Attendees:

The discussion was a combination of audio and typed chat.

Progress made: Changes were agreed to sections B1.7, B1.8 and B2.1 of the working document. Discussion of B2.2 started.

Next meeting: Continue with B2.2 and onwards.

Actions:

• All to make comments and B2.2 and onwards prior to the next meeting.

Simon Lambert >> (All): We were going to continue the discussion of B1.7.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would propose to remove the paragraph that begins, "A key component of a repository's responsibility to gain sufficient control of digital objects is the point when the repository manages the bitstream."
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone have any objections to removing this paragraph?
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with your proposal to remove the paragraph that begins,  " A key component ..."
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no objections
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Sounds good to me and more clear.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree as well
Mark Conrad >> (All): If there are no objections, I will make those changes. Should we move on to B.1.8.?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree with Mark on B.1.8. It sounds strange...
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I totally agree with Barbara's comment for B.1.8. I thought for a minute I was reading some legal document that was deliberately obscuring the meaning. I like John's remedy. Always better to write from the positive rather than the negative.
RobertDowns >> (All): John's recommendation for changing that sentence seems appropriate
JohnGarrett >> (All): I also agree with Mark. We can just drop the phrase referencing Premis.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Mark, there needs to be a "the" before "science team"
Marie Waltz >> (All): This is necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings between the repository and producer/depositor as to when this hand-over happens, --period here, not comma
JohnGarrett >> (All): With those 2 editorial changes, I agree it is done.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes please
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think we agree with the B1.8 changes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, please change B1.8 too
Barbara Sierman >> (All): ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
Marie Waltz >> (All): Let's go on.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok. congratulations!
JohnGarrett >> (All): B1.8 text is OK.  Next time we go in we can delete the comments to show they've been addressed
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, thanks.
RobertDowns >> (All): It looks like there is still a comma at the end of the following B1.7 sentence: This is necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings between the repository and producer/depositor as to when this hand-over happens,
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Mark, "class of information", not "class of AIP"
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Why not class of AIP?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no problem, i only called attention to the original text...
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes, I agree identifiable isn't necessary
Barbara Sierman >> (All): but "written"is may be a bit oldfashioned? something like well documented?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): identifiable could be addressable (is this word possible?)
Barbara Sierman >> (All): but the main goal is that you document it!
Barbara Sierman >> (All): could you summarize the changes Mark?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I agree 
Marie Waltz >> (All): Me too
KatiaThomaz >> (All): me too
RobertDowns >> (All): I also agree
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make that change. How about the Supporting text segment?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): The discussion text is very OAIS, might that offend some user communities?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Aren't we testing to see if their repository is "OAIS compliant?"
Marie Waltz >> (All): I didn't know OAIS was a problem for some. I'd like to know more about that some time
JohnGarrett >> (All): How about "This is necessary to ensure that all components of an AIP are captured and that they are linked to the primary data object."  I think the discussion could list the key components. 
Barbara Sierman >> (All): It is not a problem for me nor for my organization!
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK with me to list the key components.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): some problem with the audio. i can´t hear all the sentences...
Barbara Sierman >> (All): same with me
JohnGarrett >> (All): Mark your audio keeps dropping out for me.  Ok with parts I heard
KatiaThomaz >> (All): now it´s ok.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Ok that was clear
RobertDowns >> (All): Mark's suggestion sounds good to me
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I think bound together might not be loose enough, could we say connected to, or something along those lines?
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps "linked"
Mark Conrad >> (All): Linked works for me.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): "bind together" or "link" are ok for me
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes thanks
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
Barbara Sierman >> (All): ok, i need to go now, hear you next time
Marie Waltz >> (All): What are we doing now?
RobertDowns >> (All): Reading B2.2
Simon Lambert >> (All): Is there a closing markup missing somewhere in B2.1?
Simon Lambert >> (All): I am using IE
Marie Waltz >> (All): I see it throughout the document and I'm using IE
Marie Waltz >> (All): Sorry, not the document, just B2.1
Marie Waltz >> (All): underlining
JohnGarrett >> (All): Are we removing the old This is necessary sentence?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): something happened. i can´t hear you very well
Simon Lambert >> (All): I think there is no closing </ins> after "There should be a definition of how these categories of information are linked."
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
Marie Waltz >> (All): Katia's questions?
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm out
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think B2.1 only refer to Representation Information not PDI
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B2.2. will complete the documentation with PDI
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Folks, I will need to miss next week as it's the SILS Board of Visitors' meeting that morning. I'll catch y'all on the 28th.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'd like to stop here
Marie Waltz >> (All): bye
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok thanks
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Thanks Mark! Good keyboarding!!

-- SimonLambert - 14 Apr 2008