Notes from Megameeting 22nd September 2008

Attendees:

BruceAmbacher UM
DavidGiaretta STFC
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
SimonLambert STFC

Progress made: The timetable of future deadlines was clarified. Discussion of the glossary continued, focussing on preservation policies vs. access policies. It was agreed that access is separate from preservation and both must be defined.

Actions:

  • DavidGiaretta to make agreed changes to the glossary from this discussion.

David Giaretta >> (All): I think we were working "upwards" and had just done Pres. Impl. Plan
KatiaThomaz >> (All): does the wiki reflect our discussions?
David Giaretta >> (All): The glossary edits were done as we agreed them
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, Do you think something is missing or misstated?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bruce, why are you asking me that?
David Giaretta >> (All): I think we are now moving on to Preservation Policy
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, I was responding to your query - does the wiki reflect our discussions?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i asked because i didnīt perceive any change. do you understand me?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): One issue last week was how to be consistent within the text and between the glossary and the text.  Have we established how that will happen?
David Giaretta >> (All): You can see changes between versions by clicking on the "<" at the bottom e.g. where it says r8 < r7
David Giaretta >> (All): You can see the changes 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, our charter says we will have a CCSDS Red Book by October 2008.  Is that still a firm deadline?  If so, what must we do to meet it?  If not not what would the new deadline be?
David Giaretta >> (All): Gee Bruce - the draft Red Book is what we call a White Book - and we can have one of those any time by taking a snap shot of the Wiki
David Giaretta >> (All): The October date is the Berlin meeting
David Giaretta >> (All): The REAL deadline is Spring 2009 when I believe we should be able to submit something to ISO for review
David Giaretta >> (All): As my email mentioned I hope to be able to arrange a face-to-face meeting before then.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I thought that next stage (white book) had to be available to a wider audience for comment/criticism in prep afor the ISO version
David Giaretta >> (All): If you remember we made dramatic progress at the TRAC face-to-face
David Giaretta >> (All): No the White Book is for Working Group review
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have "ached" for a face-to-face to make similar progress
Marie Waltz >> (All): Wow Ached!
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - I have some money from PARSE.Insight!!!
JohnGarrett >> (All): As far as CCSDS is concerned, a White Book is only for Working Group Review.  Our archiving groups have made them widely available, but that is what the wiki does also.
David Giaretta >> (All): I was going to raise the issue of dates and place for such a face-too-face meeting shortly
David Giaretta >> (All): ...and talk about it at NARA and also at Berlin
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Is there potential for a face-to-face in DC as a somewhat central location?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Of course, Iceland is probably geographically central...
Marie Waltz >> (All): Awesome
David Giaretta >> (All): I was assuming it would be somewhere in the US - to minimise travel. DisneyWorld may be cheap in Feb!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Its never cheap.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Chicago is cheap in February!
Marie Waltz >> (All): We can have it at CRL if you want, but it is cold
Helen Tibbo >> (All): That's why it is cheap!
David Giaretta >> (All): I'm open for suggestions - probably does not make much difference to travel from Europe
David Giaretta >> (All): However I wanted to get this in people's diaries - but we need to select dates and place. 
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I am pretty booked in Nov/Dec
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Oh, Marie, tell the truth!
Marie Waltz >> (All): It isn't THAT bad
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Much of January is free for me.  Mark probably can get space in DC or College Park NARA sites.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Charleston, SC might be nice, but DC probably has the easiest air connections
Helen Tibbo >> (All): We're small enough that we could meet in nice, interesting places but they are often hard to travel to.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): That's not very green!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, if you choose the editor you can control their effort better.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): That's good
David Giaretta >> (All): With luck all these things will come together!
David Giaretta >> (All): So.....
David Giaretta >> (All): Glossary
David Giaretta >> (All): My worry is that we've made some definitions but have not really used them in the text
David Giaretta >> (All): We should only make definitions where they make useful distinctions - and I'm not sure we've reached that point.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remembering we also need to discuss relations between producer-provider-depositor-submitter, and preservation policy-access policy
David Giaretta >> (All): That's true - as long as there IS some meaningful distinction that we need to make
JohnGarrett >> (All): I thnk the definitions will be useful for us even if ultimately we don't use them in the standard.  We keep getting sidetracked about the definitions.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): We were on to Preservation Policy I think
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we get the definitions down, maybe we can make progress again reviewing the actual requirements.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Those differences can be significant to the repository and to establishing provenance and thus data reliability.
JohnGarrett >> (All): It is easy to drop defiinitions if we don't include them in the text.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - at the moment we are quite loose in using "plans and policies"
David Giaretta >> (All): By analogy with what we did before we should add "consistent with the Preservation Strategic Plan" to the end of the definition of Pres.Pol.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia has  reminded us of other inconsistencies - producer-provider-depositor-submitter, and preservation policy-access policy.  I would add consumer-user
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think weīve finished with consumer-user. am i wrong?
David Giaretta >> (All): I'm not sure these are inconsistencies - just distinctions we have not made - do we need them? OK there is a real difference between "preservation policy" and "access policy" but they are so different as not to actually be confused.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the questions is: is access policy included in preservation policy?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Did we agree that a repository can have a preservation policy that does not include access?  Not wise but acceptable.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK for a dark archive - but then it has a policy of no access
Helen Tibbo >> (All): While I think this sort of discussion is very valuable, how about we go through the best text we have at this point and highlight any content terms that could be unclear. If two of us did this for each section we could have a thorough list for each section then go through this systematically. I have the uneasy feeling that we are only catching part of the important terms.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so, what about change the word preservation to maintenance (sorry i donīt know if i choose the better word...)
David Giaretta >> (All): Arghhhhh
BruceAmbacher >> (All): agreed.  But the access policy for an open archives should be separate from their preservation policy.  They clearly should be harmonious.
JohnGarrett >> (All): No I'd very much like to keep preservation
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - keep preservation
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I do not like maintenance - too short term
KatiaThomaz >> (All): maintenance policy
BruceAmbacher >> (All): nope
David Giaretta >> (All): Helen - I agree - I went through the text and proposed some changes where we used the perms Plans and Policies. Could someone review those proposals in the light of our definitions.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): TRAC worked long and hard to get us where we are.  Maintenance seems to be going backward.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think access is always required.  If not, we can't maintain information, we can only preserve bits.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): in my point of view, preservation includes access
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, can't you envision a dark archive that keeps it data compatible with current access protocols even though it is dark?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, but access does not include preservation.  It is just providing current access with no long-term commitment.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): a dark archive has a very strong access policy
BruceAmbacher >> (All): but its "access" policy is separate from its "preservation" policy
JohnGarrett >> (All): I guess I get caught up in OAIS definition that updating a protocol would effectively be an access and re-ingest
David Giaretta >> (All): There is something in the OAIS list of responsibilities "Make the preserved information available to the Designated Community" but I don't think that implies Open Access
David Giaretta >> (All): So clearly use and usability are tied into preservation - but that does not exclude a "dark" period
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes, Bruce. access doesnīt include preservation
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would see the need for an access policy that said "no access outside the archive is allowed (until ...)"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree
JohnGarrett >> (All): Just because access is extremely limited doesn't mean there is no access policy.
David Giaretta >> (All): John - yes - an Access Policy could say "no access for 200 years"
JohnGarrett >> (All): right
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so, an archive always has an access policy
BruceAmbacher >> (All): So we agree access is separate from preservation and both must be defined
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think so
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
Marie Waltz >> (All): yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes, and preservation includes access...
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree again
David Giaretta >> (All): We have a placeholder for Access Policy in the candidate terms
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Not if we just agreed they are separate and co-equal
David Giaretta >> (All): No co-equal
KatiaThomaz >> (All): not equal one is greater than the other
David Giaretta >> (All): We can just add "The Preservation Policy includes an Access Policy" in the glossary
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree separate, but not co-equal.  I think preservation needs to be concerned with access, and maybe vice-versa.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think both type of policies could reference the other.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Preservation is the larger goal, mandate and need but access is NOT subsumed within preservation.  IT is separate and must be developed separately.  Preservation procedures could be very different from those needed to provide access at any point in time.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce so you would say that the Pres.Pol. does NOT need an Access Policy?
David Giaretta >> (All): There may be a distinction between access by the Designated Community and others users
David Giaretta >> (All): ...because of the OAIS responsibility
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i suggest taking a look at OAIS RM
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree that preservation is a separate issue from access.  But if we are discussing preservation of information, that would entail being able to access and understand the information, so there is a relationship there.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Philosophically yes.  But both are needed for an OAIS archives.  Preservation procedures may be different from those used to provide access - whenever the data is open for access.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think they are separate but would argue that without access there is no preservation.
David Giaretta >> (All): By the way, in the OAIS update - whjich will be available in January we say "Make the preserved information available to the Designated Community and enable the information to be disseminated as copies of, or as traceable to, the original submitted Data Object., with evidence supporting its Authenticity."
David Giaretta >> (All): .... there were lots of comments about Authenticity in OAIS!!!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): maintenance procedures...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen, No.  Have you ever seen the CIA charter?  Virtually no one has or ever will but it is still being preserved.
David Giaretta >> (All): But the CIA Designated Community presumably has seen it
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, what do you mean by maintenance procedures?  I picture routine maintenance on hardware and software
KatiaThomaz >> (All): in my point of view preservation has two big parts: maintenance and access procedures
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, true, but on the basis of the access policy, not the preservation policy.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): OK, Bruce, no one has to see it but there needs to be the ability to see/retrieve it.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, what in "maintenance" is not expressed in "preservation?"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i would let the word preservation only for the whole thing, do you understand me?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, so you would have a broad preservation policy and your "maintenance" is equilavent to "conservation" in the paper world?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): as i said i donīt know if i chose the better word... could be keeping..
KatiaThomaz >> (All): an archive has some procedures to keep the information in the storage and some procedures to give access...
David Giaretta >> (All): I would think that Pres.Pol. contains an Access Policy for the Designated Community - as part of the preservation process. BUT there may be an Access Policy for general users which is outside the remit of OAIS and also this standard.
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia - I think the concern is that preservation is more than just keeping and accessing - it requires a more active process to ensure understandability and usability
David Giaretta >> (All): "Maintain" could be mistaken for just "keep running"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree with you, david
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, OAIS and TRAC use preservation policies to express your storage and maintenance and access policies to express your access.  Can you work within those definitions?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): this is the reason for not using preservation in this case...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes, bruce. this is my point...
David Giaretta >> (All): So ... definitions. Pres.Pol - add "The Preservation Policy is consistent with the Preservation Strategic Plan and has, as part of it an Access Policy"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): preservation policies express storage and maintenance and access policies
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, I'm not sure I fully understand your position..  I view the preservation policies definition in the glossary as being comprehensive.  The standard also lays out the path to specific implementation through mission, strategic plans, implementation actions that would allow an archives to fully flesh out its mandate and intentions.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): you are right. my poor English confuses you...
David Giaretta >> (All): The Access Policy - add "The Access Policy may distinguish between different types of access rights, for example between system administrators, Designated Communities and general users"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, Are you "required" or "accustomed" to using maintenance/  I agree with David that it has a very immediate, short-term connotation.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no my point is: preservation includes access
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I have to go folks!
David Giaretta >> (All): Do my proposed text additions satify these concerns?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): if we donīt understand this way, i propose change the word...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, We differ on that. 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so, itīs ok.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, I agree with your changes
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia, I think we all agreed on consistency with OAIS
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
David Giaretta >> (All): Any other thoughts on those changes? I'd like to change the WIki if possible - then review next time
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, it is noy ok - we all must reach consensus and agree with the definitions and meanings
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok, Bruce. thanks.
Marie Waltz >> (All): The changes are fine with me, but I want to understand Katia's objections better than I do. 
David Giaretta >> (All): Looks like good enough agreement - I'll make the changes to the Glossary
JohnGarrett >> (All): Very good.  Thanks, David
JohnGarrett >> (All): See you all next week. 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bye John.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye all
KatiaThomaz >> (All): have a nice week. thanks and bye.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Bye
Marie Waltz >> (All): The meeting is over

-- SimonLambert - 22 Sep 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-09-22 - 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