4pm UK time using MegaMeeting at RAC

Present

JohnGarrett NASA
DonSawyer NASA
BruceAmbacher NARA/ U Maryland
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
HelenTibbo UNC
RobertDowns  
MarkConrad  

Record of the meeting

Helen Tibbo >> (All): Mark, Hello! How are you? I am not getting sound at my end.
MarkConrad >> (All): Hi Helen
MarkConrad >> (All): Hi Don
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Hi Don!
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Hey, y'all, sorry to have seemingly disappeared for 6 or so weeks. I've been on the road for a long time, but home for a couple of weeks now.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): Hi all!
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi everyone!
MarkConrad >> (All): Hello.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): I'm not getting a 'mic' icon, for some reason.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): We don't see a mic icon for you either Helen Tibbo >> (All): There it is MarkConrad >> (All): Click the "Hold to Transmit" button a few times.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Well, I know I haven't done what I was supposed to do a long time ago...
Katia Thomaz >> (All): hi. sorry to be late BruceAmbacher >> (All): Sorry I am late.  It seems no one from the "host" is present to activate the sound by hosting MarkConrad >> (All): Hi Katia. Hi Bruce.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Don, just figured out the location!
Donald Sawyer >> (All): I think the host will turn off the video.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, That's what I recall Donald Sawyer >> (All): I  made some comments on 2.9.  We can look at that.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): How do you'all conduct chat and look at sections at the same time?
MarkConrad >> (All): I have two computers.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): braggart!
Donald Sawyer >> (All): Bring up a second Browser window and use that for looking at the document, then switch between windows RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with Don's comments on 2.9 Katia Thomaz >> (All): I agree too.
MarkConrad >> (All): me. too
Donald Sawyer >> (All): Anyone else looking at it?
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I agree also
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I agree also
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps we should revise B2.9 to read: Repository has a policy for acquiring pdi for content information and adheres to the policy.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Just got to B2.9 Donald Sawyer >> (All): That seems a much better title for what is needed.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): It's a bit strange that they called out the types of information needed in the text, but then didn't mention any of it in the evidence.
RobertDowns >> (All): Are there any additional suggestions for improving the tilte of B2.9 MarkConrad >> (All): The evidence statement for 2.8 and 2.9 are identical.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): Yes, I think if we eliminate the evidence text that is there and add evidence for the types of information mentioned in the text, we would be mostly where we need to go with this one.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): Ah!  Probably a cut and paste problem.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Although they do use the word "managed," there's no sense here that the metadata may need to be updated over time to ensure understandability and that context will change over time.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): It looks like we're pretty much agreed this needs to be rewritten.  I could take a crack at it but will not be back to this until August.  It might even need more than 1 requirement.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): And I agree, there is the management issue Donald Sawyer >> (All): We're struggling with Provenance capture and management now at NSSDC - not easy!
JOhn Garrett >> (All): Actually it might work well and be easier to audit if we broke the various types of PDI into separate requirements.
MarkConrad >> (All): Doesn't 2.10 address the management issue?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): It seems odd also that when they talk of corruption that they don't mention the goal of authenticity.
MarkConrad >> (All): I agree with John.
MarkConrad >> (All): Authenticity and integrity are two different things.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.9 also refers to acquires not to what repository does after it gets data/metadata MarkConrad >> (All): Don: 2.10 references PDI BruceAmbacher >> (All): That is the link I just referred to - the repository can/should amend PDI to make/keep it usable RobertDowns >> (All): B2.10 states that the repository should update the metadata or the PDI, but the evidence only refers to the metadata JOhn Garrett >> (All): As Bruce mentioned 2.9 is about acquiring the data and 2.10 is more about managing it.  Although 2.10 also seems to talk about obtaining metadata.  I think again that auditing would be easier if the obtaining and management pieces are included in separate criteria.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): 2.10 does use the phrase "current application tools" but it is not explicit that this is/may be an interative process. 
One could read this as "current at the time of ingest" I fear.
MarkConrad >> (All): I think that the temporal nature of these requirements should be made more explicit.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I agree 2.10 should be an iterative process.  I think that is the intention, but not well enough identified as such.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): Robert PDI is a kind of metadata BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we in another loop where we are looking at one criteria in isolation and not looking at related criteria?
MarkConrad >> (All): B3.2 is referenced in B2.10 and it seems to at least partially address the issues we are raising.
MarkConrad >> (All): I guess B. 3.2 just addresses Representation Information.
RobertDowns >> (All): It looks like B2.9 is trying to focus specifically on enabling understandability for current populations of users Katia Thomaz >> (All): B 2.10 deals with getting and B3.2 with monitoring MarkConrad >> (All): B 3.2 does not address PDI.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I think 2.9 deals with wider issues than just understandability.  Also covering provenance and fixity issues for example.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): B 2,7 and 2.8 address Representation Info, 2.9 addressed PDI, and 2.10 addresses the need to ensure they are understandable BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.9 reminds you to get PDI with the data and to base your needs on your designated community.  B2.10 tells you to keep that PDI current, accessible, revied per community standards.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): B2.10 addresses understandability of the actual information by making use of the PDI.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): But the stress in 3.2 is definitely on formats (a major issue) and not context and other metadata, also major issues. I think 2.10 just needs a bit of a change to make it more explicit that this is assumed to be an ongoing process for the PDI. I think it is just a matter of stress and how people might interpret this.
MarkConrad >> (All): John B 2.10 says Content Information OR PDI.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I guess understandability of the PDI is addressed in 2.10 indirectly in that you need to use it understand the actual content information.  On the other hand not all PDI is addressed towards understanding.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): understandability comes from representation information + pdi MarkConrad >> (All): I think we need to have separate requirements for acquiring Content Information, PDI, etc and separate requirements for managing each type of content over time.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Perhaps this would just make the whole thing a bit more clear..."Repository has a documented process for testing ONGOING understandability..."
JOhn Garrett >> (All): OK, Don.  Reading the text talks about PDI also.  
The actual criteria seems to be just about the information content.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I agree with Mark JOhn Garrett >> (All): And I also agree with Helen Helen Tibbo >> (All): Of course, the repository is not going to change the content, it will change the PDI overtime to make the content continuously accessible and understandable.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): teh repository can change the content. remember migration JOhn Garrett >> (All): If we are preserving the information over time, we may need to change at least the form of the content by transformations into currently used formats.
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps the evidence for B2.10 should include policies/ documented processes for ensuring understandability of the content by updating the PDI, if needed BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we comfortable with the Evidence cited as being the only ways to do this?  (Others type faster than I do) Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, the repository will migrate and change formats but 2.10 is focusing on understandability, thus the cognitive (I'm sure there's a better word) content.
MarkConrad >> (All): I still think that we need to break these requirements out into multiple succinct requirements for the different types of information to be acquired and managed. This will provide a great deal of clarity.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I've been reading Evidence: as providing examples of what could be used, but not as providing a requirement that those items are the ones needed.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): I think we could break out the PDI components in
2.9 and 2.10 to see how this looks.
JOhn Garrett >> (All): I agree with Mark.  Also think the B2.x is about acquiring info and B3.x will be about managing the info.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, Do you see a logic to the development that is here in the multiple items?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, evidence is exemplary, but that makes Mark's comment all the more important asking for clarity. We all know people
(often) will read and work  to the lowest common denominator, so clarity is essential.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Nope
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i must consult INPE Katia Thomaz >> (All): better if you consult INPE BruceAmbacher >> (All): Last face-to-face had $25,000 budget BruceAmbacher >> (All): What is INPE?
Donald Sawyer >> (All): We need to get input from David.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): is a abrazilian member of ccsds MarkConrad >> (All): Bruce, I think that the content could be reorganized in one of two ways. It could be organized as a bunck of discreet sequential items. (The current model.) Or it could be organized as parent-child requirements.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We are all part of the BoF associated with CCSDS JOhn Garrett >> (All): I'm not opposed to the parent-child, but I think it could result in big change in format throughout the document then.
RobertDowns >> (All): If we organize it as sequential items, we need to reference the related items BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't the parent-child relation there in the scetion breaks/titles and the sequencing MarkConrad >> (All): I am talking about within the items.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, I don't think there's any need to organize this in just one way. Can't we make this a bit more complex digital document that would have some sort of authority file that would specify the relationships as well as the linear text approach?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Folks, I need to sign off. Sorry. I have a 12 PM meeting today. I'll check the notes as to what we do next. Bye!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't that the intent of the checklist at the end (the naked requirements) and the fuller text in the front?  FYI: I am not trying to be a defender of the current structure.
MarkConrad >> (All): I am not trying to attack the current structure, either. I think that sequential organization is fine.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): When I see John's comment about 2.x and 3.x, I think there are different levels of detail involved.  3.x is pretty high level, and 2.x gets into greater detail.  Thus 3.x may not be adequate to address the management issues brought up by 2.x.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): FYI the same evidence appears for 2.9 and 2.10 in the 01/07 version.
MarkConrad >> (All): I just think that we need to break the current items down so that they are only addressing one type of information per item.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with Mark
JOhn Garrett >> (All): So how should we go forward with that?
Donald Sawyer >> (All): I was suggesting we try a breakout of the PDI and see how it looks.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Agreed.  In the case of 2.10 that might mean relabeling and saynching label with text.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): but it is not in a sequential organization. you have b, b1, b1.1 BruceAmbacher >> (All): 2.10 really is about repository process, not content or PDI itself.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): we must decide about the focus Donald Sawyer >> (All): Regarding breakout of PDI, I would take a crack at it, but I'm not available now until August.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Time to go.  Don enjoy your vacation.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): By the way, someone needs to capure the chat notes.  I can't as my connection was interrupted during this session.
MarkConrad >> (All): I will grab them and try to figure out how to post them.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): Mark- Good, David can always help Donald Sawyer >> (All): While there are section and subsections, all the requirements are at the bottom level.
Donald Sawyer >> (All): I must go as well.  Cheers!
MarkConrad >> (All): I would volunteer for 2.9, but I am on the road for most of the rest of July and August. And I still owe a rewrite of B.1.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): folks, i must go too. bye RobertDowns >> (All): I will try to update 2.9 and will send the suggestions to David if I need help MarkConrad >> (All): Thanks!
MarkConrad >> (All): I guess we are done for today!
MarkConrad >> (All): Bye for now.
RobertDowns >> (All): See you later, Mark!

-- DavidGiaretta - 25 Jul 2007

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2008-02-13 - KatiaThomaz
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback