Treasury Board Secretariat Policy Context

Subsection 4.3.2 of the Policy on Service and Digital explains deputy heads’ responsibilities for open and strategic information management. Although metadata is not directly mentioned in the policy, some requirements would depend at least partially on metadata.

• For example, metadata would be a tool that would support information and data life cycle management (4.3.2.2), such as documenting retention and disposition activities on records.

The LAC Operational Standard directly supports subsection 4.3.1 of the Directive on Service and Digital and related policy instruments that describe how departments must strategically manage their information and data.

Section 4.3 explains the departmental Chief Information Officer's (CIO) responsibilities for open and strategic management of information and data. Although metadata is not mentioned in the directive, some requirements would depend, at least partially, on metadata.

• For example, managing information and data in a way that enables interoperability, reuse and sharing among GC institutions (4.3.1.3) relies, in part, on metadata. Using a common metadata scheme (structure) makes it easier to exchange metadata (or the information it describes) because it describes the environment in which it was created. It also saves time and resources removing the need to interpret or restructure the information when receiving it.
• Another example is the use of metadata as taxonomies or classification structures for managing, storing, searching, and retrieving information and data (4.3.1.5).

This directive supports information management requirements in the Policy and Directive on Service and Digital.

• For example, Section 6.3 requires establishing and maintaining comprehensive inventories of data and information held by GC institutions to help with planning for their release (sharing on GC websites and services like the Open Government portal). This inventory would effectively be metadata about the data and information resources (e.g., title, creator, date).
• Additionally, Section 6.5 requires GC institutions to maximize the removal of access restrictions on information before transferring it to LAC at disposition. Access restrictions could include security classification or provisions under the ATIA and PA. The LAC Operational Standard requires this kind of “rights management information” at transfer, supporting the federal government’s efforts to ensure transparency.

The SSTMID requirements are based on ISO 16175-1 Information and documentation—Processes and functional requirements for software for managing records—Part 1: Functional requirements and associated guidance for any applications that manage digital records (2nd edition).

The requirements do not directly map to Operational Standard concepts because they identify system functionality that is supported by metadata instead of identifying metadata concepts required for this functionality. For example, the SSTMID requirement to support interoperability may depend on metadata to search, retrieve, and share records, but the specific metadata concepts or elements required are not listed.

See Appendix A for further details.

The requirements of this standard include:

• L.2.2.1 Assess metadata needs to inform the planning, design, delivery and continuous improvement of operations and services.
• L.2.2.2 Use GC enterprise-wide metadata reference standards to describe information and data to support information and data discovery, sharing, exchange and reuse. If such GC enterprise-wide metadata reference standards do not exist, use departmental metadata reference standards.
• L.2.2.3 Apply a risk management approach to metadata quality control.
• L.2.2.4 Manage metadata consistent with the information and data life cycle.

Part of LAC’s legislated mandate is to enable GC records disposition through disposition authorizations (DAs). GC institutions use DAs in accordance with LAC policy instruments, including the Operational Standard, for archival records’ protection and transfer. The Operational Standard thus serves as both a starting point for the assessment of metadata needs to inform operations and services (L.2.2.1) and a reference standard (L.2.2.2).

Moreover, the Operational Standard metadata requirements must be maintained with the archival records throughout their life cycle, including at time of transfer. This requirement aligns with L.2.2.4, to manage metadata consistent with the information and data life cycle.

Requirement L2.2.3 does not directly correspond to the Operational Standard; however, it supports sound metadata management.

Section J.2.4 defines information confidentiality categories: classified (top secret, secret, confidential) and protected (protected C, protected B, protected A). According to Appendix E, section 2.2.2.1, of the Directive on Security Management (this standard’s enabling directive), security markings must be assigned to government information. These markings align with the Operational Standard’s rights management information requirement.

While the IMCC is no longer being maintained by TBS, the recommendations were taken into account in the development of the Operational Standard as the influence of the IMCC continues to be evident in system use and design across the federal government. Moreover, all LAC metadata requirements map to the IMCC with the exception of technical environment information.

An interpretation and full breakdown of this alignment are provided in Appendix B. This is considered an “interpretation” because there are many IMCC elements that align with a single LAC concept. Do all of them need to be provided for each item, file, or transfer, or would it be enough to give only some of them? The answer to this could be “it depends on what is available” and whether some metadata for each item, file, and transfer would still be provided. In preparing for the transfer, it is important for departments to work with the LAC assigned archivist to decide what options are available to meet the Operational Standard.

Note: future guidance will be developed to provide additional information on metadata assessment and selection (when applicable) to support the preparation of transfers from various environments, clarifying which metadata may be required or desirable beyond the Operational Standard’s minimum set. This is because the standard is designed to be flexible to account for the wide variety of systems and configurations in place for managing government records, including the various ways in which the IMCC has been or remains implemented today.