Notes from Megameeting 16th June 2008

Attendees:

BarbaraSierman Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands
BruceAmbacher UM
CandidaFenton HATII, Univ Glasgow
DavidGiaretta STFC
JohnGarrett GSFC
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University

The meeting was a combination of chat and audio so the chat transcript (given below) is an incomplete record of the discussion.

Progress made:

The group spent the entire time discussing the rewrite of section B.2 (B2. Rewrite.doc) that MarkConrad sent out last week. Most of the discussion was focused on the areas marked in red on that document. These were areas where MarkConrad felt there was need for further group discussion.

There was one sentence that the group believed needed to be moved to another section of the working document on the wiki:

"The repository must maintain viewable documentation on how the repository acquires and manages PDI."

The group decided that this sentence should be moved to a parking lot for now, but that it does need to be placed somewhere else in the document. There was some discussion that similar sentences might be needed for Representation Information and other related topics.

Based on today's discussions MarkConrad has modified the B2. Rewrite.doc document. The new version of the document (B2. Rewritev2.doc) has been circulated by email and is also attached at the bottom of this page. One issue was left outstanding for further reflection and analysis. That is, does this B2. Rewritev2.doc document encompass all of the mandatory requirements for AIP creation?

Actions:

  • All to read the circulated B2. Rewritev2.doc document to ensure it accurately reflects today's discussion and to see if this approach makes sense.
  • All to reread the current working document on the wiki at the 30,000 foot level to see if the approach outlined in the attached document (B2. Rewritev2.doc) (i.e., the hierarchy of requirements and sub-requirements) makes sense in the context of the document on the wiki.
  • All to consider whether other sections of the document on the wiki should be rewritten in the style of B2. Rewritev2.doc.
  • Any volunteers to go through the B2. Rewritev2.doc and see if it covers all of the mandatory requirements for ingest: creation of an AIP.

BruceAmbacher >> (All): i have it and have glanced at it
candida fenton >> (All): I had a quick look, but not a throrough read
BarbaraSierman >> (All): concentrated on the red parts
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What are the implications of this change for the other sections?  Will they have to be restructured?  Will this lead to an artificial collapsing of items?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone else have any comments on this document?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should start addressing comments on the rewrite.  Barbara said she focused on the red notes.  Any issues you want to raise?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.8 and B2.10 red comments contradict each other.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Well I read the questions, but did not have immediate answers to them! 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.9
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What is "viewable" documentation? eye-readable at the repository or online?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I see this as a general requirement of the repository's general methods/procedures, reinforced by any specific documentation for a specific AIP
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In that context I support moving the sentence to an overall administration/management/standard procedures.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): perhaps with a reference
cclrc >> (All): Fine for me
Robert Downs >> (All): no objections
candida fenton >> (All): no
Robert Downs >> (All): no objections to removing related comment in B2.10
BarbaraSierman >> (All): I agree with Bruce
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should see if it necessary elsewhere or if it fits elsewhere before we lose the concept.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Park it on a to do list
cclrc >> (All): OK
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
Robert Downs >> (All): yes
mwaltz >> (All): ok
candida fenton >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): SOP manuals
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Yes, we need more examples to clarify this requirement
BarbaraSierman >> (All): What is SOP?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Standard Operating Procedures
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
cclrc >> (All): Creation of checksums or digests, consulting with community about Context
Robert Downs >> (All): Digital repository system or administrations manuals
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert, Not sure what you are getting at.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is this something like dSpace dpocumentation?
Robert Downs >> (All): Other examples of evidence of documented processes for 
Robert Downs >> (All): acquiring preservation medata
Robert Downs >> (All): metadata
Robert Downs >> (All): The manual would serve as evidence of capabilities to acquire preservation metadata for each object ingested
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert, Can you write what you think the phrase in the examples section should be for your examples?
Robert Downs >> (All): Standard Operating Procedures, manuals describing ingest procedures.
Mark Conrad >> (All): ok that makes sense.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): move on, I thinks the examples give the direction of what is meant
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes - park it to be sure it is captured in overall operations.
cclrc >> (All): DOes B3.2 have it?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
Robert Downs >> (All): ok
candida fenton >> (All): ok
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
BarbaraSierman >> (All): If B2.12 is also about for example whether all issues of a journal are in the archive, then I expect the requirement to be in Ingest
BarbaraSierman >> (All): It is necessary to build up trust in the collection
cclrc >> (All): SOunds good
BarbaraSierman >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It does.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): so we rephrase the sentence
Mark Conrad >> (All): This is necessary to enable the audit of the integrity of the collection as a whole.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
Robert Downs >> (All): Looks good
cclrc >> (All): OK
candida fenton >> (All): ok
Robert Downs >> (All): no objections
mwaltz >> (All): no objections
candida fenton >> (All): no objections
BarbaraSierman >> (All): no objections
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This did not pick up community or international standards from TRAC
BruceAmbacher >> (All): PREMIS
BruceAmbacher >> (All): references to community or international standards used in creating the AIP
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
candida fenton >> (All): ok
mwaltz >> (All): ok
BarbaraSierman >> (All): need to go and will think about the last remark!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): lets make it euros or piunds - they are worth more
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Volunteers can run this document against an actual SIP to AIP
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I'm ok with rewrite as discussed
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Once the entire rewrite is complete we each need to read the entire document from the 30,000 ft. level to see how it all fits together, flows.
cclrc >> (All): OK
candida fenton >> (All): ok
Robert Downs >> (All): ok
cclrc >> (All): We need to add some notes to minutes to explain the chat
mwaltz >> (All): OK

-- SimonLambert - 17 Jun 2008

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedoc B2._Rewritev2.doc r1 manage 87.0 K 2008-06-17 - 21:53 SimonLambert  
Topic revision: r1 - 2008-06-17 - 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