Notes from Megameeting 19th May 2008


BarbaraSierman Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands
BruceAmbacher UM
CandidaFenton HATII, Univ Glasgow
DavidGiaretta STFC
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RiccardoFerrante Smithsonian Institution Archives
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
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 at length and some revisions were made.

It was agreed that DavidGiaretta will send the updated charter and Version 0 White Book to CCSDS.


  • All to make a quick review of B2 and then proceed to B3.

Next meeting (in two weeks): Maximum 30 minutes on finishing B2 then proceed to B3. Note that B2.2 also needs finishing off.

BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we starting with B3 or still in B2?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B2.10, i think
Mark Conrad >> (All): We still have several items to finish up in B.2.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We also skipped B.2.2.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sould we finish b.2.10.?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets start there
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I agree to striking the phrase and could be persuaded to strike entire sentence.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I would support "communities."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Strike the entire clause.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Should we add a cross-reference to B3.x?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no
Marie W >> (All): This is necessary in order to ensure that one of the primary tests of preservation, namely that the digital holdings are understandable by their Designated Communities, can be met, is fine with me
JohnGarrett >> (All): Fine with me also.
Mark Conrad >> (All): works for me.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, understandability is central.
candida fenton >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): any objections?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no objections
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we want to add Bruce's suggested cross-reference to B.3.x.?
Mark Conrad >> (All): E.g., See B.3.x. for additional requirements for understandibility beyond ingest?
cclrc >> (All): Hi folks - made it at last - will adjust my reminder
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, let's mark a space for that
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It has the advantage of showing we see the long term need
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree.
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): No objections
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make those changes.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Shall we look at the Examples section?
JohnGarrett >> (All): In general, I'd like to avoid too many references to other requirements.  I think many could reference other requirements.  But that would make the standard more difficult to read and understand.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Some references are OK, but don't want too many.
Mark Conrad >> (All): In this particular case I think we need a reference to show that the understandibility requirment does not end at ingest.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This is an informational cross-reference, not a requirement ctoss-reference.  I agree in general
cclrc >> (All): Agree
JohnGarrett >> (All): Again, I think we drop the word "continued"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In the example I would delete "continued"
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, you don't really need one to understand the other but it is important that people see understandability is something that must be maintained over time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We will also need to address the "periodic assembly" phrase.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes.  Delete entire sentence here and add it to new B3 requirement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we just delete the phrase?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with Bruce. 
cclrc >> (All): OK if it is catered for in B3
Marie W >> (All): OK with me
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't have a problem with "periodic assembly".  They are meeting to evaluate the ingest metadata criteria
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Looks like this goes in B3
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Ok with me too
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, If they are assembled periodically does that mean you are only evaluating understandibility at ingest periodically?
JohnGarrett >> (All): No you are evaluating ingest understandability at each ingest.  The criteria you are measuring against is reset periodically.
RobertDowns >> (All): Periodic evaluation of understandability should be addressed elsewhere.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with Bob, et al.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we need it?  A repository could do very well without periodic assemblies. based on its knowledge and information gathering.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, What is lost if we delete it from this requirement?
JohnGarrett >> (All): It is not periodic evaluation of understanding, but the periodic evaluation of the criteria that will be used to measure understandability.
JohnGarrett >> (All): But, I don't have a problem with moving this if we have it somewhere else.
cclrc >> (All): SOunds good
BruceAmbacher >> (All): we get that through gathering representation information and having experts on staff.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. if there are no other objections we will move this phrase to B.3.x.
Marie W >> (All): Agreed.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Agreed
RobertDowns >> (All): Agreed
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): agreed
cclrc >> (All): Agreed
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yea!
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Agreed
Mark Conrad >> (All): On to the Discussion section.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I accept Mark's suggested deletion.  It reads clearly without it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which suggested deletion are you referring to?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): the current application tools of 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Thanks for that clarification.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Anyone else have any comments on the first sentence?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Anyone opposed?  This follows along with what we have been doing and the cross-reference remains.
cclrc >> (All): OK with that deletion and I also prefer Mark's proposed final para
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): fsame
KatiaThomaz >> (All): agree
Mark Conrad >> (All): any objections?
cclrc >> (All): making a clear distinction with B3 metrics helps a lot.
Marie W >> (All): I think we should include this from Mark's response, it is helpful: this requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information 
JohnGarrett >> (All): I
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'm OK with the deletion.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Re: next suggested paragraph - is it the responsibility of the repository to translate every language document or just provide a tool (dictionary)?
cclrc >> (All): The "or" is vital!
Mark Conrad >> (All): Let's finish with the first sentence does anyone object to Marie's suggestion of adding additional text to this sentence?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What is the added text?
Mark Conrad >> (All): "this requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information "
Mark Conrad >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Re-read the Requirement text.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Please use the chat. Some folks can't hear the audio.
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): I can hear now
RobertDowns >> (All): I also can hear now
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara can you hear the audio?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I don't see the added text as  as value added; I see it as delimiting.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think "information content" is meant to wider than just the "content information".
cclrc >> (All): Perhaps we should START the Discussion with Marie's additional text followed by "for example if Content..."
Marie W >> (All): This requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information. For example, 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 giving it usable form or for making additional Representation Information available (see B3.2).  
cclrc >> (All): Looks good to me
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What is meant by "usable form"?
cclrc >> (All): I assumed that was to do with format - but as long as we have the "or..." I'm OK with that
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps it should be "the repository needs to establish a defined process for making it understandable or for making additional representation information available.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If you were an auditor what does this tell you to look for?  What is usable form?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Robert's update is good for me
cclrc >> (All): How about "un derstandable and usable"
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): Do we need that if we use Marie's opening phrase?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Understandable relates to meaning; usable could be file format, etc.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If we are all Guessing its not useful language.
cclrc >> (All): I try to remember to always say "understandable and usable" so one covers for example software
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think this is directly addressing file formats, but file formats do in many cases make the content understandable because we have format related tools that make display of the content easy or possible
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Then what is the relationship between this requirement and B.3.2?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remembering that representation information = structural information + semantic information
cclrc >> (All): plus the mysterious "Other"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This far into the document shoud we have to be explaining, defining these terms?  Should that not have already occurred?
Mark Conrad >> (All): My reading of the two requirements is that this requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information and that B.3.2. is concerned with the understandability of the data formats (i.e., Representation Information).
RobertDowns >> (All): I believe that this requirement addresses understandability of the content, which could be addressed independently of how the content information is represented.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): so is the term "usable" the problem here?
cclrc >> (All): I see a problems here
cclrc >> (All): I thought we had B2 dealing with Ingest - and making sure things are understandable (and usable) at that point. Then B3 deals with what happens afterwards - continued understandability
JohnGarrett >> (All): Everything in B3 is preservation planning.  Everything in B2 is ingest.  So the relation would be this is concerned with format at ingest, B3.2 is evolution of formats and plans for format changes.
cclrc >> (All): Not just formats
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but we ensure understandability with representation info... am i wrong?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Then I would say we should have a sepsarate requirement in B.2. for file formats.
cclrc >> (All): File formats ARE a type of Structural Rep.Info.
cclrc >> (All): Katia - you are quite right
cclrc >> (All): We will get into problems if we only refer to file formats - it excludes important aspects of scientific data (semantics) and things like software (other) Rep.Info.
Marie W >> (All): Does this help to get things started: This requirement is concerned with the understandability of the content information. If the ingested material is not understandable, the repository needs to...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): None of the B2 requirements mention file formats.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Most of us cannot understand a pdf document without a PDF display tool.  Format tools are an important part of understandability.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree it is not just format information.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): as i remembered rep info - structure + semantics
cclrc >> (All): Marie - I like your proposal
RobertDowns >> (All): Marie's new suggestion seems to offer a way forward
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. with me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie how would the sentence end?
Marie W >> (All): Soemthing like this: ... ingest additional information to make sure what the documents are understandable or make additional representation information available.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Can we just use the current sentence and drop the word "form".
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, No. The sentence does not make sense without the word form.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I like Marie's suggestion better, anyway.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I meant the current sentence on the wiki.  Change "giving it usable form" to "making it usable"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we end Marie's  sentence with "to make it understandable."
cclrc >> (All): That would work...
JohnGarrett >> (All): With this change are we saying that we are no longer looking at whether PDI is understandable?
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Didn't you say that PDI is part of content information?
cclrc >> (All): No it's not - maybe it's a red herring here
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry, I meant information content - not content information. Maybe that is part of the confusion.
cclrc >> (All): I suspect that the mention of PDI here should have been "and by the way don't forget that the PDI also has to be understandable"
JohnGarrett >> (All): No, PDI is not part of Content Information, but could have been intended as part of "information content" as this requirement was originally written.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I agree with David and Mark now also
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps the term should be "information object" to reduce confusion
Mark Conrad >> (All): Maybe the phrase information content should be changed in the requirement text to avoid the confusion with content information.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What are we trying capture - the data object must be understandale to the designated community, and, if not, the repository must take additional steps to make it understandable
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): It's more than just the data object that needs to be understandable isn't it?
RobertDowns >> (All): The term "information object" might be more consistent with oais
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What then in the existing sentence or alternatives is blocking us from saying that?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes it's more than data object if by data object you just mean the content file.
cclrc >> (All): For the record - the proposal is to replace "information content" by "AIP"
cclrc >> (All): For the record - Mark will make the changes discussed
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie W >> (All): yes
candida fenton >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): yes
Helen Tibbo >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): people, i must quit now but before i want to say that now i understood 3.2 better. perhaps we should include "continued understandability" there. bye and have a nice week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What are the action items for 2 weeks from now?
cclrc >> (All): For the record the above "yeses" were in agreement to my sending the updated Charter and version 0 WHite Book to CCSDS.
cclrc >> (All): How about a QUICK review of B2 and then proceed to B3.
Marie W >> (All): I agree with CCLRC
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Sounds good.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We need to address B.2.2 in addition to finishing up B.2.10.
cclrc >> (All): I wonder if we are stuck on these because we need B3 done to put them in context
Helen Tibbo >> (All): It does seem we've been stuck
Mark Conrad >> (All): So are you suggesting the action item for next time should be to review B.3. rather than finish B.2.?
cclrc >> (All): I did not want to go that far - just that we set a time limit on B2
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. see you in 2 weeks!
cclrc >> (All): Say 30 minutes on B2 then drive on to B3
RobertDowns >> (All): See you in 2 weeks
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should probably send that around to the group in e-mail since so many have already left the discussion.
cclrc >> (All): Are we starting 30 mins earlier always?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yes.
cclrc >> (All): i.e. 3:30 UK time
Mark Conrad >> (All): 10:30 - noon EDT

-- SimonLambert - 19 May 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-05-19 - SimonLambert
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback