Notes from Megameeting 17th December 2007

Attendees:

BarbaraSierman Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands
CandidaFenton HATII, Univ Glasgow
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett NASA/GSFC
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), U Columbia

MarieWaltz >> (All): What is today's topic?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I believe that we were to continue our discussion starting with B.1.7.
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi, yes that is my understanding, too.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we start?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi,  Yes let's start.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): ok
MarieWaltz >> (All): fine with me
Barbara Sierman >> (All): David did not upload section A and C, did he?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think Don's suggestions for B.1.7. are good.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, no David did not.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I haven't seen sections A and C loaded for voting yet.
MarieWaltz >> (All): Don's suggestion from the wiki is: Should be mandatory when properly written. I believe the intent of this requirement is for the repository to show both the criteria it uses to determine when it accepts information preservation responsibility AND when that happened. If so, we should make these separate requirements and discuss. 
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Mark, do we look only at the working document or do we take the comments in the voting list as well?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would suggest looking at both since both are relevant.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Mark, I agree
MarieWaltz >> (All): Yes, I think the voting list is more up to date
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Mark, your comments I think is also valid and means some kind of policy by the repository?
candida fenton >> (All): Hi All - sorry to be late
Mark Conrad >> (All): For B.1.7. How about, "Repository has policies that indicate when it accepts information preservation responsibility for an ingested set of data objects?
RobertDowns >> (All): We might want to add something like, "in accordance with its agreement with data producers".
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): If there are data producers, see webarchiving
MarieWaltz >> (All): Why are we leaving out the "demonstrate"
Barbara Sierman >> (All): So may be adding something like "when relevant
HelenTibbo >> (All): Sounds good to me and if it is a case of web archiving that part wouldn't apply if there was no agreement
JohnGarrett >> (All): Should this be broken into two parts - one the agreement with producer when handoff is made and the second recording that it happened for each SIP
Mark Conrad >> (All): There are always data producers sometimes they just happen to be the repository itself.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Even with web archiving, I think there would be a point the archive feels it has captured the info and is responsible for maintaining it.
candida fenton >> (All): i agree with breaking it into two parts
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, I agree John, but sometimes there is no relationship with a producer
HelenTibbo >> (All): Yes, there's always a point of archival responsibility but perhaps not an agreement with a contributor.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes I agree.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, In the case of web archiving the repository is making a collection of web content. The repository is the data producer.
HelenTibbo >> (All): Very important to know when the archives took responsibility esp. if the contributor claims otherwise at some point.
RobertDowns >> (All): So, perhaps we should refer to providers rather than producers, since someone or some thing must provide the data.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes Mark, that is a way of looking at it, but not everyone shares this opinion!
Barbara Sierman >> (All): For example, the rights of websites are still with the original data producers!
HelenTibbo >> (All): The repository may be more like an aggregator or perhaps a sifter.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Someone put together the collection. They extracted content from websites. They decided what they would and would not capture.
RobertDowns >> (All): That is why we might consider referring to providers, since the repository could be the provided even though they were not the original producer
HelenTibbo >> (All): Oh, I like this sort of distinction.
JohnGarrett >> (All): As an example, I imagine an archives undertaking obtaining a snapshot of some portion of the web, would assume responsibility for a preservation of a particular web page when they harvest it into whatever and wherever they capture the content.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I do not believe that OAIS makes a distinction between a provider and a producer.
JohnGarrett >> (All): And the archives would record information on when the harvesting was done.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes and it is important that the repository describes this way of handling the archiving of the selection of the web, so a matter of policy
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't believe we saw the need to make any distinction between the two at the time.
RobertDowns >> (All): I am suggesting the distinction so that auditors are not expecting something from someone who may not exist
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes I believe it is important to describe that policy for each Provider (Producer)-Archive Project.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes that is right
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think the distinction between provider and producer is a good addition.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): something new for our glossary!
Barbara Sierman >> (All): So we finished B1.7?
MarieWaltz >> (All): This criteria was about when the repository accepts preservation reponsibility for a data object. It was not so much about the producer/provider relationship, except as an example of one type of evidence that can be used in the proof of the criteria.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, but also with sending back the message to the depositor
Mark Conrad >> (All): I do not see the need for the distinction. The depositor is required to furnish additional information with the data objects it submits. See B.1.2. The producer would indicate that they have created an artificial collection of website components. 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Who will provide the new text for the new B1.7a and B1.7b?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is B.1.7. b. already covered by B.1.8?
JohnGarrett >> (All): B1.8 covers a lot of things.  I guess it depends on how much detail we want.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I do not believe B.1.7. says that it is mandatory for the repository to report back to the producer.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would suggest we let B1.8 cover it and include a list of things that should be recorded as part of the text explaining the B1.8 checklist item.
RobertDowns >> (All): If the needed evidence is only to determine when responsibility has been accepted, then would accession date be acceptable evidence
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think it is necessary to report back to the provider in all cases.  I think that would depend on your agreement for that project.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bob, If the policy of the repository would be to accept responsibility at the time of accession, yes. Otherwise, not necessarily.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): To the Evidence part we should add something like "written policy"to cover what we discussed
MarieWaltz >> (All): The accepting criteria is important to stand alone, because if the repository does not have proof of when it took responsibility, its liability for preservation has no beginning point.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Sorry, I need to go now. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2008 and we will go on discussing TRAC on the 7th of January!
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year! See you in 2008!
JohnGarrett >> (All): Can B1.7 be "For each project, the repository has a written policy describing when preservation responsibility is formally accepted for the contents of the submitted data objects (i.e., SIPs).
JohnGarrett >> (All): Can B1.7 be "For each project, the repository has a written policy describing when preservation responsibility is formally accepted for the contents of the submitted data objects (i.e., SIPs).
JohnGarrett >> (All): Evidence could remove the confirmation receipt in B1.7 and add it to B1.8.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Project is a new concept. That's why I suggested, "Repository has policies that indicate when it accepts information preservation responsibility for an ingested set of data objects."
MarieWaltz >> (All): Yeah, I'm not sure Project will cover all future data receipts.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Confirmation receipt is not required as B1.7. is currently written.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK!  I'm forgetting if OAIS had project in it. I know we did in the follow on Producer Archive Ingest Methodology Abstract Standard (PAIMAS).  Projects were the basis of most of that standard.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I need to leave now. Will someone capture the chat and send it to David and Simon?
MarieWaltz >> (All): I can
Mark Conrad >> (All): Thanks. Happy Holidays, everyone!
HelenTibbo >> (All): Merry Christmas Mark. I need to go to a conference call now. Happy Holidays to all!
JohnGarrett >> (All): Mark, I'd go with your text if we change policies to written policies and apply it to each?
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Sounds good.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Merry Christmas all.  Can someone capture the discussion?
MarieWaltz >> (All): How would the new version look?
MarieWaltz >> (All):  Like this? "Repository has written policies that indicate when it accepts information preservation responsibility for an ingested data object."
JohnGarrett >> (All): Repository has written policies that indicate when it accepts information preservation responsibility for set of submitted data objects (i.e., SIPs).
MarieWaltz >> (All): OK
JohnGarrett >> (All): Looking at it just now, I think we should keep submitted rather than changing it to ingested as Mark suggested.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'll make the change in the working document if that is acceptable to those here.
MarieWaltz >> (All): That's fine
JohnGarrett >> (All): I can't seem to cut and past from the discussion box, so would one of you capture it and either post it or send it on to be posted?
MarieWaltz >> (All): I'll get it
JohnGarrett >> (All): Thanks!  I'll be leaving now also.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you.  It's really been a pleasure working with all of you this past year.
MarieWaltz >> (All): Is this meeting over?
MarieWaltz >> (All): I'm cutting from here, so any future discussion, needs to be submitted to David and Simon seperately.

-- SimonLambert - 18 Dec 2007

Topic revision: r1 - 2007-12-18 - SimonLambert
 
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