Notes from Megameeting 17th March 2008

Attendees:

KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), U Columbia
DavidGiaretta STFC
JohnGarrett GSFC
BarbaraSierman KB

Summary

David gave a brief oral overview of the change in the draft charter - change from Blue to Magenta (CCSDS-speak) - but the Magenta Bopok is still on the CCSDS standards track and should go to ISO. The schedule for producing the document(s) for international review were discussed and it was agreed that March 2009 is what we should aim for.

Note of the face to face meeting in Washington are on the Wiki.

There was a considerable amount of verbal discussion and the summary comments were captured in chat, so the following transcript of the meeting (with a few typos corrected)

We went through the metrics B1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, editing the Wiki and reviewing the changes on-line. Note that the mark-up "ins" and "del" were used to make it easier to see the changes on the Wiki. The comments from Barbara and Mark were deleted to show they had been dealt with by the changes.

The chat from the meeting is given below.

ACTIONS from this meeting

  • John Garrett, David and Simon will put text for Section C. in the new template.
  • Mark will finish Section A.
  • Everyone to provide comments on B1.4-B1.8 - put comments in Wiki by end of Saturday 29th so these comments can be reviewed for meeting Monday 31st March

Date of Next Meeting

31st March (i.e. no meeting on Easter Monday)

Meeting text

David  >> (All): Hi Barbara
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Hi David, everything ok?
David  >> (All): Yes, everything's fine
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hi Bob! Can you hear the audio?
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi Mark. Yes, I borrowed a headset today and can hear.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bob, Great. David is going to start with a verbal summary of what went on in Washington last week.
marie >> (All): Hi all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello! Marie
David  >> (All): Hi all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie, Can you hear the audio?
marie >> (All): Yes I can
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hi, John
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi Mark
Mark Conrad >> (All): David is giving an audio summary of the Washington meeting.
marie >> (All): Sounds good
Mark Conrad >> (All): My only comment for B1.1 was that there appears to be a word missing in the sentence I flagged. Barbara has a more substantive comment on this one.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Where does the metadata end and the data begin?
JohnGarrett >> (All): There is no firm distinction of where data ends and metadata begins.  It is negotiated between the Producer and Archive.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Keep in mind things in the Discussion section are not mandatory.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What do the folks without microphones have to say?
marie >> (All): I want to see the new version and then think about it
RobertDowns >> (All): in the supporting text, perhaps it would be more clear if the word 'the', before 'responsibiliites' is removed.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bob, that would certainly answer my comment.
marie >> (All): That is clearer
David  >> (All): The B1.1 has been updated on the Wiki
Mark Conrad >> (All): So is everyone happy with the revised B.1.1.
marie >> (All): Yes
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, the discussion looks better as well.
JohnGarrett >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok! No one messes with B.1.1. again!
marie >> (All): Yes, lets take out that sentence: The explicit specification allows the workflow of the repository to be checked and validated.
marie >> (All): Yes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, the proposed rearrangement of the Discussion for B1.2 seem appropriate.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is everyone happy with the revised B1.2.?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
marie >> (All): Yes
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes
marie >> (All): I think moving it is the best idea, it is important for some, though not mandatory
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bob, Is this ok with you?
RobertDowns >> (All): If the protocol for submission wa communicated to the producer and the protocol was followed, then that should serve as evidence that the producer was the submitter
RobertDowns >> (All): Absolute proof is impossible unless we check fingerprints
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bob, How do we check fingerprints on network transmissions? :)
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree, even fingerprints would not be adequate proof.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, perhaps the wording should be something like, 'as appropriate for the designated community'.
RobertDowns >> (All): Also, judgement is spelled incorrectly
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello Katia, Can you hear the audio?
David  >> (All): Katia - we started about 1 hour ago
RobertDowns >> (All): Katia, we are working on B1.3
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is everyone happy with the revised version of B.1.3.?
marie >> (All): Yes
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
marie >> (All): No, and I think we sould continue to use speech, I'll get a mike
marie >> (All): Yes,  B1.4-.8
Mark Conrad >> (All): Action Items: John Garrett, David and Simon will put text for Section C. in the new template. Mark will finish Section A. Everyone to provide comments obn B1.4-.8

-- DavidGiaretta - 17 Mar 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-03-17 - DavidGiaretta
 
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