be considered fully compliant with the OAIS Reference Model. This confirms the findings of Tshweu (2016) and Ndegwa et al. (2022), who revealed that repositories in South Africa fall short of compliance with OAIS standards. None of the repositories are currently fully compliant with the Reference Model for an OAIS, as shown in Table 1.

In addition to OAIS compliance, the repositories were assessed based on a broader framework of attributes expected of a TDR, as outlined by the RLG-OCLC (2002). These attributes include administrative responsibility, organizational viability, financial sustainability, technological and procedural suitability, system security and procedural accountability. Table 2 presents the assessment of the repositories’ compliance with these additional TDR requirements, revealing significant gaps in financial, organizational and technological capacities.

A trusted digital repository must provide evidence of certain fundamental commitments to implement the range of community-agreed standards and best practices that affect the repositories’ operations, especially those influencing its viability and sustainability directly (RLG-OCLC, 2002). The study established that the institutions meet part of this requirement through written agreements with the knowledge holders through consent forms. However, other requirements, such as meeting national and international standards for backup and security systems are not fully met by the institutions.

The organizational viability is a requirement that deals with requirements, such as a mission statement that reflects a commitment to long-term retention, management of and access to digital assets (RLG-OCLC, 2002). According to the RLG-OCLC (2002), this also includes transparency, staffing, technical expertise and proper preservation plans. The findings show no solid plans regarding the commitment to the retention, management or provision of access in the mission statements. The study also established inadequate staff and a lack of technical expertise among staff at the academic institutions. In some institutions, not more than two staff members are working on the cultural heritage collection. There is a need to have sustainable funding and policies, and the designated community must be able to access and use the content that is being preserved for the near future (Corrado, 2019). Based on this finding, the institutions do not fully comply with the organizational viability attribute.

The financial sustainability of a trusted digital repository should be proven over time (RLG-OCLC, 2002). The respondents echoed the challenge of financial constraints. Digital preservation is costly, and the repositories require a form of financial commitment to maintaining its resources. Regarding this requirement, the institutions could not prove their financial viability. One of the respondents explained why they are currently not recapturing some of the data that were corrupted or lost, and lack of adequate financial resources was the major reason. Another respondent from another institution echoed the same sentiment and acknowledged the importance of having an adequate budget to run a digital repository.

This requirement demands that trusted digital repositories have preservation strategies in place. This includes all appropriate software/hardware inventory management functions, and technological obsolescence plans, such as refreshing and emulation, and adequate expertise to implement these strategies (RLG-OCLC, 2002). The study established that the academic institutional repositories do not have adequate preservation plans in place. Strategies, such as data migration, refreshing and emulation, were not part of the institutions’ preservation plans. This suggests that there are not enough plans in place to preserve digital materials against technological obsolescence. Digital preservation is all about keeping up with technology, and without a proper technological infrastructure in place, there is a risk of losing the materials currently stored in the repositories.

System security requires a TDR to meet certain requirements through its policies and practice. Some system security requirements involve redundancy of data, authentication systems, backups, firewalls, disaster preparedness plans and response, protection against corruption of data and restoration of lost or corrupt data (RLG-OCLC, 2002), among other requirements. The study established that the digital repositories have measures in place to validate captured data, especially those related to cultural heritage. Some institutions also have a backup of the data on device drivers, although this is not common among the institutions, as synchronization between the computers is adopted. The lack of a written policy makes it difficult for the repositories to have well-documented plans such as disaster preparedness plans and response, addressing data integrity and the restoration of lost or corrupted data. The study established that the preservation plans of the institutions regarding system security compliance are not clear.

Tasks, such as putting monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure continued operation, recording preservation strategies and giving proper feedback, are mandatory (RLG-OCLC, 2002). The study established that this attribute is also not met by the institutions. This attribute requires certain measures that rest on the institutions’ preservation policy and strategy to ensure transparency and accountability through the monitoring and feedback mechanisms.

The findings of this study reveal substantial non-compliance with OAIS standards across all five assessed repositories, particularly regarding the ability to ensure information is independently understandable, maintain adequate preservation policies and secure financial and technical resources. These shortcomings have significant implications for the long-term sustainability and accessibility of South Africa’s digital heritage, as non-compliance could result in digital content becoming inaccessible due to technological obsolescence, insufficient metadata management, or failure to develop and follow formal preservation strategies. For instance, repositories that do not invest in proper technological infrastructure risk losing irreplaceable cultural and historical data as digital formats evolve and systems become outdated. A critical consequence of inadequate staffing and financial sustainability is that repositories may not be able to regularly update preservation strategies or implement technologies like data refreshing, emulation or migration to counteract obsolescence. Without the capacity to maintain up-to-date digital preservation frameworks, South Africa risks entering a “digital dark age,” where digital assets deteriorate or become unusable over time, as warned by Ngulube (2012).

However, the challenges faced by South African repositories are similar to issues have been observed in other developing nations. For example, studies in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia have highlighted similar challenges with compliance with OAIS standards, particularly due to resource constraints, inadequate technical expertise and lack of institutional commitment (Masenya and Ngulube, 2020; Ndegwa et al., 2022; Ahmad and Rafiq, 2023). This indicates the need for South Africa to invest in building sustainable infrastructures, develop a national strategy for digital preservation and secure stable funding sources. Benchmarking against international standards and collaborative efforts between South Africa and global preservation bodies could improve compliance and mitigate some of these risks.

The OAIS Reference Model is a widely accepted framework for the long-term preservation of digital information and is critical in ensuring trustworthiness and sustainable digital repositories. This study assessed the compliance of selected South African digital repositories with both the OAIS model and the standards of a TDR. The findings revealed significant gaps in adherence to these international standards, particularly in areas essential for ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of digital records. The barriers identified in this study, such as insufficient financial and technological resources, align closely with the systemic issues outlined by Thurston (2020), emphasizing the need for collaborative and resource-sensitive solutions in achieving compliance with international standards. While all repositories demonstrated basic compliance in acquiring and preserving information from producers, none fully conformed to the OAIS model or the TDR requirements. Key OAIS responsibilities, such as ensuring that digital materials are independently understandable, following documented preservation policies and maintaining system security, were unfulfilled. The lack of documented preservation procedures and inadequate technological and financial resources were prevalent across most institutions, which significantly affected their ability to maintain long-term digital preservation.

One critical limitation was the failure to make preserved information independently understandable to the designated communities, undermining the future use of digital content. Without adequate metadata or documentation, future users may struggle to access and comprehend preserved materials, particularly as technology and knowledge contexts evolve. Inadequate staffing and financial constraints further worsen non-compliance, preventing repositories from addressing these deficiencies. Insufficient staff, coupled with limited budgets, hinders the ability of these institutions to implement and sustain the necessary technological infrastructure and preservation practices.

The findings emphasize the need for significant enhancements in digital preservation practices among South African repositories to achieve full OAIS and TDR compliance. These findings align with previous research, including Tshweu (2016), which noted similar challenges faced by repositories in developing contexts. Addressing these challenges is vital for ensuring the preservation of valuable digital cultural heritage and research data for future generations.

Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations are proposed to improve the compliance of South African digital repositories with the TDR and OAIS standards. Firstly, digital repositories in academic institutions should focus on staff training and capacity building by providing comprehensive training on the OAIS Reference Model, emphasizing its responsibilities and functional components. This will equip repository managers with the knowledge to implement best practices and ensure alignment with international standards. In addition, repositories must develop and implement comprehensive digital preservation policies that cover all aspects of OAIS responsibilities, such as system security, preservation strategies and ensuring the information is independently understandable to the designated community. These policies should be regularly reviewed and updated to keep pace with technological advancements.

Furthermore, sustainable financial and technological infrastructure is crucial for the long-term success of digital repositories. Institutions should secure dedicated and sustainable funding to invest in necessary infrastructure, such as systems for refreshing, migrating and emulating digital content, while also ensuring adequate budget allocations for recruiting skilled personnel. To address existing barriers, institutions must explore how to demonstrate the value and impact of digital preservation efforts. Cost-benefit analyses, societal impact studies and the strategic use of case studies showing successful preservation initiatives can strengthen funding applications. Partnerships with private entities or international organizations may also provide additional resources. Recognizing that barriers to funding and infrastructure development are often systemic, institutions should engage in policy advocacy to influence government priorities. Collaborative initiatives with policymakers, cultural organizations and international bodies could help create an enabling environment for digital preservation. Advocacy efforts should highlight the economic, cultural and educational benefits of preservation to gain broader support.

In addition, repositories should prioritize making digital collections accessible and understandable to their designated communities. This can be achieved by implementing standardized metadata schemas, providing clear documentation and offering technical support mechanisms to enhance the usability of digital materials. Finally, South African institutions should engage in collaboration and benchmarking with international organizations and other repositories to align their practices with global standards. Participating in knowledge exchanges and adopting successful models from well-established repositories will contribute to improved compliance with both TDR and OAIS standards. By addressing these areas, South African digital repositories can enhance their adherence to international standards, ensuring the long-term preservation, accessibility and reliability of the country’s digital cultural assets.

This study provides valuable insights into the compliance of South African digital repositories with OAIS and TDR standards. However, it is important to acknowledge several limitations that may affect the generalizability of the findings. Firstly, the sample size was limited to five purposefully selected digital repositories, which may not represent the full spectrum of digital preservation practices across South Africa. A larger and more diverse sample that includes repositories from a wider range of institutions, such as government and private sector repositories, could offer a more comprehensive view of the state of digital preservation in the country. Also, the reliance on qualitative data, such as interviews and content analysis, while appropriate for exploring complex issues, may introduce subjectivity. Although triangulation of data sources was employed to enhance the reliability of the findings, the study would benefit from a mixed-methods approach that incorporates quantitative data, such as metrics on repository performance or usage, to provide a more robust assessment of compliance with OAIS and TDR standards.

Despite these limitations, the study remains valid as it provides a foundational assessment of digital preservation practices within a key subset of South African repositories. The use of qualitative methods, including interviews and content analysis, offers deep insights into the nuanced challenges faced by these institutions, while data triangulation strengthens the reliability and credibility of the findings, ensuring they reflect critical trends and practices within the selected repositories. However, for future research, a longitudinal study that tracks the progress of these repositories over time could provide valuable insights into how digital preservation practices evolve and whether the gaps identified in this study are addressed. Additionally, comparative studies with repositories in other developing regions, such as Latin America or Southeast Asia, could offer a broader perspective on the challenges and opportunities in digital preservation globally.

Declaration of Interest statement: No declaration of conflict of interest or financial interest (either directly or indirectly) to declare.