Notes from Megameeting 5th May 2008

Attendees:

BruceAmbacher UM
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
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 may be hard to follow.

Progress made: Section B2.10 of the working document was discussed and some edits made. However it was not completed and will be revisited later. Section B2.11 was completed.

Actions:

  • All to check edits made by MarkConrad to section B2.11 to facilitate the discussion.
  • MarkConrad to produce examples relating to B2.10.

Next meeting: Continue with B2.12 and B2.13 and on to section B3.

Mark Conrad >> (All): Shall we start with B2.10?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Remind me why all of the text in this section is underlined.
Simon Lambert >> (All): I notice that in IE at least all the text from B2.10 on is underlined - I think that means a missing closing mark-up.  Does anyone else see that?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I don't see that, but I am using Firefox.
Simon Lambert >> (All): Should there be a </ins> after "><ins>Viewable documentation on how the repository acquires and manages Preservation Description Information (PDI)."
Marie Waltz >> (All): That's true, what should we do?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I accept Mark's edit
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Should Designated Community be in the requirement itself?
Simon Lambert >> (All): Looks good to me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
KatiaThomaz >> (All): could it be "test suites against definitions"???
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the second is better
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Marie Waltz >> (All): YEs
Marie Waltz >> (All): I haven't heard of anyone doing this
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John described the major way of carrying this out
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think it&acute;s important too
KatiaThomaz >> (All): okok with me
Marie Waltz >> (All): Don't forget we
Marie Waltz >> (All): are testing on the digital holdings
Marie Waltz >> (All): I need to see it all written out
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Marie is right.  We are actually testing the loss of understanding in the DC
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The data, if still readable, have not changed; just the ability to understand them
KatiaThomaz >> (All): this is a real test of understandability (rsrsrs)
Mark Conrad >> (All): How about, :Test procedures run against the digital holdings to ensure their continued understandibility to the defined Designated Communities and their knowledge bases.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Marie Waltz >> (All): That is fine
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would change "run" to "to be run"  and also add logs indicating that the tests were run
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The process will vary by repository, dc, and time frame since data was deposited
JohnGarrett >> (All): If the information content is found to not be understandable, the repository must bring the information up to the agreed level of understandability.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will this work? Repository has a documented process for testing understandability of the information content; the repository must bring the information content up to the agreed level of understandability
Mark Conrad >> (All): I like Bruce's suggestion assuming the insertion of the "for the Designated Communites" that we talked about earlier.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Do we need a time frame here? 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): what if "Repository has a documented process for testing understandability of the information content, bringing the information content up to the agreed level of understandability"
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets eave it to the auditors regarding timeliness and frequency
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): does discussion always necessary?
Marie Waltz >> (All): How about something like this: This requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information tests devised by the auditors would be one way to do this. 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am only asking... i am not sure...
Marie Waltz >> (All): This requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information tests devised by the repository's would be one way to do this. 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If Content Information or Preservation Description Information (PDI) is not directly usable by the designated community(ies), the repository needs to have a defined process for providing usable information or for making additional Representation Information available (see B3.2). 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): reference can be cut
BruceAmbacher >> (All): For me, defined process is not always a formal step-by-step process.  It can be evaluating the issue and developing a response tailored to that situation
BruceAmbacher >> (All): good point
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes, let
Marie Waltz >> (All): s move it
KatiaThomaz >> (All): representation information = structure + semantic
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
KatiaThomaz >> (All): good
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I accept Mark's change
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm fine with that
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok to drop
BruceAmbacher >> (All): and the second
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I accept deleting "either or"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sorry, i must leave you now.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): have a nice wekk!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): week
Marie Waltz >> (All): bye Katia
KatiaThomaz >> (All): thank you too. bye
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes I agree with Bruce's edit
Marie Waltz >> (All): Does it matter if they are simple or complex tests?
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets eliminate all reference to SIP.  The document is focusing on AIPs which are what is preserved.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Documentation should describe how completeness and correctness of AIPs are ensured, starting from receipt from the producer and continuing through AIP creation and supporting long-term preservation.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm out next week, but will leave comments

-- SimonLambert - 05 May 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-05-05 - 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