Notes from Megameeting 27th August 2007

Attendees:

BarbaraSierman Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands
DavidGiaretta STFC
DonaldSawyer NASA GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
PerlaInnocenti University of Glasgow
RobertDowns Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), U Columbia
SimonLambert STFC

All the discussion at this meeting was conducted by chat, so the following transcript of the meeting (with a few typos corrected) is complete.

Specific actions arising:

  • DavidGiaretta to explore options for identifying and tracking references to terms throughout the evolving document
  • DavidGiaretta to put OAIS glossary on wiki
  • PerlaInnocenti to start creating expanded glossary of key terms
  • KatiaThomaz to fix text of B2.11 (currently has references to SIPs as well as AIPs)
  • DavidGiaretta to propose move of B3.4 to B4 with appropriate cross-references


David Giaretta >> (All): I thank that we have all that we were expecting from the availablity sheet, so we should start
David Giaretta >> (All): I just emailed  the list with a suggestion after reading the notes from last week. Robert says he agrees - what about others?
Don Sawyer >> (All): Hi all,  I just sent an e-mail responding to Davids, and listing my view on sections B3, 4, and 5.  I do agree that B3 includes semantics.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i am reading just now. it seems ok for me.
Simon Lambert >> (All): Yes, I think that David's suggested addition is valuable. 
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I think I agree but I don't quite understand the phrase information semantics, i think the terminology is not clear enough?
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara, I mean that semantics associated with the digitally encoded information - maybe just "semantics" would be better
Katia Thomaz >> (All): Barbara, you should check in OAIS RM
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): I agree as well. Maybe for the second suggested integration can be further improved, i.e. using "terminology" again  instead of "dictionary"
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): I mean I agree with David's suggestions in the email he sent
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Katia, I think that it should be possible this document to read without having other sources help you to explain it
David Giaretta >> (All): Perla I just used dictionary to avoid saying terminology again - could re-use terminology
Don Sawyer >> (All): OAIS parses information into structure and semantics, and discusses them. We don't want to re-do the OAIS terminology.  How far should we go with explantaions in this document?
Simon Lambert >> (All): We could have a glossary as in TRAC.
David Giaretta >> (All): Don, I assumed Barbara was unsure about the phrase "information  semantics"
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): David I think terminology is more generally appropriate, as it can be used in vocabularies, dictionaries, thesauri, etc. etc. Thanks
David Giaretta >> (All): Simon - yes to Glossary
David Giaretta >> (All): Perla, yes - agreed with "terminology"
Barbara Sierman >> (All): A glossary would be fine
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, agree to a glossary
David Giaretta >> (All): If we agree with those changes then have we finished with B3? 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): I agree too.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree, too. Yes, a glossary would be good, but it should be consistent with the OAIS glossary to avoid confusion. 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i have a point in B2.11
Don Sawyer >> (All): However, I believe some familiarity with OAIS should be a pre-requisite to a full understanding of 'TRAC'.  What do you think?
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, perhaps reference to OAIS should be quite explicit
David Giaretta >> (All): Sounds like we need a statement like  "OAIS is a pre-requisite"  plus a glossary based on the OAIS one
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia wanted to go back to B2.11
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i think the item B2.11 doesn´t have to say about SIP again. We have B.1.2 and B1.4.
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia B2.11 is about AIPs, but talks about SIPs just to make the point about how AIPs are constructed
David Giaretta >> (All): ...anmd hence how to verify them
Barbara Sierman >> (All): To say that OAIS is a pre-requisite, is not that too strong?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): look at the last paragraph
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia - good point - needs to be tidied up
Don Sawyer >> (All): I think Katia has a point - needs update
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.
David Giaretta >> (All): katia - will you do that update?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i suggest reading again B1.2, B1.4, B2.3 and B2.11
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - OAIS probably is a pre-requisite but we could say that "familiarity with OAIS is assumed"
Don Sawyer >> (All): Is OAIS as a pre-requisite too strong?  Without it, one is going to have difficulty really understanding TRAC very completely, in my opinion.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes David that sounds better
Katia Thomaz >> (All): my goodness! i can try.
David Giaretta >> (All): As Don and John will remember at one stage we had the metrics in a spreadsheet, with each metric having a number of classifications.
Don Sawyer >> (All): David - 'familiarity' sounds good.
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): "familiarity with OAIS is assumed" sounds better to me as well. Or it could also be "it is strongly recommended".
David Giaretta >> (All): We could then sort the metrics to see them in different groupings
David Giaretta >> (All): ...that made it easier to see repetitions and overlaps
Don Sawyer >> (All): I do think that some of the 'item's or 'requirements' have some overlap and could use some cleanup
David Giaretta >> (All): Perhaps we can re-do the spreadsheet when we have finished going through the metrics so we can do that kind of check again.
Don Sawyer >> (All): Maybe we should generate a list of key terms and then see how many of the items include sich terms.  Could help to identify overlaps.
Simon Lambert >> (All): I agree that sounds useful.
RobertDowns >> (All): That seems like an efficient approach
Katia Thomaz >> (All): you can use my document "ComparisonChart.doc" as a starting point.
Don Sawyer >> (All): An index is what it would be, in effect.
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): Agree. And this could also be the basis for the glossary.
David Giaretta >> (All): Sounds good
David Giaretta >> (All): Do we wait until we have finished going through all the metrics?
Don Sawyer >> (All): I think it could be done in parallel
David Giaretta >> (All): OK but we have to be careful about maintaining consistency
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): Indeed
Don Sawyer >> (All): Well, I see it as a working tool - not a final product.  However an index might be useful at the end
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i agree.
David Giaretta >> (All): Any volunteers? I guess I could take a look at what we can do at this end either within the Wiki or else as a searchable database
Don Sawyer >> (All): How about starting with a list of key terms that we can add to, on the wiki?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): sounds good
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): yes, and as I said two weeks ago I could take care of the glossary
David Giaretta >> (All): We could start with the glossary and add links to the occurences of each term
Katia Thomaz >> (All): wonderful!
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): We could also use some of the term definitions already present in the OAIS glossary, specifying the source. Not every term (i.e. external registry) is included in that glossary.
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes.  What is the next step?
David Giaretta >> (All): There are some OAIS glossary copies on various Wikis we could use as a start
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and the time to do that...
Barbara Sierman >> (All): But we should we careful with that, the audit model needs practical, real world references to for example registries, while OAIS is a conceptual model...
David Giaretta >> (All): I can put the OAIS glossary on the Wiki today. Perla can add to that. We can all add references to each term.
RobertDowns >> (All): We might further reference the OAIS in the glossary and also reinforce the recommendation for familiarity with OAIS.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): familiarity or pre-requisite?
Don Sawyer >> (All): Do I understand that the 'references' will be to places in the 'TRAC'? 
David Giaretta >> (All): .... the proposal I made above this works well as long as we assume we are not anticipating major changes to the metrics, otherwise we will have a problem with consistency
Katia Thomaz >> (All): only the metric or the explanation either?
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia, I meant consistency with the references in the glossary back into the metrics
RobertDowns >> (All): It might also be useful for some definitions to state, see OAIS for further explanation of the concept
Don Sawyer >> (All): Shouldn't we be able to do some type of scan, given the list of glossary terms, and then give all the locatons.  Some type of script?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): this is easy to do in a Word document, for example.
David Giaretta >> (All): I'll see if some PERL experts can come up with some appropriate script. 
David Giaretta >> (All): The problem is that the references will depend how the document is split up on the WIki. It would be easier to put everything back into a single document - but let me check on that.
David Giaretta >> (All): ...there may be something clever we can do...
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): what about referencing to the subsections (i.e. B1.1) instead of the wiki pages? 
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, I would want the subsections
David Giaretta >> (All): Let me take a look and I'll report back next week
RobertDowns >> (All): Referencing the subsections will make glossary independent of the presentation
David Giaretta >> (All): By subsections I assume you mean the individual metrics
Don Sawyer >> (All): David - are you asking Perla to start the glossary?
David Giaretta >> (All): I meant that I can put the OAIS glossary on the WIki and Perla could take that as a starting point
Don Sawyer >> (All): O'K for me
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): Fine for me if everybody agrees.
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): I agree with Barbara on importance of selecting appropriate sources. As well as identifying them every time for each term in the glossary. Glossary  could be a Annex to the TRAC revision
Katia Thomaz >> (All): agree
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, it would be an important help in understanding the document
David Giaretta >> (All): Going back to the metrics - did we finish with section B3?
Simon Lambert >> (All): Is the query in B3.4 agreed by all?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): b3 or b2?
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia was going to fix B2.11
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.
David Giaretta >> (All): Simon was then referring to a proposal I had made for B3.4 which I guess had not been discussed
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I agree with Davids suggestion in B3.4 to replace preservation planning with preservation activities
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok B3.4.
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): Me too.
Don Sawyer >> (All): Regarding B3.4, I think it is more appropriate for section B4.  David's proposed additionn makes it more so, I think.  B3 is about planning, not the actual preservation activity.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): You may be right there, but how do you prove the effectiveness of your planning if it is not by the activities you have done?
David Giaretta >> (All): Don it links to the rest of B3 because it checks the outcome of the planning
Katia Thomaz >> (All): Don is right, I think.
David Giaretta >> (All): Maybe we can just add the works "through its effectiveness in its preservation activities" to maintain the link to planning
Don Sawyer >> (All): Yes, I understand that. However from a document flow perspective, it is hard to address effectiveness when the actiivities themselves are address in B4.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): B3. Preservation planning and B4. Archival storage & preservation/maintenance of AIPs 
Don Sawyer >> (All): David - I think that works.
David Giaretta >> (All): Don - OK - and we can reference B4 also
Don Sawyer >> (All): I thought your proposal was to move it to B4 and link to B3?
David Giaretta >> (All): Don - ahha - yes I see what you mean - yes I  agree. It works as long as we cross-reference
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok for me.
RobertDowns >> (All): Sounds good to me
Don Sawyer >> (All): and me
Simon Lambert >> (All): OK - so a cross ref from the intro to B3.
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): Ok
Barbara Sierman >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): In summary we move B3.4 into section B4 but add a cross reference from B3 into B4 and vice-versa
Don Sawyer >> (All): O'K
David Giaretta >> (All): Should we start B4 or wait until next week?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I need to go
Don Sawyer >> (All): I need to sign off soon
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): I have to leave but will get in touch for the glossaries and meet you online next time. Have a nice week you all
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): sorry that was "glossary"
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - we start with B4 next week, and I'll propose a move of B3.4 to B4 and cross-references
Katia Thomaz >> (All): so, wait until next week.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye all
Simon Lambert >> (All): I will add chat record to wiki as usual.
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
Katia Thomaz >> (All): bye all.
PerlaInnocenti >> (All): Bye
Don Sawyer >> (All): O'K, bye all

-- SimonLambert - 27 Aug 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