Chat notes from 30 May Virtual Meeting

David Giaretta >> (All): Hi - I'll turn off the video stream toconserve bandwidth

David Giaretta >> (All): Video now off

David Giaretta >> (All): I'm in another m eeting so can only "chat"

David Giaretta >> (All): Not sure how many others will join us - the Wiki has been fairly quiet

David Giaretta >> (All): I'm in another m eeting so can only "chat" - so please go ahead with the meeting and I'll join in when I can

Don Sawyer >> (All): Do we know where we left off last time?

Robert McDonald >> (All): were we somewhere in B?

Don Sawyer >> (All): I think we were just starting B, but where are the notes from our discussion of A? Anyone know?

RobertDowns >> (All): I missed that meeting. Were you working in

Don Sawyer >> (All): We were addressing Katia's comments under section A, then B, at:

John Garrett >> (All): I had agreed to add some comments on B5-6, but at this point I haven't added anything to the wiki. I still need to recover access to the wiki.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): I didn?t see notes from our discussion of A, but I add something there.

RobertDowns >> (All): Where did you leave off on B ?

John Garrett >> (All): We don't seem to have notes from the last meeting on the wiki. Did anyone capture minutes?

Don Sawyer >> (All): David - if you can respond at some point on where meeting notes are to be found, maybe the notes on Section A are there, or perhaps they have not been entered yet. Perhaps Bruce Ambacher has the notes.

Don Sawyer >> (All): I suggest we go to section B now, and start at the beginning.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): My "metacomment" on A3.3 was [One must keep in mind that according to OAIS RM a producer-archive contract is NOT an obligation]

John Garrett >> (All): Most notes from meetings are at:

RobertDowns >> (All): For item B1.1 Repository identifies properties it will preserve for digital objects. Should we recommend that this should be specified either for individual objects or for classes of objects?

Katia Thomaz >> (All): but not May, 23 meeting

RobertDowns >> (All): I am not receiving audio. Are there any comments on B1.1 ?

Don Sawyer >> (All): I think the intent of B 1.1 is to include the issue of what types of digital objects are to be accepted (see the introductory text under B 1), but I agree that it might be better to have a separare element to cover this.

Don Sawyer >> (All): Did you all hear my 'audio' comment?

Don Sawyer >> (All): Katia,

Katia Thomaz >> (All): hello

Don Sawyer >> (All): Katia, Do you prefer we stay with the chat instead of audio?

Katia Thomaz >> (All): don?t worry.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): stay as you want.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): bu i am not hearing audio.

Don Sawyer >> (All): O'K: I think a new B element to cover specifically the issue of the types of digital objects might be good. Whethere it would be a the class level of not would seem to depend on the mission of the archive.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): don, i think that according to OAIS RM all these types are called digital objects.

Don Sawyer >> (All): Katia, I'm not sure what point you are making?

Katia Thomaz >> (All): about indiviual or classes of objects.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): i?ll be quiet because i am not hearing you, are you talking or only chatting?

Don Sawyer >> (All): We're only using the chat .

Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.

Don Sawyer >> (All): Robert Downs wrote: Should we recommend that this should be specified either for individual objects or for classes of objects? My response above is that it should depend on the type of archive and its mission statement, so would not be specified in the standard.

RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps we should leave B1.1 as it is if we do not have suggestions for refinement.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): i agree and add that it?s not important for the standard.

RobertDowns >> (All): Then, perhaps this requirement should not be mandatory

Don Sawyer >> (All): Well, I now think it could be useful to have a new item, preceding B1.1, that calls out the need to have some type of policy about what types of digital objects it will accept.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): no, i didn?t mean this.

John Garrett >> (All): How about B1.1 becomes "Repository identifies digital objects it will preserve and the identifies properties it will preserve for those digital objects."

Katia Thomaz >> (All): john, i think it?s better to separate things.

Don Sawyer >> (All): They could be combined, but I think sepaate is better.

John Garrett >> (All): I agree

RobertDowns >> (All): I also agree

Don Sawyer >> (All): Any more comments on this? Move on to B 1.6?

Katia Thomaz >> (All): no.

Don Sawyer >> (All): I responded to Katia's written comment. Katia - does this change your 'dobut'?

Don Sawyer >> (All): Sorry - 'doubt'!

Katia Thomaz >> (All): yes. i am not sure.

Don Sawyer >> (All): Sorry - doubt!!

Katia Thomaz >> (All): is it really important to digital preservation?

Katia Thomaz >> (All): maybe for trust...

RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps the repository should notify the provider when it has received the complete object or verify receipt

Katia Thomaz >> (All): don?t you think it is a business issue?

Don Sawyer >> (All): Actually, if you ask 'is it really needed for digital preservation', or is it just good practice, I might agree it is not absolutely necessary.

John Garrett >> (All): My uneasiness with this one comes from the word "predefined points". If it were changed to something like "points agreed to in submission agreement' I would like it better.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): it is important for the auditor

Katia Thomaz >> (All): again, is it important for the auditor?

John Garrett >> (All): Certainly some reporting back is required if there is an error.

RobertDowns >> (All): Or to identify whether an error occurred

John Garrett >> (All): How is the handoff handled to know that the Repository now has the ingested material and is responsible for them and the producer does not need to preserve them any longer?

RobertDowns >> (All): The producer could check it if the archive makes it accessible online

John Garrett >> (All): Only if the material is to be accessible.

John Garrett >> (All): There may be restrictions on when or if or who can access.

RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps this should be stated that there is a way for verification to take place

Katia Thomaz >> (All): remember that it is "ingest process"

Don Sawyer >> (All): During the development of Trac, one of the issues I had was whether the focus was only on preservation, or was it broader? The response I received was that it was 'mainly' on preservation, but not entirely. I think this is still an important issue to discuss. That said, you all are making good points on the need for some feedback, but this is also addressed in B 1.7 and B 1.8.

RobertDowns >> (All): Given B1.7, perhaps B1.6 is not needed

John Garrett >> (All): I think our focus should be on what is required for preservation. But there are many processes that make preservation possible. Including appropriate ingest proceedures.

Don Sawyer >> (All): I think B 1.6 is useful in that the text does say

Don Sawyer >> (All): I think B 1.6 is useful in that the text does say "based on the initial processing plan and agreement between the repository and producer...', so this makes it something the audior could review.

John Garrett >> (All): I agree with it being important to show that whatever agreement was made is followed.

Don Sawyer >> (All): I do think that B 1.7 is a 'higher level' requirement, and thus one might look at B 1.6 as a lower level detail.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): but it is a contractual issue

John Garrett >> (All): I don't believe reporting is necessary unless that was in the agreement.

RobertDowns >> (All): It also could be specified at the policy level for all submissions

John Garrett >> (All): Adherence to policy would be part of the agreement.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): remember we have A4 Contracts, licenses & liabilities

Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, and it does appear to be a 'contractual issue'. So, to be 'trusted' shouldn't this require that you are found to follow your contractual agreements?

Don Sawyer >> (All): Such agreements will likely be at various levels - at a general level and for specific digial objects.

John Garrett >> (All): I think A5 mostly specifies the existence of the agreements and does not talk about verifying that they are followed.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): what about include this in A5, not in B1?

John Garrett >> (All): I think that could work in A5. As long as we cover it somewhere.

RobertDowns >> (All): My sense is that B1.6 is trying to ensure that the object that was sent has been received

Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): but you have B1.7

David Giaretta >> (All): Folks - I have to leave now. Could someone make some notes on the Wiki please. I'm afraid Simon is in a meeting somewhere in Europe.

Don Sawyer >> (All): I'm not sure it would be easy to address this in section A from a readability perspective.B 1.6 is very generous is it allows the Repository to suppy 'nothing at all'. This raises the question as to what its real intent is.

David Giaretta >> (All): You culd just copy and paste the CHAT window

David Giaretta >> (All): Bye

Katia Thomaz >> (All): we must study it better...

Don Sawyer >> (All): I can copy the wiki chat notes.

Don Sawyer >> (All): I agree, it needs more study.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): i must leave you now, too.

Katia Thomaz >> (All): thanks and bye.

Robert McDonald >> (All): I will cut and paste the transcript into notes

Don Sawyer >> (All): I suggest we break now as it is more than one hour. We can pick up with section B next time.

RobertDowns >> (All): Bye

-- DonaldSawyer - 30 May 2007

Topic revision: r1 - 2007-05-30 - DonaldSawyer
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback