Notes from Megameeting 21st April 2008

Attendees:

BruceAmbacher UM
CandidaFenton HATII, Univ Glasgow
JohnGarrett GSFC
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RiccardoFerrante Smithsonian Institution Archives
RobertDowns Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), U Columbia
SimonLambert STFC

The discussion was a combination of audio and typed chat. For this reason the chat transcript (given below) gives an incomplete representation and is hard to follow.

Progress made: The relation between sections B2.1 and B2.2 of the working document was discussed. It was agreed to table B2.2 until after B3 (preservation planning) has been reviewed, and return to it then. Edits were made to B2.3 but it was not completed.

Next meeting: Finish B2.3 and continue onwards.

Actions:

  • No specific actions.

Marie >> (All): I think that makes sense
candida fenton >> (All): I think description is good 
Marie >> (All): B3 is all preservation planning.
RiccFerrante >> (All): Would 'description of each class of AIP' capture the heart of this point? Without a clear definition of its classes, how could an archive demonstrate that it knows what it has and therefore will have down the research to build an effective preservation plan? I would leave preservation plan, Sorry typing slow.
RiccFerrante >> (All): then definition of each class?
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Can you hear the audio?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This may be a semantic issue over the meaning of definition.  If everyone else is comfortable with definition, we can use it.
RiccFerrante >> (All): The sentence at the end provides enough for me to be comfortable with definition
Marie >> (All): I think this one is more about the AIP's definition having a long term preservation component than anything else, it may be the best it can be to express this.
Marie >> (All): I think its just a refinment of b2.1--there could be a case where a repository has a great definition of an AIP but doesn't have anything on preservation and since this is SO important it needs to be separately identified.
Marie >> (All): Maybe we could table this one, until we've gone through B3 and see if this is better expressed elsewhere?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): All you can really demonstrate is that the repository has thought aout preservation and has a plan bsed on its current technology and planning.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes I think that is right and what we should be saying here somehow.
JohnGarrett >> (All): That's OK  with me if we table this until we review Preservation Planning.
RiccFerrante >> (All): tabling is OK. 
Marie >> (All): How can we keep this in mind when we get there? Can we put a note in B3?
Marie >> (All): Good
BruceAmbacher >> (All): When we reconsider we may consider relocating this one.
RiccFerrante >> (All): Is content all we need to establish authenticity?
JohnGarrett >> (All): No there is much more
RiccFerrante >> (All): then doesn't the insertion of content preclude all those other aspects?
RiccFerrante >> (All): how about 'content, and other significant values' ?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That also is why Provenance is so important to B2.3.  To me, this item is showing the roots of the content and how the repository fashioned it from the SIP(s)
RiccFerrante >> (All): agree
JohnGarrett >> (All): I didn't mean content to just be Content Information so in my reading I wouldn't exclude the others, but I can see how that would be confusing.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Remember B2 is dealing with ingest.  We don't want to burden items in this section with ideas, actions that occur in other sections.
RobertDowns >> (All): The 'how' implies that the process  is the primary focus of 2.3.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Agreed.  We got this/these SIP(s) and we made these AIP(s).
RiccFerrante >> (All): I like that idea
RiccFerrante >> (All): ok
candida fenton >> (All): Ok
Marie >> (All): Fine with me
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
JohnGarrett >> (All): Change is OK with me
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I can support that but what about the loss of AIP and SIP?
RiccFerrante >> (All): I think we should keep the second sentence
Marie >> (All): This is necessary in order to ensure the AIP is complete.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok.
RobertDowns >> (All): Pehaps something like: This necessary to ensure that there is a process to have the AIP represent the information in the SIP.
RiccFerrante >> (All): auditable process would make me more comfortable
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But the AIP may only take parts of the SIP (and others) to form this AIP.  It could be practice to extract only some info from the SIP.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we want it to be auditable or just traceable ?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): a description of the process/steps taken
RiccFerrante >> (All): ok
Marie >> (All): Yes
RobertDowns >> (All): The first sentence looks good to me.
RiccFerrante >> (All): Works for me. Don't forget the SIP(s). I also agree with the last few remarks. I have a group of depositors that do just that.
Marie >> (All): I like it
RiccFerrante >> (All): Bruce, I can't hear your audio
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I wanted to reiterate this appears to deal with one-to-one transformations, not partial extracts from multiple SIPs
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That would be good
RiccFerrante >> (All): Yes.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): either way
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will the other two sentences be deleted (I hope)?
RiccFerrante >> (All): No
Marie >> (All): No
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes they should be deleted
RobertDowns >> (All): Deleting the other sentence sounds good to me.
RobertDowns >> (All): sentences 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In 2nd sentence in discussion should read "In other cases  complex transformations . . "
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes or just start with Complex transformations
JohnGarrett >> (All): Also drop the (i.e. preservation metadata)
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
RiccFerrante >> (All): yes
RiccFerrante >> (All): Then the new sentence 2 of the supporting text no longer works, John.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): "to reflect how the preserved object has been transformed from . . "
RiccFerrante >> (All): Not just transformed from, but 'adequately transformed from'
RobertDowns >> (All): That would replace 'represents'.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): a precise description of these actions (i.e., preservation metadata) may be necessary to reflect how  the preserved object has been adequately transformed from the information in the submitted object.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): agreed. I  did not delete when I cut and pasted
BruceAmbacher >> (All): we have met the issues in my comments
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I share Mark's comment to replace provenance with description.
candida fenton >> (All): I have to go now - bye
Marie >> (All): Bye
Marie >> (All): How difficult do you think it will be for a respository to provide a precise description?
Marie >> (All): repository
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This should not be too difficult.  They may have to reference a detailed process statement that provides a step-by-step process.
RiccFerrante >> (All): A rough description is not enough in my opinion. I like precise description but can live with just description.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have to leave now.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think repositories provide what they think is "precise enough" for them with the available resources.  I know that when we go back we sometimes wish we had recorded even more.
Marie >> (All): I was thinking of this one: may be applied to objects during the ingest process, and a precise description of these actions (i.e., preservation metadata) may be 
RiccFerrante >> (All): It looks like what Marie just wrote to me.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I need to head off now.  Talk to you next week.
Marie >> (All): may be applied to objects during the ingest Can you type what you replaced it with?
Marie >> (All): Actually, I have to go, its no big deal, I just want to make sure what we're requiring is doable
Marie >> (All): Bye
RiccFerrante >> (All): I have to go. Bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): So next week we continue from B.2.3.?
RobertDowns >> (All): Sound good

-- SimonLambert - 21 Apr 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-04-21 - 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