Notes from Megameeting 17th September 2007


DavidGiaretta STFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarkConrad NARA
JohnGarrett NASA
BruceAmbacher UM

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

Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning, Katia
Katia Thomaz >> (All): hi.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): for its godafternoon
Katia Thomaz >> (All): again, for me it´s good afternoon
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello!
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, I didn't realize you were in a more eastern time zone.
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi folks, sorry I'm late
David Giaretta >> (All): Are we waiting for anyone else?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): hi all
Katia Thomaz >> (All): helen and donald?
David Giaretta >> (All): AH yes, Don and Helen. IN the mean time am I right in thinking we were going to move to B5?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i added some notes to B4.4
bruceAmbacher >> (All): I am at the university today and do not have my printed copy so I will be at a little disadvantage managing two screens
JohnGarrett >> (All): I believe that is correct.  When I was reviewing notes, I noticed that once I got a password, 
                        I never entered the comments for the sections (B5 and B6) I had been assigned.
David Giaretta >> (All): katia, did you want to add some text to the text of the metric?
JohnGarrett >> (All): So I added a couple comments last night from my notes.
David Giaretta >> (All): John, so we have a little more to do that I thought
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i don´t know. i think it would be better creating new mtrcs...
Katia Thomaz >> (All): metrics
Katia Thomaz >> (All): but i am waiting your analysis about the sugesion
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't see how authenticity would change, perhaps how we are recording it, but not authenticity itself.  Is that right?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): my keyboard becomes strange in this site. i don´t know why.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The checksum might change - but that is integrety, not authenticity.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): john, do you agree authenticity dependes on context?
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we at B4.4,B5 or B6?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think we are on B 4.4
Katia Thomaz >> (All): for example, if you later realize that somethig is a fake...
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Authenticity should be more constant than depending upon context.  An object is authentic or it is not.  
                           preservation over time is to preserve the authentic content in whatever format is acceptable to the community
Mark Conrad >> (All): B4.4. addresses integrity - not authenticity.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'll have to think about that.  I think our view of authenticity may change or at least what we require to 'prove' authenticity.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i think it´s depend on the defnition of authenticity
David Giaretta >> (All): I think the archive should be required to maintain proof of maintenance of authenticity
RobertDowns >> (All): Validating checksums should verify the integrity of the object
bruceAmbacher >> (All): It is authentic when in arrives in the repository.  It is the repository's job to maintain that authentic content
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - exactly!
bruceAmbacher >> (All): checksums may change if the format (but not the content) of the object changes with changed preservation situations
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i agree.
RobertDowns >> (All): A new checksum should be generated when content changes
David Giaretta >> (All): There was a long discussion about managing authenticity in C1.5
Katia Thomaz >> (All): this is the reason to add the metric in B4. Archival storage & preservation/maintenance of AIPs
JohnGarrett >> (All): But we are requiring checking at arrival to the Archive to ensure we are getting what we expect and from the person from whom we expect it.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): but thngs can chane...
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, How are you defining authenticity? integrity?
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps the metric should include evidence that new checksums are generated if changes occur
David Giaretta >> (All): I think we are missing something in the whole of the document about Authenticity (different from integrity)
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we considering another case of making an element too complex by trying to make it cover more than was intended?  
                            Authenticity was already covered in the workflow of the repository as David said
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and what about the deterioration in the midia, not in the archival object 
David Giaretta >> (All): Brude I don't think we came to a firm conclusion
bruceAmbacher >> (All): media is irrelevant -
JohnGarrett >> (All): I believe our glossary currently only contains OAIS terms.  Are we going to add others like authenticity?
David Giaretta >> (All): John I think we will have to
David Giaretta >> (All): My feelin is that unless someone can point me to something that deals with it that we have to add another metric
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Authenticity is relatively simple - the creator says it is what it purports to be and the repository accepts and maintains it.  
                            Integrity is how the repository maintains the content over time.
David Giaretta >> (All): IMy recollection is that OAIS does not deal weel with authenticity
David Giaretta >> (All): Brude - there also have to be some track of the custodian and who could have made changes
Barbara Sierman >> (All): but archives do and there is lot of discussion about the term authenticity
RobertDowns >> (All): Since B4.4 addresses integrity, I recommend that we only address integriy in B4.4. 
                          If we want to address authenticity, that should be a separate metric
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - yes
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i define authenticity something like this: the judment of something is genuine based on internal or external evidence, 
                            including physical characteristics, structure, content and context
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree.  Only integrity in B4.4, but add authenticity checklist item if we don't have it elsewhere.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): The key, though, is that the creator makes that judgment.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree. I believe authenticity is covered across a number of existing items including B4.3.
David Giaretta >> (All): Interpares says a lot about authenticity - and evidence about authenticity. And the archive has to maintain that chain of evidence
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes, but it is not a repository function to establish authenticity, only to maintain it.
David Giaretta >> (All): Brude - yes - maintain
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce -yes - maintain
JohnGarrett >> (All): But even if we agree creator determines authenticity, we may still need to verify that content came from creator.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, the depositor makes that assertion. The creator does not judge the authenticity of his own creation.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Absolutely to both John and Mark
RobertDowns >> (All): Should we consider including information in B4.4 about maintaing changing checksum as the object is changed within the archive
David Giaretta >> (All): John I think we cover that in an earlier metric
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - if we transform the object then it is a new AIP
David Giaretta >> (All): However the authenticity chain of evidence transfers over to the new AIP - is that right? 
David Giaretta >> (All): long as one can trust the person who did the transformation and there is enough info about it
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes through the records the repository keeps
bruceAmbacher >> (All): inckuding new checksums where appropriate
RobertDowns >> (All): Should we state that the repository maintains evidence of changes, including checksums
David Giaretta >> (All): Maybe the key point is that most of what we have is about individual AIPs. AUthenticity transfers between versions. Checksums etc change
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Is what Robert wants in the evidence section of B4.4?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think so. 
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Evidence: Logs of fixity checks (e.g., checksums); documentation of how AIPs and Fixity information are kept separate. 
RobertDowns >> (All): The evidence part seems to protection agains malicious changes, not tracking intentional changes
David Giaretta >> (All): Try again - does the authenticity (and the related Provenance) pass between differnt AIPs which are successive versions?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I believe it does.  
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes if the process is a controlled, documented chain.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Also includes record of what changes were made
Mark Conrad >> (All): Take a look at 4.3. I think it addresses Robert's issue.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): As does B4.5
David Giaretta >> (All): maybe this is a case that we need some text in the introduction which points out that if we do 
                            all these things then we maintain the evidence of authenticity
RobertDowns >> (All): B4.4 covers it with the following: ability to demonstrate the chain of AIPs for any particular 
                            digital object or group of objects ingested; workflow procedure documentation.
Mark Conrad >> (All): B 4.2 also covers at least part of it. 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Wow looking back at B4.3, I see text says that AIPs cannot be deleted.  We don't believe that do we?
David Giaretta >> (All): Does it say that?
RobertDowns >> (All): The archive should be able to make such decisions, if necessary
bruceAmbacher >> (All): The evidence statement does allow deletion by requiring a policy on it
David Giaretta >> (All): COming back to authenticity - maybe we have all the pieces but we don't explicitly talk about it.
David Giaretta >> (All): which case some additional text in the introduction could bring it together
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think that statement would go acroos the entire document. You are creating a trustworthy repository to assert the authenticity of its content.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): But it will help if it has an "evidence statement " with it
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Added text in B4 intro or elsewhere?  To some extent the preservation concept addresses it but not explicitly
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Interesting discussion, but sorry I need to go
JohnGarrett >> (All): Right, I'm looking where to include it.  Under Preservation Planning or maybe under B4.5 which is "contemperaneous records of actions ..."
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye, Barbara.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ye, barbara.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye Barbara
RobertDowns >> (All): B4.5 might be the logical place
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think the intor to B.4. addresses this already.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): This concept is the theory that allows documents to substitute for testimony and not be hearsay if they are 
                            contemporaneous with the evnt or result from the transaction.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark agreed except it uses "preservation" where we now are discussing "authenticity"
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I've been having trouble with the intro sections.  They often seem to me to discuss more than is covered in checklist items.
JohnGarrett >> (All): For example in B4, the intro talks about transformations and migrations, but they are not well covered by the checklist items.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): They were to set the stage and allow the individual points to expand/fix what must be done.
Mark Conrad >> (All): They use the term "preservation confidence." I think they are talking about "authenticity assessment."
bruceAmbacher >> (All): No technique (checksum, migration >>>) is universal or mandatory
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think they normally set the stage well.  It just seems sometimes maybe we need more checklist items or mention in the 
                            existing items that some of what is covered in the introduction is included in checklist.
David Giaretta >> (All): John there was an effort to reduce the number of metrics
David Giaretta >> (All): ...maybe something was missed along the way
bruceAmbacher >> (All): One compelling though was that the ISO document would be the checklist and evidence that is the appendix
RobertDowns >> (All): Should we consider an item on authenticity assessments
David Giaretta >> (All): It is strange that TRAC does not talk explicitly about authenticity
bruceAmbacher >> (All): We certainly can create a work item for someone to look at the whole document to see if authenticity is addressed or if it needs to be explicitly added
JohnGarrett >> (All): Is that a requirement for all archives, or is it acceptable to just agree that what was provided is what we have?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert, I don't think so. I really think that the TRAC document as a whole addresses this concept.
bruceAmbacher >> (All): John, that is the essence of authenticity.  It gets complicated when to start to examine the internals of a document (diplomatics)
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - it may be as well to say it explicitly since some say that authenticity is the heart of preservation
David Giaretta >> (All): I think there is a work item for someone to suggest some words - either at the very top level or at the B4 intro level.
David Giaretta >> (All): There are some interpasres people who may be interested in doing that
David Giaretta >> (All): sorry - InterPares
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Over time what you have is not always what was originally provided (after migrations, transformations, etc). 
                               To assert you are reproducing an authentic record, you have to be able to prove that the preservation actions you 
                            ahve taken have not altered the authentic characteristics of the records.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry.. the essential characteristics of the record.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes I agree
bruceAmbacher >> (All): And those characteristics must be determined by the creator, repository and community
David Giaretta >> (All): Any volunteers for  the action?  
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets nominate Mark!
Mark Conrad >> (All): I'll take a shot at it.
David Giaretta >> (All): Great
bruceAmbacher >> (All): Great.  Now I have to leave.  Are we on for next week?
David Giaretta >> (All): I have to leave shortly - yes, next week OK
David Giaretta >> (All): We should then review what Mark producs and/or move on to B5. Is that right?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.
RobertDowns >> (All): I think so
Mark Conrad >> (All): ok. see you next week.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK.  Bye.  Type at you next week and see some of you in two weeks.
RobertDowns >> (All): See you all next week
Katia Thomaz >> (All): have a nice week. bye.

-- DavidGiaretta - 17 Sep 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 © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback