Notes from Initial BOF meeting 19 Jan 2007

Friday Jan 19th at 8:30-12:30 Colorado time (i.e. 15:30-19:30 UK time).

Attendees:

Dan Crichton	NASA/JPL
Matt Dunckley	BNSC/CCLRC
John Garrett	NASA
David Giaretta	BNSC/CCLRC
Gian-Maria Pinna	ESA/ESRIN
Chris Mattmann	NASA/JPL
Stephane Mbaye	CNES
Lou Reich	NASA/CSC
Don Sawyer	NASA/GSFC
Bernie Reilly	Center for Research Libraries (CRL)
Cal Lee	U North Carolina
Terry Longstreth	Lockheed Martin
Chris Rusbridge	DCC
David Corney	CCLRC
Elizabeth Brinker	NASA/GSFC
Claude Huc	CNES
Katia Thomaz	INPE (Insituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais), Brazil
Riccardo Ferrante	Smithsonian Institution Archives
Robert Downs	Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), U Columbia
Nancy McGovern	IPCSR
Kirsten Neilsen	U of California, Office of the President
Bruce Ambacher	NARA/ U Maryland
Alan Wood	NASA/AMES
Barbara Seiman	KB, Netherlands
Susanne Dobranz	Humboldt University, Berlin
Raivo Ruusalepp	Estonian Business Archives

0 Introduction, Logistics, etc. - David Giaretta

Logistics were described and the main purpose of the meeting, namely (1) agreement on the Charter (2) gain a rough idea of the level of support for the work and (3) round table discussion

Agenda for the meeting was posted to the RAC WIKI.

1 CCSDS procedural requirements and draft Charter

CCSDS procedural requirements for the working group, including terms of reference/charter were discussed (see here for initial Word version and here as working version Wiki document)

David Giaretta gave a section by section overview of the draft charter, available as a Wiki document which was subsequently updated at, http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/RacCharter

1.1 Discussion of the Charter

• Suggested as starting point the 10 points agreed to at the Chicago meeting early this week.

Robin has emailed content out to Chicago participants. Agreed that this will be considered.

• BR: When does this work intersect with other ISO TCs
  • Add TC46/SC11 Risk - Long term preservation of digital records
  • DS: We have liaison with TC46 currently. Possibly will identify other efforts
  • DG: this is why it would be good to get it into ISO soon.

• Need to get good idea of level of effort. Respond to DG with expected level of effort by tomorrow.

Various categories of effort shown. Indicate which you think you will be.

• Review of schedule
  • Jan 2007 - seek inputs
    • Have RLG/NARA and Nestor documents
  • Feb 2007 - Review Chicago results
    • Expect to have them this week
  • Mar 2007
    • Need to record requirements
  • Formalize into a document for people to review
  • Oct. 2007 - Hierarchy of audit requirements paper - change to Sept to be available fro Oct Meeting
    • Something for review at f2f meeting
  • Mar 2008 Draft document (white book)

Noted that RLG paper based on ISO 9000, and TDR document etc also. Agreed that Reference documents on wiki need to be expanded.

There seems ed to be reasonable agreement on charter.

2 ISO procedures including whether should we attempt to submit an existing document (for example the RLG/NARA checklist document) as an ISO committee draft, to start the ISO process formally.

Other contributions will be welcome.

It was noted that getting this work noted in ISO would be advantageous, but the CCSDS/ISO liaison would be sought.

3 Discussion of the scope of the work, and mechanisms i.e. email, videoconf, workshops etc to progress that work and schedule

Going into ISO via same route OAIS through TC20/SC13. This meeting focused on getting us started through CCSDS.

• The possibility of regular telecom/Megameeting -Thursday AM US start with regular weekly meetings, monthly seems to be too long apart. Of course we can cancel a weekly meeting if we don't have material to discuss.
  • General feeling that it would be OK.
• Face to face meetings about 2/year at CCSDS meetings. People need to find their own funding. Perhaps we could have individual groups or country groups to have smaller meetings. Will discuss on wiki. Understand not everyone will attend, but will get good and comprehensive minutes out to everyone.

whose requirements aren't recognized

4 Estimates of effort available (see EffortAvailable)

It was agreed that peiple would add their levels of effort available, and the type of work they would be able to do: contribute, review or track.

5 Schedule

Initial proposal:

6 Round table

It was noted that within CCSDS aim was to reach consensus, which however does not mean 100% agreement. We argue until rightness of view is seen or the document is reworded to reach better consensus.

• Bernie Riley - Rules of order - consensus important - important that different communities get honored, should ensure major stakeholders get honored, maybe we should identify major stakeholders.
  • DS: Don't think we need to do that formally,
  • DG: CCSDS, Library, Archive constituents
  • BD: Maybe just make sure we present to community
  • LR: Stakeholders should be active in meeting. Presentation schedule could really stretch out.
  • DG: Hard to organize formally, but worked well informally in OAIS process.
  • CR: We need to be sure that wider community than CCSDS be recognized.
  • DG: We agree. It's absolutely critical to get wider views. Interest for industry, government, etc. Hierarchy of interest. Some communities will have more interest
  • BR: another community is those who run repositories. Eg IPSR Political and Social Research and Data Centers
  • DG: When putting in requirements, maybe indicate any communities that would have special requirements or communities
• Cal Lee: No additional comments: Input from professional reviewers
• Terry Longstreth: No additional comments
• Chris Rusbridge: Whether ISO has an accepted approach to audit and certification; Check with what they are doing – do they have an evolving approach?
• Dave Corney: Struggling with time scales (tight) and large number of participants
• Betty Brinker: No comments
• Claude Huc: not available at this time.
• Rick F. No comments
• Bob D. No comments
• Nancy McGovern^?: Organizational aspects need to be a continued part of the process;
• Kirsten N.
• Bruce A.: Found the process to be open and productive.
• Alan W: Pleased to see use of technologies;
• Susanne: no comments
• Don; No comments
• Barbara S. not available
• Gian Maria: No comments
• John: May need to specialize the standard for certain communities
• Chris: Made the point, effort is very discontinuous i.e. not a constant level of effort.

---

Access to the BoF

The BoF was accessed via attendance at Colorado Springs, telecon and videocon.

Meeting: RAC

Comments: This allows access to an interactive webcast for the audit and certification BoF

In order to ensure good quality of connection I was proposing to run this as just a video broadcast from Colorado, so there is no need for other participants to have a webcam.

Also, in order to minimise the possibility of echo and other related problems it is really necessary to be disciplined about transmitting audio. Ideally external participants need to have a headset and microphone - otherwise there is feedback if someone just uses the PC speakers and built-in microphone. From past experience this sort of problem can waste a lot of time sorting out. I will probably only turn on audio from participants who flag that they have something to say.

The advantage of MegaMeeting is that it provides free audio/video, however we are trying to also organise a dial-in telecon facility but this will incur phone bills for participants - details later.

Dial in information

US and parts of Canada:	+1 877 841 9268
International (all others):	+1 225 383 9085

Participants Passcode: 893464

Note that you can use SkypeOut to reduce the cost of the call.

-- DavidGiaretta - 11 Jan 2007