Notes from Megameeting 7th July 2008

Attendees:

BruceAmbacher UM
CandidaFenton HATII, U Glasgow
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
HelenTibbo UNC
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:

Review of B4.1 and B4.2.

It was agreed to reconsider the relationship between B4.1 and B4.2 at a later stage.

Actions:

  • Nothing specific - outstanding actions from last time to be done.

RobertDowns >> (All): Had we finished B4.1?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Another outstanding topic is my comments on B2.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Can someone give me the url for the wiki? I am on a loaner machine
BruceAmbacher >> (All): transmitted via email from Mark Conrad during the meeting
JohnGarrett >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Text url is - http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/ReqtsWithTemplateB
BruceAmbacher >> (All): where should we start?
RobertDowns >> (All): Had we finished B4.1 or did we need to return to it?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I don't think we have dealt with Mark's comments that the text, as written, relates more to B3 than B4.  I think if we add some "as implemented" to the preservation planning, we may be ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John I lost you
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm having a hard time hearing people too
JohnGarrett >> (All): Did we make a decision in the past week regarding the difference of B3 and B4 items?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Isn't B3 evidence of planning and B4 evidence of implementation of the plans and policies?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B3 is preservation planning.  B4 focuses on implementing the planning in storage and maintaining digital objects
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Aren't we saying you need evidence of both?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen, yes, that is why Mark wants some edits to focus B4 on how/evidence of actually implementing policies & strategies
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think you need evidence of both.  But B3 is supposed to be setting the preservation policies and B4 is implementing them for AIP content.
RobertDowns >> (All): Would the following revision to the B4.1 Supporting Text sentence address the issue? "The repository must demonstrate that it has implemented documented preservation strategies and the strategy document must include a means to update and add to the strategies employed."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We seem to be in agreement.  So, as a starter, should the first three supporting sentences be moved to B3 and replaced by Robert's suggestion?
JohnGarrett >> (All): My preference would be to just have the first half of that sentence.  I think the second half belongs back in B3 somewhere.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, you would support this part:: "The repository must demonstrate that it has implemented documented preservation strategies."
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I agree with John. Updating is more a matter of planning - the policy/strategy must be updated before it can be implemented in the new form.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think the update the policies could be part of B3.3
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I support moving all supporting text down to the sentence that starts: Good repository practice . . .
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi folks
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I agree with Bruce.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Hi Katia!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, we are working B4.1 and discussing moving some supporting text back to B3.3
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok. thanks.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): other views, votes, edits?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree with Bruce about moving early supporting text.
RobertDowns >> (All): I also agree
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Did anyone note if David posted anything on policy-strategy-initiatives?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I did not see anything on the email list.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i did not see too
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David's proposed hierarchy would be referenced next so we should skip that.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think that would also be moved back to B3.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Do others agree?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, yes, a full development in B3.3 and a reference here. The next issue is in the sentence that starts: "This is necessary in order to demonstrate  . . ."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark says it was not the original intent and David agrees.  But what should the intent be?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think they have different approach. in b3 the repository shows it has. in b4 the repository show it employs.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katis, we agree with that and have changed some language to show implementation in B4
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok.
RobertDowns >> (All): Should the sentence begin with "This is necessary to show that the repository has implemented its documented preservation strategies" ?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I support that change.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): yes
Marie Waltz >> (All): Sounds good
candida fenton >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Change sounds good to me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree.
RobertDowns >> (All): Are there any suggestions for how the sentence should end?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Do we need anything more?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): can we add the last part of the existing sentence: and "can produce authentic copies of the original or objects traceable to the originals.:
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would also change the Good repository ... sentence to something like A repository must record actions taken against digital objects in support of preservation plans (see B3.3) in the object’s preservation metadata.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think it hurts to add Bruce's continuation
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, we are stating requirements - "good" does not belong in the sentence
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I also like Bruce's continuation.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, how does you suggested change alter the current sentence's meaning?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I was trying to put the current meaing in the template form and to remove reference to B2.8 which no longer exists
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok, 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we support John's suggested change?  Helen did, I do
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm for it
candida fenton >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, please explain your intent  in your comment on the examples sentence
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think this was confusion from the mix of setting and implementing policies.  I think we only should be showing evidence that we are applying the strategies.  The evidence that the policies exist should be back in B3.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): agreed
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): So you would remove: "Documentation of strategies and their appropriateness to repository objects"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): logs are better
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I would remove itMy problem now would be is there any distinction between B4.1 and B4.2
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, are logs the only measure/evidence of this?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, I guess the difference is that B4.1 is general and B4.2 is specific to AIP storage and migration.  Is that difference enough to keep both B4.1 and B4.2 or should we consider collapsing them?
JohnGarrett >> (All): So this now becomes "Evidence of application of preservation policies (e.g., in preservation metadata or logs)
KatiaThomaz >> (All): we have already discussed about this item
KatiaThomaz >> (All): some people suggeste removing it
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I agree B4.1 is now just a general case and B4.2 is specific
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In practice are logs broadly available or retained in specific action files for a digital object?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Don't all preservation strategies/policies have the goal of preserving the AIP? I am not sure what the usefulness is of having a "general" and a "specific" entry in B4.1 and B4.2.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'm OK with keeping both B4.1 and B4.2 for now until we do the overall look from the high level and determine if we want to keep both.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i vote to remove B4.2
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Note to Simon: Place this issue in the parked category for later review
JohnGarrett >> (All): Should we park it or can we decide to keep both or combine them into a single item?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, there is a lot of good text in B4.2.  If we address this now I would support integrating the text in the appropriate parts of B4.1 so it is not lost.  Of course we would eliminate duplicative text
JohnGarrett >> (All): I tend to think we should combine them, but I would be more in favor of keeping the specific one.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok. let´s combine them.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, I'd suggest that we go through comments for B4.2 then and someone takes an action to combine remaining parts of B4.1 and B4.2 before next meeting.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark's first comment indicates he has not brought over the TRAC text into this version because he did not understand intent.  It was to show an "expected" set of actions for most objects and to document steps taken when transformations of the object are required (whwn sogtware path has reached a dead-end, for example).
JohnGarrett >> (All): First comment in B4.2 is Mark's re. changing  archival objects (i.e. AIP) to just AIP.   I suggest that we make this change throughout the document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The intent was to show preservation strategies accommodate both types of avtions.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the major problem with B4.2 is that we can´t say the only strategies are storage and migration...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, does AIP tie this "too closely" with OAIS?  The original goal was for some decoupling
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, what other actions/strategies do you suggest here?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think we can´t list them cause they change along the time
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bruce, I thought we discussed this last week and decided we didn't mind discussing AIPs.  Are there communities that would use this, but won't if we use OAIS terminology?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We can only address now.  B4 focuses on Storage and migration.  If/when other strategies are developed and widely accepted, the document can be amended.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Katia, I agree there might be other strategies.  Do we mention specific ones?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, just relaying original thought process.  We will need a technical editor to ensure we are internally consistent on this.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think we shouldn´t mentiiion specific ones. we should recommend keep th bit level and so on...
Helen Tibbo >> (All): could we add "or other appropriate strategies as they evolve" and perhaps have a footnote as an item to be updated in future versions?
RobertDowns >> (All): Helen's suggestion seems reasonable.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Sorry, keeping the bit level is insufficient for this document.  You are not a trusted repository if that is all you can do (imho).
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I support Helen's s
BruceAmbacher >> (All): addition.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sorry. i didn´t say only the bit level
Marie Waltz >> (All): I agree with Helen's suggestion too
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i only started the sentence and put at the end "and so on"
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Folks, I have a 12 PM meeting so I need to run today. I should be able to join you from 10:30-11:15 next week. -Helen
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye Helen
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bye helen
JohnGarrett >> (All): So item could be something like "Repository implements/responds to strategies for bit-level storage of AIPs and employs the appropriate strategies for maintaining Information content."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, Do you need to add : "in a format acceptable/usable by the designated community"?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i must quit now. have a nice week. thanks and bye.
RobertDowns >> (All): Bruce's addition improves the sentence
Marie Waltz >> (All): bye katia
RobertDowns >> (All): bye Katia
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bruce that works for me.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'm leaving shortly also.  Should we call it a day?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I must go also.  I will not be here next week.  Marie volunteered to get chat to Simon.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'll get it, bye everyone
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK bye Bruce, Thanks, Marie!

-- SimonLambert - 07 Jul 2008

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2008-07-18 - DavidGiaretta
 
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