Notes from Megameeting 28th January 2008

Attendees:

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
SimonLambert STFC
DavidGiaretta 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.

ACTIONS : Use new template: specific assignments:

Note lssons learned:

  1. the first sentence of the supporting text really should apply to all repositories (no "if"s or "but"s)
  2. clarifications should be in the Discussion - with the ones likely to cause trouble being put up front
  3. use Producer instead of the other terms such as depositor or content provider

David  >> (All): Hi folks - I've been trying to put things in the new template format
Mark Conrad >> (All): I just put in the text for B.3.2.
Simon Lambert >> (All): What's happening in B2.* - is someone editing that?
David  >> (All): Yes, me - just mechanical transfer of the existing words into the discussion section
Simon Lambert >> (All): OK, I see
David  >> (All): I did try putting in some text into B1.*
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does this mean that folks like the template and think this is worth pursuing?
David  >> (All): Yes definitely focusses the mind. In some cases it was hard to write the first sentence but easier to write the second (THis is necessary because...)
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Mark, I think the template is great. Not only does it focus us, it's like a pilot's checklist that makes sure everything is done and included.
David  >> (All): I found I was trying to paraphrase the metric but I think there is some more work to be done on the pieces I put in.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So how should we proceed?
David  >> (All): Would it be worth taking a look at B1.* to see what it looks like?
David  >> (All): Then we can each grab a group of metrics and put in the first pass for next week
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think the template will reveal the deficiencies in the text - so not all the items will be OK as written. That's the importance of the template.
David  >> (All): Yes, I just pasted in the current text into the Discussion section. It mostly seemed OK
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think the discussion part will be OK, but not always the requirement part if that is not clear in the original. This way the lack of clarity will stand out.
David  >> (All): The requirement part is just the existing metric I guess. What is more difficult is the Supporting Text
Mark Conrad >> (All): The templates do not address the introductory text for each section (e.g., B.1., B.2., etc). We will need to address that text as well at some point. Maybe preparing the templates first will help clarify what should go in the introductory sections.
David  >> (All): The first sentence of the pair is difficult without simply repeating the metric
David  >> (All): It may be that the introductory text has some items that should be in the Supporting text - worth taking a look 
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Maybe that is as it should be for many of the requirements. Others seem to have sub-requirements that will need their own sentence pairs.
David  >> (All): Do you want to look at B1.1 to see if I'm completely off track?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think B.1.1. looks good.
David  >> (All): B1.4 looks a little strange
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have a philosophical problem with the first sentence of the supporting text for B1.2. 
David  >> (All): Can you explain?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Harvested data still has a depositor. It may just happen to be the same entity as the repository.
David  >> (All): That's what I meant by the "collection process" - which happens to be set up or owned by the repository
David  >> (All): Feel free to edit/clarify
Mark Conrad >> (All): I do not see a need to include that part about the harvesting here. It does not apply to all rtepositories.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The second sentence in the supporting text appears to have some words, punctuation, or capitalization out of place. What was your intention?
David  >> (All): AH - you mean that one should be able to get rid of the "if" by appropriate re-phrasing. As for the second sentence - a typo
David  >> (All): I've corrected the second sentence I think
Mark Conrad >> (All): For the first sentence I would delete everything after the word, depositor.
David  >> (All): But will that not cause people to complain taht we do not cover harvesting?
David  >> (All): Or could we have in parentheses (the depositor could be a harvesting process)?
Mark Conrad >> (All): No. If you want a discussion of harvesting it can go under discussion, but it does not apply to all repositories.
David  >> (All): OK good point. I agree - move taht point to the discussion.
Simon Lambert >> (All): But the basic statement of the reqt must *cover* all repositories, no?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yes, and it does even wiothout the text about harvesting.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I think we may need to change the word depositor to something like content provider
David  >> (All): Yes, I realised that I was doing something funny - content creator is better
David  >> (All): Ahrrgg - "content provider"
Marie Waltz >> (All): yeah I know something like that
Mark Conrad >> (All): Whatever we choose we should be consistent. The introductory text for B.1. refers to depositors and producers.
David  >> (All): I've edited B1.2 - please refresh
David  >> (All): I'm somewhat nervous about people complaining about harvesting so I put it as a Note so that it should be easily spotted rather than hidden in the text of the Discussion
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we be consistent with the OAIS Reference Model and refer to the content providers as Producers?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Here is the definintion: The role played by those persons, or client systems, who provide the informationto be preserved. This can include other OAISs or internal OAIS persons or systems.
RobertDowns >> (All): The OAIS definition of Producer seems consistent with the way we have been using Provider
Marie Waltz >> (All): Bu tin the case of harvesting the producer 
David  >> (All): Seems to cover things - Producers is fine with me but we will have to re-iterate the definition so people do not complain.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Sorry, the producer provides the information, and harvesters dont' really do this, they take it
David  >> (All): But then the harvester provides it to be preserved
Mark Conrad >> (All): Harvesters provide the information to the repositoru for ingest.
RobertDowns >> (All): So the Harvester would be the producer
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi, finally managed to connect.  Got a software upgrade that is causing problems.
Marie Waltz >> (All): But what about someone like Google who just harvests from the web?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Is google an OAIS archives?
David  >> (All): If Google preserves then taht component of google which does the preservation is the repository - not the whole of google. 
David  >> (All): I think it works OK using Producer - as long as we stress the definition and give some examples in the introduction
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think OAIS definition of Producer covers harvesting.  But the practical thing is many readers don't understand that, so a quick note somewhere to remind them is appropriate.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think we need to be consistent throughout the document. In just this section we use Producer, depositor, content provider.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Providing the OAIS definition up front makes sense.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): As much as I hate redundancy, in some spots it may be good to repeat the definitions in brief such as noting that producers may be harvesters, etc. 
RobertDowns >> (All): It seems that instances of depositor and content provider could be changed to Producer, without changing the meaning, as long as the defintion of Producer is apparent
David  >> (All): SO quick lessons learned: (1) the firts sentence of the supporting etxt really should apply to all repositories (no "if"s or "but"s), and (2) Clarifications should be in the Discussion - with the ones likley to cause trouble being put up front. and (3) use Producer instead of the other terms
Mark Conrad >> (All): Well said!
David  >> (All): ...this keyboard cannot spell...
Marie Waltz >> (All): That sounds right
David  >> (All): So should we divide up the metrics and try to get this together for next week?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sounds good. I will volunteer to try B.3.
Mark Conrad >> (All): and B.4.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'll do B.6.
David  >> (All): I'll finish B2
Marie Waltz >> (All): How do we submit this to the group?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Is anyone doing B.5?
David  >> (All): B5 only has a couple of metrics
candida fenton >> (All): I could do B5
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'll do B.5
David  >> (All): Marie - what do you mean? "submit this to the group"?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Someone has to do them.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Do we change anything or submit anything to the wiki about our changes or just hold them for discussion?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie Simon has created pages for inputting the requirements in to the template.
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK, but I don't see a way to change them
JohnGarrett >> (All): Candida, go ahead with B.5.  I'm pretty busy this week and not sure I'd get to B.5
candida fenton >> (All): OK - I'll do B5
David  >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/ReqtsWithTemplate
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie, You have to login and hit the edit key to make changes to the page.
David  >> (All): Marie - if you have a problem just email me
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK, thanks, I get it, I wasn't logged in-doh!
Simon Lambert >> (All): I'm happy to add sections A and C in the same format.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Since I did not get an assignment I would be glad to move to either A or C - where ever we want to go next.
David  >> (All): Thanks Helen - and we can all keep an eye on what others are doing and comment as before.
David  >> (All): If there are problems with the files being locked by other users we can separate the sections into separate files - let me know if you have "file locked" problems
David  >> (All): ...sorry I may not have expressed myself clearly...
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Simon, will you put up  Section A?
Simon Lambert >> (All): Yes, certainly.
David  >> (All): Since section B is one big file then only one person can edit it at a time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): If I go to the page, press the edit button, copy all the text for my sections, edit them off line, and paste them when I am done editing will that work?
Simon Lambert >> (All): Mark - you wouldn't need to hit edit before copying the text as you can do that from the normal page.
David  >> (All): Yes, as long as no-one else edits your section - perhaps you can put a warning on the page when you copy it (in edit mode to get the mark-up)
Mark Conrad >> (All): Wouldn't I lose the markup?
Simon Lambert >> (All): OK ... you mean the cases where there have been some insertions/deletions - yes that is true
Simon Lambert >> (All): You could however click on "raw view" which will show the mark up without editing.
David  >> (All): Otherwise we can do as I was trying to say earlier - put each section into a separate file. It will be obvious if we do that
Mark Conrad >> (All): I was just trying to save having to do that.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am happy to do whatever is easier.
David  >> (All): SInce we are close to the end of this session I'd like to flag up that I'll be emailing some ideas about "Significant Properties" to the list
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. See you all next week.
David  >> (All): Bye all
Marie Waltz >> (All): Bye
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
candida fenton >> (All): Bye
Simon Lambert >> (All): Bye
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Bye
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK. Bye.
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2008-02-18 - 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