Notes from Megameeting 28th July 2008


JohnGarrett GSFC
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
HelenTibbo UNC
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
MarkConrad NARA
DavidGiaretta STFC

The meeting was essentiall all via chat and so the chat transcript (given below) is essentially a complete record of the discussion.

Progress made:

  • Review of outstanding actions.
  • Agree to replace B2 with Mark's re-write
  • further discussions of B4.4

Next meeting will be in 2 weeks time i.e. no meeting next week.


  • David will have suggested changes for Preservation Policies, Plans, etc.
  • David will have an analysis of B.3. v Appendix 5 for Preservation Requirements.
  • Simon will have a draft rewrite of B.1.
  • ALL - Continue discussions of B4.4., provide comments for B4.5. and all of B.5
  • David to check the WIki - there seems to be a problem with strikeout. Inform the list when it is OKalright to del and ins again

MarieWaltz >> (All): Hi all
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can everyone hear the audio? We have been discussing the current state of the wiki.
MarieWaltz >> (All): Yes, I can hear
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I can hear, but I do not have a microphone today
David Giaretta >> (All): And I said that I'll get it restored to show the strickouts properly and check that all is as it should be
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have a long list of action items dating from our meeting of 30 June. Should we start there?
David Giaretta >> (All): I've also sent out an invitation to the CCSDS/RAC meeting in Berlin Oct 13 (am) and 14 (am and pm)
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark OK
David Giaretta >> (All): I have a MM problem - will drop outan then come back in
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, Mark. Catching up on the action items is a good idea.
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Can you report on your analysis of the use of Preservation Policies, Strategic Plans, Implementation Plans?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I seem to have lost audio.  
MarieWaltz >> (All): I have no audio either
MarieWaltz >> (All): yes, but its stop and go
RobertDowns >> (All): David, I can hear you
JohnGarrett >> (All): Audio dropping in and out
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark I've been searching the document for "policy/policies" with plans/strategies and variations on those terms
David Giaretta >> (All): It seems to me that the usage is fairly vague - often "policies and procedures" 
David Giaretta >> (All): It is not clear ehich of the terms in the hierarchy we spoke about applies
Mark Conrad >> (All): That is a problem.
David Giaretta >> (All): The term "preservation policies" is occasionally used
David Giaretta >> (All): I can have a go at suggesting which are the more specific "preservation implementation plans"
Mark Conrad >> (All): Your proposal was that we would use a hierarchy of Preservation Policies ->Preservation Startegic Plans -> Preservation Implementation Plans. 
                                   Is this feasible?
David Giaretta >> (All): If one excludes the places where "policy documents" is used then there are not so many pieces to consider
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - yes that was stated in the action I believe - not sure who came up with it - I think it brought together several suggestions
David Giaretta >> (All): SO I think I have HALF done my action and I can try to do the other half - suggest changes - for next time.
David Giaretta >> (All): The issue may be that there are a number of points where vaguer terms are used and it is not at all clear whether we can be more specific.
David Giaretta >> (All): By the way we all mention "access policies" - we probably need to add these to a glossary
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK. Bruce and I did a walkthrough of the AIP creation process to see if all of the mandatory requirements were in B.2. 
                                    I believe that they are and if I remember correctly, Bruce said last week that he found that to be the case as well.
David Giaretta >> (All): Good
Mark Conrad >> (All): You will have to verify that with Bruce next week. I will not be here then.
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Did you complete the analysis of B.3. v. Appendix 5?
David Giaretta >> (All): Mea culpa - no
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok.
David Giaretta >> (All): I should be able to do it this week - less frantic activity - more time for RAC I hope
Mark Conrad >> (All): I believe this just leaves the question about replaceing the text in B.2. with the the text in the document B2.Rewrite.v2.
David Giaretta >> (All): This made things more hierarchical
David Giaretta >> (All): This made things more hierarchical
Mark Conrad >> (All): It split severl of the requirements out in to its subrequirements.
Mark Conrad >> (All): several
David Giaretta >> (All): I think it is a definite improvement
Mark Conrad >> (All): Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
MarieWaltz >> (All): I'm fine with it
David Giaretta >> (All): I don't have my print out with my annotations on in front of me but I voted to replace with the re-write
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone object to replacing B2 with the text in B2.Rewrite.v2?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we want to do the same kind of rewrite for the other sections?
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - because it is a big improvement - although it means yet more wrok!
MarieWaltz >> (All): Let's try it and see how it goes.
David Giaretta >> (All): It may turn out that B2 was particularly "difficult" and that the other sections turn out to be less in need of factoring out in that way.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any volunteers to tackle B.1.?
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.3. and B.4. should probably wait until we have worked out the hierarchy of Preservation Policies, Plans, Implementations.
David Giaretta >> (All): If I have time I can take a first look at that after seeing how the "policies" work goes
David Giaretta >> (All): I meant B3/B4
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce always seems interested in Ingest.....
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Sorry, I am swamped this week with reports and next week I'll be at the ER Boot Camp with you, Mark. Perhaps we could go through some of this there if time permits.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I think that we have looked at all of the action items from 30 June. A few of them are still outstanding, but we have addressed most of them.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Helen,
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will not have any time at the Summer Camp to work on this.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi, sorry my PC is hanging up.  I think we can replace B2 with B2 rewrite.  May not number things as deeply if we don't need to do so in other sections.  
                                 But content is good.
David Giaretta >> (All): If there are no other volunteers I can ask Simon to take a look - he's good at that kinmd of thing
David Giaretta >> (All): - for B1 that is
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK. That will teach Simon to miss a meeting! :)
David Giaretta >> (All): Quite right!
David Giaretta >> (All): What now - B4.4?
Mark Conrad >> (All): So for next time, David will have suggested changes for Preservation Policies, Plans, etc. 
                                   David will have an analysis of B.3. v Appendix 5 for Preservation Requirements. 
                                   Simon will have a draft rewrite of B.1.
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK. On to B.4.4.
David Giaretta >> (All): I'll have to check when Simon gets back from vacation - might have to be the following week
Mark Conrad >> (All): You let him take a vacation?????
Helen Tibbo >> (All): The Europeans all seem to take vacations... we could take lessons, Mark
David Giaretta >> (All): Outside my powers!!
David Giaretta >> (All): IN B4.4 the use of "some use of it" i.e. Fixity - seems rather loose
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. B4.4 last time we agreed to revise the text of the requirement to say AIPs - not i.e., AIPS
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed. I think this is where we left off last week.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Should "auditors" be added to the list of outside groups looking at the workings of the repository?
David Giaretta >> (All): Also ALso Fixity in OAIS refers to the Content Object rather than the AIP as a whole
David Giaretta >> (All): Helen - good point - I think we mention auditors before and probably need to check that we are being consistent in mentioning them
David Giaretta >> (All): By the way I think we need to be cateful about some kind of Fixity of AIPs because 
                                      Provenance might change over time and this is covered by some careful wording in OAIS I  think
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would not add auditors in general.  Purpose of the archives is not to support auditors.  
                                 Auditors are performing a specific function to support the archives.
David Giaretta >> (All): In which case we may need to remove the other mention of auditors for consistency. 
Helen Tibbo >> (All): To my mind, Repository actively monitors integrity of archival objects so as to preserve the objects, 
                                  not merely allow stakeholders to be informed consumers or to support auditing. 
                                    Aren't both those things secondary to maintaining authentic objects?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I was trying to look back at B.4.1. to see how we handled this there, but the text there does not seem to accurately reflect 
                                  whet we agreed upon. Bruce's comments on B.4.1. actually appear before the text of B.4.1. 
                                  I think we may be having some real problems with the way the new version of the wiki is parsing the text.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, Helen, I agree.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I don't believe, over time, you can maintain authentic objects unless you monitor their status. Proof of this should comfort repository contributors and users.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I have some earlier  snapshots of the text and will compare them
David Giaretta >> (All): Helen - yes - we seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Sounds as if we need to separate the funndamental need from the "audit" need
Mark Conrad >> (All): Helen, I understand what you are saying and I agree with the gist of it, but integrity is not the only thing that has to be checked to ensure authentic records.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Of course not.
David Giaretta >> (All): Do we cover anywhere what IS needed?
Mark Conrad >> (All): You need everything in the document to maintain authentic records over time.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): So, what seems to be the problem here is the idea that this log of events is for the outsiders.
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps we should add repository managers to the list.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think for this sentence we should just say something like, This is necessary to document that integrity checks are carried out on a regular basis.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Mark is right - everything in this standard is necessary, i.e., requirements, for long-term preservation and authenticity. 
                                  So why are we mentioning the outside groups here and not everywhere?
David Giaretta >> (All): Helen - is it a problem - this is a standard about Audit and Certification
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with Mark's suggestion for the sentence.
David Giaretta >> (All): Maybe that is what I should have said before - we need to be consistent in our viewpoint - 
                                    if auditors are worth noting at one point they probably should be mentioned elsewhere.  
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I think we do need to mention the need to enable this fact to be validated.
Mark Conrad >> (All): This is necessary to document that integrity checks are carried out on a regular basis and to allow interested parties to verify that this is the case?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I like that
David Giaretta >> (All): Sounds fine to me
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree.
MarieWaltz >> (All): Yes
Helen Tibbo >> (All): good
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Hopefully this addresses Bruce's concern as well.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The next comment is about the sentence pair for checking the integrity of the repository and the realtionship of this requirement to B.2.12.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John's comment was that this sentence pair should actually be a separate requirement. Having re-read B.2.12. I think I agree with him.
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we keep that sentence pair, we also need to add some evidence that demonstrates that the higher level checking is done
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, I think this is a separate requirement - micro and macro checks.
cclrc >> (All): Sorry - my ISP disconnected me at home
cclrc >> (All): This looks like a good candidiate for a hierarchical approach
cclrc >> (All): 1) archive 2) collection 3) AIP 4) COntent information
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with John. I think a second sentence pair like  we had for the micro checks would work here. (i.e., Repository should have logs... 
                              This is necessary to document that integrity checks are carried out on a regular basis and to allow interested parties to verify that this is the case?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, this makes sense.
cclrc >> (All): But we can cover all by a hierarchy
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, I am not sure I agree with your hierarchy. How do you check the integrity of the content information outside the AIP?
cclrc >> (All): BY THE WAY mARK - IF YOU LOOK AT EARLIER VERSIONS OF THIS WIki page (at the foot of the page you can select earlier versions) then the strikeout is OK there
cclrc >> (All): Mark - no I meant a hierarchy of integrity checks - which can be captured in a hierarchy of metrics - you need the lower level ones in order to do the higher level ones
cclrc >> (All): Fopr example one can check the integrity of the Content Info using Fixity. Then one can check the integrity of the AIP using some slightly more sophisticated method 
                     - but he fixity of the COntent Info is a component of that
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, that makes sense
cclrc >> (All): The integrity of the collection depends upon the integrity of the individual AIPs and the integrity of the archive depends upon the integrity of the collections. 
                        At each stage up the hierarchy one adds some additional sophistication
Mark Conrad >> (All): I don't know how you lay out such a hierarchy without prescribing implementation.
cclrc >> (All): Yes - thyere are some pitfalls if one gets carried away!!
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, I do not agree with your last comment. At the collection level for example, I may simply be looking for the presence or absence of an AIP 
                           in a collection based on an accession register. This is not dependent on fixity checks done at the content Information level.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Folks, I need to run and will not be online next week.
cclrc >> (All): Yes, but to check the integrity of the collection one needs to confirm the integrity of each member as well as the fact that one all the AIPs
cclrc >> (All): Bye Helen
cclrc >> (All): ANyway the hierarchy may allow us to make things clearer
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will not be here next week, either. David and Siomn have quite a list of action items. What are the action items for the rest of us?  
                                 Continue discussions of B4.4., provide comments for B4.5. and all of B.5?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon
MarieWaltz >> (All): OK
cclrc >> (All): Actually my wife has just reminded me that I may not be here next week
cclrc >> (All): I'll try to do my actions.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we meet in two weeks?
cclrc >> (All): 2 weeks sounds sensible
MarieWaltz >> (All): OK
cclrc >> (All): I'll put the chat on the Wiki
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Should I wait until you have had a chance to investigate the changes to the wiki before posting today's markup?
cclrc >> (All): OK 
cclrc >> (All): I'll check where the issue lies and get back to you in a day or so
Mark Conrad >> (All): Great. Will you please send me an e-mail when it is ok to post changes?
cclrc >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): See you all in two weeks!
cclrc >> (All): Bye all 
MarieWaltz >> (All): bye all
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye all
Topic revision: r1 - 2008-07-28 - 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