Notes from Megameeting 29th September 2008


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

Progress made: Discussion of the glossary terms continued, particularly the relationship between and need for access policies and preservation policies.


  • MarkConrad to propose some modifications to the candidate definitions related to preservation and send them to the mailing list.

The next meeting will be in two weeks.

Marie Waltz >> (All): Hi all
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Hello to all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello!
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes I can
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Iresponded but had the volume too low.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok.
Simon Lambert >> (All): I can hear the speech
Mark Conrad >> (All): What's on the agenda for today? I saw the post from David saying he
would not be joining us today.
Simon Lambert >> (All): Did we finish the glossary?
Marie Waltz >> (All): We haven't finished the glossary.
Simon Lambert >> (All): I think we agreed on the relation of access policy to preservation
Mark Conrad >> (All): I was reading over last weeks chat. It appears that there was some
kind of disagreement at the end of the meeting on wording for one of the definitions. Katia
was raising some objections. Does anyone know what those objections were?
Simon Lambert >> (All): Preservation / maintenance / access, I think
Marie Waltz >> (All): As I recall, she had some issues with using "preservation" instead of
maintenance, but I wasn't sure if it was a language issues or a definition issue
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Agreed.  But maintenance does not convey as much activity on
our goal of a certified archives as preservation does.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am waiting for the chat from last week to load in edit mode. In the
standard view the text does not wrap on my screen so I can't read everything that everyone said.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We definitely need Katia present to continue that discussion.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Since Katia is not here, how would yousuggest we proceed?
RobertDowns >> (All): Were there any other definitions that have not been resolved?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi All, Sorry I don't have a mike today
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we want to wait to do definitions, should we start working our way
through the checklist items again.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi all
Marie Waltz >> (All): Hi Katia
Mark Conrad >> (All): In reading the definitions in the glossary as they currently are written,
the relationships between the definitions are not clear.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am here now
Mark Conrad >> (All): Welcome Katia.
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): thanks Mark
KatiaThomaz >> (All): preservation policy is ok for me. my first  point was if access policy is
included in preservation policy
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is access part of preservation policy? Certainly one has to determine
what types of access the repository will support to ensure that the preservation approach taken
will allow that type of access.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I operate on the premise it is not included but closely related.  A
repository's preservation policy does not have to include access but that policy should not
preclude or diminish an access policy.  Is that an acceptable distinction?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bruce, read the glossary
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Who slipped that view in?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, The definition of access policy in the glossary seems to be
concerned with access controls. I do not believe that those controls necessarily need to be
in a preservation policy.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): wait a minute, iŽll read access policy now
JohnGarrett >> (All): I do think that preservation needs to be concerned with controlling
access to the data.  If access is not controlled anybody could change it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed. You only want authorized personnel making changes to the
repository or its contents. I could list that under Access control, Security, Preservation, etc.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I fear we are trying to tie too many things up in a single policy.
Just as in the text we need to have multiple policies showing the inter-connectness but
stand-alone nature of each - preservation, access, storage, security, etc.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Sorry to be late. Too many meetings!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am reading last meeting notes. i would think we agreed that preservation
policies do express storage and maintenance and access policies
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am confused now...
Mark Conrad >> (All): From InterPARES 1 Preserve Electronic Records: A1, Manage the
Preservation FunctionOperating under the control of Archival and Institutional requirements
and in light ofknowledge of the State of the Art of Information Technology, preservation is
managed byproducing a comprehensive preservation framework consisting of sets of
preservationstrategies and preservation action plans, each linked to a specific body of
electronicrecords selected for preservation, along with the technological infrastructure
andpreservation methods needed to implement the action plans.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I like the IDEF models from the InterPARES Task Force because
they show the interrelatedness of the various policies that impact preservation. This is also
the closest that I have ever seen anyone come to modeling the way we actually preserve
electronic records at NARA.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, based on this, should the glossary definitions be modified?
JohnGarrett >> (All): What are the definitions we are now proposing?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, I don't know. We need to decide on a framework of how we lay
out the requirements for a trusted repository and use that framework consistently. What we
have discovered is that the terms preseravtion policy, plans, etc. have not benn consistently
used in the TRAC document.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, See the Glossary on the wiki.
Mark Conrad >> (All): There are candidate Glossary terms at the top of the page.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, I was confused. I thought new ones were being proposed.  I'm OK
with the ones currently in the glossary.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): This raises a bigger question for me. Was TRAC written to be consistent
with the InterPARES preservation model? 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The TRAC team did not intentionally model on InterPARES.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): OAIS RM porposes: ingest, archival storage, data management, access,
administration, and preservation planning functions
Mark Conrad >> (All): No. It was supposed to be consistent with OAIS. The InterPARES 1
Preservation Task Force work was also supposed to be consistent with TRAC, but the two
documents were developed independently.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry. InterPARES was supposed to be consistent with OAIS.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Mark, that was my understanding. So, do we think TRAC and InterPARES
are far off and how does this impact the development/use of definitions of terms? 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Is the question still whether Preservation Policy contains (probably by
reference) Access policy?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I don't think we necessarily need to imitate InterPARES. We do need
to decide how we are going to frame the issues in the ISO document and make sure we are
consistent with that framework. Bruce's earlier question about the interrelatedness of various
policies and how we represent those relationships in the ISO document is part of the question
of how do we frame this document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In TRAC we tried to create co-equal but independent definitions to
increase the latitude of complying repositories to implement various features at their own pace.
I do think we need to do that here.  This discussion reminds me of when we tried to pack everyting
into a single requirement when multiple criteria were better suited (and in some cases overlooked).
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree, Bruce. I think it would be better to have separate definitions and
discussions of Access policies, plans, etc. and not require them to be part of the Preservation
policy, plans, etc.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bruce do you have a problem with the Preservation Policy including a
provision requiring that the Archives consistently follow the Access Policy?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, No.  That is different from indicating that access policy is PART
of preservation policy.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, I would say that the Access policy and the Preservation policy need
to be consistent - that is, not at odds with one another.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): what if  we only use preservation policy and forget access policy
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would not say that the preservation policy should "follow" the access
policy or vice versa.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I tend to think of access in broad terms and access controls in narrow,
system-specific terms.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, we need policy statements on both.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): why?
Mark Conrad >> (All): If we strike Access policy from the definition of preservation policy and
make the relationships between the different levels of preservation more explicit, I would accept them.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): we also need storage policies, security policies and so on ...
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think the separate concepts of Access Policy and Preservation policy are
BruceAmbacher >> (All): For centuries archives have been about Preservation and Use.  We
need policies that express bothof these core commitments.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So lets finish defining the levels of access policies and then task someone
with making sure we consistently apply those terms throughout the document.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry. Preservation policies.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): We need policies on both and they need to refer to each other and be
JohnGarrett >> (All): It's OK with me if we no longer include Access Policy as "part of" Preservation
Policy and say the Preservation Policy is "cognizant of" the Access Policy of the Archive and
handles preservation issues appropriately 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed. Let's finish the preservation definitions.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): not agreed, but i accept the majorities...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remember OAIS tried not using specific community terms
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would suggest striking the definition of Access Policy as it is currently written
in the candidate terms list in the glossary. I believe it needs reworking and that we should concentrate
on the preservation definitions first. Does anyone object?
Marie Waltz >> (All): I agree
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we just leave it until after we finish preservation than address it?
Something in it may survive.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't see any problem with keeping Access Policy definition while we work
on Preservation Policy definiton
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): all right
Mark Conrad >> (All): For Preservation policy I would strike the phrase, and has, as part of it an
Access Policy.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Would that eliminate all reference to access policy in preservation policy?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would like to put some kind of limit on how long we work on these definitions.
I think we will start to have real problems with support for this document if we don't make some better
progress towards completing a draft document.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I agree
KatiaThomaz >> (All): if we keep access policy i donŽt agree...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, Why?
Mark Conrad >> (All): If we can't agree on how we define terms amongst ourselves how are we going
to produce a document that anyone else can understand and use consistently?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Rather than striking the phrase I would change it to say that it is aware of the
Access Policy and makes preservation decisions consistent with it.
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we can't get something we can agree on there shouldn't be a standard.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i tried to explain you, but not succeed...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): How about: "Preservation Policy is consistent with the Preservation Strategic
Plan and the Access Policy"
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think that is acceptable as a way to move forward.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Does that need to be in the definition or is that just a statement about the
relationship between the access and preservation policies, plans etc? Are we going to mention all of
the other policies in the definitions of tgose policies as well?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, this applies to your suggestion as well.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): To answer Katia's question above, it is our job to make really clear definitions
and relationships so that people will understand them. Of course, we know there will be variations in
understanding and application.This is true with all standards and there will be variation in auditing
and certification as well.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Personally, I'd like to see the relationship in the definition.  I thought we had
agreed that we were going to try to show the relationship/hierarchy of several things in the definitions.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We have been engaged in discussion for two or more weeks about the
relationship of preservation and access.  I let it stand because it seems so important to everyone.
I can  delete it.  
Mark Conrad >> (All): "If we can't get something we can agree on there shouldn't be a standard."
Exactly. That is why it is important to define these terms first so that we can use them consistently
and understandably.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): never mind, iŽll accept the majority...
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I thought that some people thought we needed to establish the hierarchy
and make the definitions consistent with that before we could proceed on reviewing checklist items.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I agree with Helen about the need to develop a standard that allows
repositories to implement it with some latitude for their communities and circumstances.  The audit
process will hold them up to a more immutable interpretation of the criteria.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Are you going to include the relationships to security, ingest, access,
etc policies in all of the definitions of all of the differnt types of policies?
Mark Conrad >> (All): We were working on establishing a consistent hierarchy within the various
preservation policies, plans, etc - not across different types of policies.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think if some policies types are part of another policy they could be included
in the definition.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): included or referenced?
Mark Conrad >> (All): All policies are related to all other policies. How are you defining "are part of"?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think one policy can demand the creation of another but each policy is a
separate thing so one should reference the other
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will propose some modifications to the candidate definitions related to
preservation and send them to the mailing list. I would suggest that we meet again in two weeks
time as many of us will be involved in the Partnerships in Innovation Conference next week.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think references can either include something as part of the referencing
document or could just mention that there is a relationship. I think it is an implementation sometimes
whether an inclusion reference is made or something is actually physically included in the doucment.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, ok.  See you next week in College Park
Marie Waltz >> (All): That's fine
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok. bye and have a nice week.
JohnGarrett >> (All): In two week, we'll be at the face-to-face CCSDS meeting in Berlin.  We hope
to be able to have a megameeting as part of that.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Talk to you then.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, Can you post the chat to the wiki?
Simon Lambert >> (All): Yes sure
JohnGarrett >> (All): We might just want those who can to touch base next week before we head
off to the CCSDS meeting
Simon Lambert >> (All): Who of us will be at the meeting in \Berlin?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, Thank you very much.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK bye all have a good week or two
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will not be in Berlin.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I will not be in Berlin but could talk next week.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I haven't seen a list yet
Marie Waltz >> (All): Not in Berlin, can talk next week
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bye.
Simon Lambert >> (All): Bye

-- SimonLambert - 29 Sep 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-09-29 - 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