4pm UK time using MegaMeeting at RAC


JohnGarrett NASA
DavidGiaretta BNSC/CCLRC
DonaldSawyer NASA/GSFC
BruceAmbacher NARA/ U Maryland
MarkConrad NARA
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil

Record of the meeting

Katia Thomaz >> (All): hi
Don Sawyer >> (All): Hi Katia
BruceAmbacher >> (All): where are we beginning?
David Giaretta >> (All): I gather B2.6 has been deleted and added as an example to B1.1
Katia Thomaz >> (All): after b.2.6?
Don Sawyer >> (All): Have a look at the previous notes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Why do it the way we should? It is easier to ask!
Don Sawyer >> (All): We were looking at B1 and B2, and going back and forth
David Giaretta >> (All): If we just move on down the list then B2.7 has a lot of discussion#
David Giaretta >> (All): The B2.7 discussion was about types of registries to reference
David Giaretta >> (All): But in B2.7 the discussion was about the additional text rather than the metric itself.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Unfortunately the text uses the term standards instead of tools or repositories.
Don Sawyer >> (All): I think the initial point is that the registries were called standarrds, which they are not.  
                               We should clarify the text on this point.  In addition, such registries should also be certified before being accepted.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i think the first point is about using the correct word: standard, registry, schema,
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, that should be changed to "services" - or better "certified services"
David Giaretta >> (All): Not a schema
David Giaretta >> (All): Not a standard
Mark Conrad >> (All): certified by whom? for what purpose?
David Giaretta >> (All): I think that the registry itself must be a digital repository
Katia Thomaz >> (All): services, i think
Don Sawyer >> (All): And, should be a certified repository
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
Katia Thomaz >> (All): why a certified repository?
Don Sawyer >> (All): They do provide a service, but I don't think the service itself needs to be certified.  There isn't such a process, at this time, I believe.
Mark Conrad >> (All): how does that address the quality of the content of these format registries?
John Garrett >> (All): We're using these repositories as tools, I don't see why they need to be certified.  
                                Certainly would be nice, but not required.  Also nice to have digital access to repositories, but also not required
David Giaretta >> (All): They need to be certified because we want to rely on the information they hold, being available over the long term
Katia Thomaz >> (All): it´s only examples
David Giaretta >> (All): I think perhaps the metric itself should also be clarified
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, but as examples one should understand that not all may be 'acceptable' to an auditor
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i agree with david
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't the purpose to state the repository has an enduring, consistent process for naming and 
                                     registering its files and that selecting a resource such as listed helps achieve that?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think that the text of the metric should be modified. At the very least the i.e. should be changed to e.g.
David Giaretta >> (All): We can add "certified" in the metric, after "appropriate"
John Garrett >> (All): If local repository is keeping copies of information, the are not necessarily relying on the tools for long-term access
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and can´t start with those examples
David Giaretta >> (All): The metric was meant to refer to things like Representation Information outsiode of the repository being certified
Mark Conrad >> (All): using one of these registries does not necessarily allow you to establish authoritative semantic...etc
David Giaretta >> (All): That's why it says "appropriate"
Don Sawyer >> (All): When a repository relies on another repository to carry out some of its critical preservation responsibilities, that other repository should also be 'certified'.  Do we agree?
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
John Garrett >> (All): Yes, 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i am not sure
Mark Conrad >> (All): I don't. Certification of the registry does not ensure the content of the registry is valid.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes but is a registry a critical function?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): now we can rely on another repository without certification...
Don Sawyer >> (All): Mark, I didn't say it was sufficient, just necessary.
David Giaretta >> (All): But what is referenced in the registry was judged to be valid by the repository being certified
John Garrett >> (All): OK, I didn't get the sense that this applied just to tools outside the repository being certified.  I had the sense that getting the appropriate information was the focus
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Use of a registry is not relying on another repository
Katia Thomaz >> (All): yes
Don Sawyer >> (All): We are having a disconnect- must be definitions.
John Garrett >> (All): We also have the problem that we will probably have more 'formats' that are not in the registry than are in the outside registry.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I thought thge main point of this metric was to establish semantic or technical context. Use of a registry may be one way 
                                to implement this requirement, but this metric makes it sound like use of an appropriate registry will automatically fulfill this requirement.
David Giaretta >> (All): I think the logic was that (1) a repository cannot reasonably be expected to hold ALL Representation Information - just to diverse - therefore 
                                  we need to allow the use of something else - say one or more registries. Also (2) a Registry is a special type of repository
Don Sawyer >> (All): Most registries will include a repository to hold the information being registered.  This is the case for format registires - at least most.  
                                If another repository is relying on this registry/repository to hold information, it follows that both needs to be certified.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I see the registry (internal or External) as a metadata management tool.  Using external, international registry enhances the process.
John Garrett >> (All): Even if the format for example CDF was in the registry, we also need to know for example the format of the CDF Skeleton table to get 
                                information on the parameters and then the actual skeleton table that has the parameter information
Katia Thomaz >> (All): tools and resources are the core of B2.6
David Giaretta >> (All): 2.6 has been deleted - we have not renumbered yet
Katia Thomaz >> (All): sorry, B2.7
David Giaretta >> (All): Registry was being used in a very broad sense I think
Mark Conrad >> (All): semantic control and technical context  are at the core of b2.7
Mark Conrad >> (All): That is why I believe 2.7 should be split.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i disagree, i think access to necessary tools and resources...
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think it is both and that they need to be split into separate metrics
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In the crosswalk nestor items cover archival storage, access, structural metadata and technical metadata.  Another argument for splitting?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): but what about B2.8 and B2.9?
David Giaretta >> (All): I think the reason B2.7 - essentially Rep Info - is picked out for a Registry is that it is so open ended and RepInfo is shareable
David Giaretta >> (All): B2.8 is the other side of the sharing - i.e. if you have RepInfo then you should share it
Katia Thomaz >> (All): may be..
David Giaretta >> (All): B2.9 talks about PDI which tends to be very specific and not common between data instances
David Giaretta >> (All): B2.8 perhaps appears to demand that the RepInfo is registered - maybe that is too strong
Katia Thomaz >> (All): remember OAIS reference model
Mark Conrad >> (All): use of registries seems to me to be an exampl of one way to implement 
David Giaretta >> (All): Perhaps 2.8 should be included into 2.7
Don Sawyer >> (All): I think some cleanup between 2.7 and 2.8 is needed.  I think 2.7 is proposing that one should use external, authoritative, registries of rep info when possible.  
                               B 2.8 says you must have rep info.  I would actually combine them.
David Giaretta >> (All): I agree
Katia Thomaz >> (All): please, keep B2.8 and B2.9
Katia Thomaz >> (All): think about change or remove B2.7
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would say you have to have adequate repinfo to establish control. how you do that is a question of implementation.
Don Sawyer >> (All): The use of external, authoritative, rep info registries can't be a mandatory requirement - only a good practice.
David Giaretta >> (All): RepInfo is needed for understandability not control
BruceAmbacher >> (All): And to provide knowledge of, access to
David Giaretta >> (All): Don - yes good pracftice which B2.7 specifically allows
Mark Conrad >> (All): it is also a management tool for preservation plans
John Garrett >> (All): I would keep 2.8 which requires the rep information and fold 2.7 into it as a possible, but not required, implementation
Don Sawyer >> (All): yes
David Giaretta >> (All): I disagree - that is the wrong way round
Don Sawyer >> (All): why
Katia Thomaz >> (All): B2.8 say "the repository needs to capture such information and register it "
David Giaretta >> (All): B2.7 required RepInfo be available B2.8 says that if you have it you should registry it
John Garrett >> (All): If you don't use international registries to get base rep info, then you should need to demonstrate that you are obtaining valid infomation somehow.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): 2.8 requires registration, we are more concerned that it is created/captured and accessible
Mark Conrad >> (All): how do the international registries demonstrate this?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): agree with JOhn as to intent
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes B2.7 says RepInfo must be available - and external certified sources can be used
David Giaretta >> (All): I think my "yes" is out of sequence
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The 3 cited have extensive number of metadata fields but have a common core set of elements
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - a registry is just a source of information which happens to be RepInfo.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): and a way to register local ID for others to trace from creator
John Garrett >> (All): Reading 2.8 now, I get nervous seeing that some of the rep info may be incorporated into software.  Does this mean if I have 
                                 MS Word software I don't need to record information on MS Word?
David Giaretta >> (All): No it means the s/w can be the RepInfo
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i partially agree with David. "B2.7 required RepInfo be available B2.8 says that you must have it  and register it" 
David Giaretta >> (All): I think the text of B2.8 needs to be expanded
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I still these as a progression of good practices/best steps to ingesting, identifying, publicizing data
David Giaretta >> (All): Could I volunteer for an action to clarify and maybe merge B2.7 and 2.8
John Garrett >> (All): Sure.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): so done
Katia Thomaz >> (All): yes
David Giaretta >> (All): OK I'll do that in the coming week
Don Sawyer >> (All): I find the title of B 2.7 to actually not be consistent with the text of B2.7.  The title is find, but the text focuses on external format registries.  
                               They are only one way to satisfy the intent of the title.
David Giaretta >> (All): I agree - the metrics have to be altered/clarified
David Giaretta >> (All): In OAIS terms that deals with RepInfo, then B2.9 deals with PDI
John Garrett >> (All): I still would have a problem with the MS Word program being stored as the only Rep Info for MS Word.  
                                Especially MS Word which will only be in executable form.  Maybe other like CDF or HDF if you have source code would be better, but I'd prefer format information for any of them. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with John
David Giaretta >> (All): John - the s/w would havbe to have its own RepInfo in order that it itself can be "understood/used"
Mark Conrad >> (All): And who will generate that without invoking the rath of Microsoft?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): remember data object + representation information = infomation object
David Giaretta >> (All): This is an example where if that additional RepInfo is not available then one must do something else e.g. transform the data
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and content information + PDI = Information package
David Giaretta >> (All): Some mighth say that Open Office would also be adequate RepInfo because one can get the source code
John Garrett >> (All): OK, I'll agree with that, but some of that discussion will need to find its way into the text if the example of using s/w as rep info is included
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes B2.8 needs a goog overhaul
Mark Conrad >> (All): Open Office does not cover all of the repinfo in a native MS file.
John Garrett >> (All): Yes, if Open Office actually worked with all MS Word documents which we've had some trouble with in the past.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): remember the designated community
Katia Thomaz >> (All): may be for the designated community
David Giaretta >> (All): John - Open Office may be good enough for a specific document which does not have all the bells and whistles
John Garrett >> (All): I agree
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - I'll include those ideas in the revised 2.7/2.8
Katia Thomaz >> (All): the examples in OAIS RM could help to understnd
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): Can someone take a good look at B2.10?
John Garrett >> (All): Also if the repository is monitoring their formats and technology, simply having a plan to move when the designated communities can no longer easily use tools to access those formats may be enough
David Giaretta >> (All): I meant B2.9 before - can anyone take a good look at it for next week.
David Giaretta >> (All): John - I guess that  is where B2.10 comes info play
Don Sawyer >> (All): David - do you have a particular issue with B2.9?
John Garrett >> (All): Yes, I see that now.
David Giaretta >> (All): Don - no - just that it seems very short
Don Sawyer >> (All): O'K, I'll take a look at B 2.9 to see if it needs expansion/clarification
Katia Thomaz >> (All): perfect. a repository must have representation information (B2.8) and presrvaton information (B2.9) and can demonstrate understandability (B2.10)
David Giaretta >> (All): I also wonder whether PDI - and in particular Provenance - should be allowed to point outside of the Repository
Don Sawyer >> (All): however next Wed is US holiday, so I won't be at meeting.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ditto
David Giaretta >> (All): Don - perhaps you can put in some text on the Wiki 
Mark Conrad >> (All): ditto
Don Sawyer >> (All): I think repository A can point to Repository B for anything, in principle
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, I'll add to the Wiki
David Giaretta >> (All): If there are insufficient people available then perhaps we should cancel the meeting next week
Katia Thomaz >> (All): enough for today?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Not to be a nag but remember each item is in a series and may build from previous
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes that is true - needs to be read as a whole
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, these need to be addresed in context. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): nag, nag, nag ;)
David Giaretta >> (All): I have to leave now
Katia Thomaz >> (All): me too
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, bye all
Mark Conrad >> (All): me too
John Garrett >> (All): Bye talk to you in 2 weeks
Katia Thomaz >> (All): bye and thanks
David Giaretta >> (All): I'll paste the chat into the WIki - bye

ACTIONS: DavidGiaretta: propose revised/combined B2.7 and B2.8

ACTION: DonaldSawyer: Detailed look at B2.9

*NOTE" Meeting next week is cancelled

-- DavidGiaretta - 27 Jun 2007

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r4 - 2008-02-13 - KatiaThomaz
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