Notes from Megameeting 27th August 2007


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