Notes from Megameeting 27th October 2008


BruceAmbacher UM
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University

JohnGarrett >> (All): Good Morning, all.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello!
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Good to have Mark and John back with us
Mark Conrad >> (All): I just skimmed the minutes from the meetings I missed. Sounds like some major decisions have been made over the last few weeks.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Well, thank you.  Been traveling and on planes for the last couple meetings.  Actually still traveling, but sitting at the hotel today.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Largely at CCSDS in Berlin
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We really do need to hear from someone at that meeting about the decisions, the background, the workplan, etc.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, the CCSDS management (and ISO) is pushing all the CCSDS WGs to set up timelines.  We also made some progress on the Auditor Guidelines which we decided on 6 months ago at the CCSDS meeting.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'll be glad to give you my impressions of whatever we did at the meeting.  Any particular questions?
RobertDowns >> (All): An overview would be helpful for identifying questions.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I do not recall any discussion here of the auditor criteria
Mark Conrad >> (All): The minutes from the face-to-face in Berlin are confusing at best. I couldn't even tell what documents they were referring to.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'm not sure that we have discussed the Auditor Criteria here before.  I would have thought we did a bit, but I think that document has been in the plans since near the beginning.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is it to be aprt of what we work on or totally separate?
JohnGarrett >> (All): The plan is to base the structure of the document on other ISO auditor guidelines.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We will of course need to change out the tables that give the actual criteria.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is the base document available or only through ISO?  If the latter can we get David to acquire and make available?
JohnGarrett >> (All): We're hoping that we can identify criteria that are meaningful and then have some archiving programs like U of MD provide programming that meets those criteria.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Are you talking about criteria in the document that we have been working on or in this new document based on an existing ISO standard?
JohnGarrett >> (All): The base document is available through ISO, and I've taken a pretty quick mostly mindless pass at converting it to our needs. E.g. globally changing information security to digital preservation, etc.  I will post that if it hasn't already been posted here.
JohnGarrett >> (All): The base document for all auditor is ISO 17021 I think and then 20006 adds on a layer of information security.  We used 20006 and will layer on the digital preservation criteria.
Mark Conrad >> (All): "We used 20006 and will layer on the digital preservation criteria" WHAT DIGITAL CRITERIA ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, Do you know if there are auditors doing this for the base and/or 2006 info sec additions?  Those documents ahve not been posted or wmentioned to my knowledge
JohnGarrett >> (All): We will be working on the auditor guidelines here, probably after, but maybe in parallel to finishing the TRAC redo.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): "Here" is where - Goddard?
JohnGarrett >> (All): The actual criteria need to be determined by us.  
Mark Conrad >> (All): Who is "us"?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Here is this virtual RAC meeting or the upcoming face-to-face that will be held probably in DC area in Jan or Feb.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Us is the RAC WG, primarily the core group of the RAC WG that meets in the megameetings.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Are the folks that made all of these decisions that are not part of the core group of the RAC WG that meets in the megameetings going to begin participating and help carry out these decisions?
JohnGarrett >> (All): The other thing that we've discussed earlier and trying to include in the timeline is to do some test audits using the our audit document starting this Spring.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I hope everyone has been to the face-to-face site and indicated their preferences so the meeting can get scheduled.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We may get a couple new "core" people, but David, Simon and I were there.  Don Sawyer has been involved here sometimes.  Our French supporters may or may not participate based on fundign for them.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is the timeline posted somewhere where we can see it?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I thought David updated it on the front page of the wiki.  If not, we will get it updated there soon.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I just looked and it didn't jump out at me.  We will get it posted
JohnGarrett >> (All): One of the likely requirement for lead auditors was that the lead auditor had participated in previous audits.  That is one reason we wanted to get some test audits underway.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We wanted the core group here to run a few audits so we could build up some people who could lead future audits and train new auditors in proper way to run a digital preservation audit.
RobertDowns >> (All): That seems like a good approach.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We figured who better than us to understand how the audit criteria we are discussing here were intended to be interpreted.  It will also give us good feedback about where what we wrote is unclear and we can feed it back into the document. 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The first step, which has been dragging, is completing the certification standard.  Can we do any work on that today?
Marie W >> (All): Have we finished with Robert's definitions?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I've just gotten back and I see that David has had difficulty sending to the RAC mail list.  Have others been having problems?  Did people get Davids message about the Jan/Feb face-to-face
Marie W >> (All): I got it
Mark Conrad >> (All): I got it.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Good.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have always had trouble posting.  Helen and I both tried to post Davis's message and failed.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Do we want to go to definitions then?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Where is the current version of the definitions located?
RobertDowns >> (All): I received Davids message, but have experienced trouble posting messages to the mailing list within the last few weeks.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I am concerned about the European drop out this week.  Is there a holiday or some meeting?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't know what the European schedule was.  I didn't hear of anything.
Marie W >> (All): The last monday in october is a Bank Holiday in the UK
Mark Conrad >> (All): So do we want to try to do some work today or not?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Are we happy with the definitions or can we finalize them in the next 15 minutes?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Where is the current version of the definitions located?
RobertDowns >> (All): The minutes of the Oct 13 megameeting captured the discussion about Mark's proposed changes to the definitions. Here is the summary from the minutes: "The additions to the glossary proposed by MarkConrad were discussed and agreed, with two changes: the replacement of "authorized by" by "approved by", and a new definition of Provider/Submitter - see transcript below for details."
JohnGarrett >> (All): Oh sorry, I guess we have 45 minutes yet
JohnGarrett >> (All): So I guess we should add the definitions to the glossary to keep things in sync.
Mark Conrad >> (All): BTW, these were not really my additions to the glossary. They were Robert's with a few tweaks to reflect the group's discussion. So do we need to discuss provider/submitter or are we done with the glossary?
Marie W >> (All): I think we're done, unless anyone has any additional comments that they didn't get a chance to voice
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. So how do we proceed? Do we just pick up where we left off with comments in Section B and make changes to the text of the items to reflect the new definitions?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sounds like a good approach to me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone remember where we left off?
JohnGarrett >> (All): We were through much of B4 I think.
Marie W >> (All): B4.4 on August 11, I think that was where we left off??
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK. Let's start there.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have B4 up.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, were there any changes to the text in B4 that are not in the online document?
Mark Conrad >> (All): It looks like we didn't finish with B.4.2.
JohnGarrett >> (All): At the Berlin meeting, David captured the sense of any comments on the wiki.
Marie W >> (All): John, I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain further.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Any updates that were suggested in the Berlin meeting will appear as a comment in the wiki page for this document at the location where the update would appear.  I suppose they will show up here as a comment by David.
Marie W >> (All): Oh, OK. Thanks
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Has everyone read B4.2?  One core issue is whether migration should be mentioned specifically.  We seem to agree onbit preservation and on the eed to keep those bits accessible but not on what methodology (migration, emulation) should be used.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think the current suggested update has removed the word migration and that satisfies my comment.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Mark, I think David has suggested some wording.  Does that satisfy your comment?
David Giaretta >> (All): Sorry I'm late - did your clocks not go back?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, I see migrate in the supporting text
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, US clocks go bacj on 11/2.
JohnGarrett >> (All): No, our clocks haven't reset yet/
David Giaretta >> (All): Ah-ha - sorry did not realise.
Marie W >> (All): Its weird they dont' all go back at the same time
David Giaretta >> (All): Can I check that people got the email I sent out yesterday about the Washington meeting
BruceAmbacher >> (All): US Congress stretched to save energy
Marie W >> (All): I go the email,
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I got the email and have registerd preferences
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, you're right.  And that sentence should be changed since migration and re-packaging are different things in OAIS.
Mark Conrad >> (All): In the text of the item it refers to bit-level storage. In the proposed supporting text it says bit-level preservation. By bit level storage/preservation I presume this means preserving all the bits as ingested with no changes?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would think it would mean preservation of the bits of the data object.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, that is how I would read that.  I would prefer standardizing on bit level storage.  I don't think it justifies "preservation."
Mark Conrad >> (All): Since both John and Bruce say they "think" this how they would interpret the term, I would suggest adding a definition to the glossary so that everyone has the same understanding of the term.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Storage may be all that is possible at this time for certain data objects but we should show we do not think it is a full-fledged preservation program unless it includes things in the other criteria kie technology watch, sampling, audit, etc.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, agreed.
David Giaretta >> (All): Just caught up - what Bruce said looks OK 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can folks accept: this change to the supporting text:
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The repository must preserve the AIPs at the bit level or, when necessary,  re-package them. This is necessary in order to ensure that the Content Information of the AIPs can be extracted. 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I deleted reference to migrate.  Left the "methodology" vague on purpose.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, You used preserve instead of store.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Right, if they have a program to keep bits accessible, that could constitute a preservation program.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bruce's proposal is OK with me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Rather than ,"to ensure that the Content Information of the AIPs can be extracted. " I would prefer, "or maintaining Information content in a format acceptable/usable by the designated community."
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - just to check - why mention re-package explicitly, as opposed to the more general migrate or the more more specific refresh?
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Your understanding of the terms migrate and refresh appear to be very different from mine.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, Reading B$.2 and the comments, there is objection to migrate and no mention of emulate.  Can/should we show preference for migrate?
David Giaretta >> (All): Let me check
David Giaretta >> (All): Migrate includes refresh, replicate, repackage and transform
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If "re-package" has too explicit a connotation for some we could just use "present"
RobertDowns >> (All):  I believe that Mark's suggestion for the end of the phrase offers choices for repositories to apply approaches consistent with their preservation strategies.
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, "Migrate includes refresh, replicate, repackage and transform." Where are you getting this definition?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Robert, I like that but do not see it in B4.2
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - from OAIS section 5.1.3
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, I took it from the current text of the item for B.4.2.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, I would all those steps are just that steps of increasing action/difficulty with migration as the end step.
David Giaretta >> (All): Section 5.1.3 is entitled "Migration Types"
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - people do seem to use Migrate when OAIS would indicate Transform
JohnGarrett >> (All): Using transform would work for me.
David Giaretta >> (All): Or migrate if we want to include re-package as a possibility
Mark Conrad >> (All): Whatever term we use, we better put it in the glossary. All of these terms have very different meanings depending on who is using them.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Robert, Mark, I am fine with the revised requirement.  The supporting text appears to be out of sync with that.  We now need to be equally permissive in the supporting text.
David Giaretta >> (All): However I see that Migrate is not in the OAIS glossary! So Mark is right - we should add it explicitly.
RobertDowns >> (All): I also am fine with the revised requirement and agree that the supporting text just needs to be consistent with it.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, we should investigaet sources for a definition rather than just make one up.  IT is such a "loaded" term for many,
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, I am not sure what you mean by out-of-sync.
JohnGarrett >> (All): The only problem is we used a whole section to indicate the diffences in OAIS.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sorry, I'll have to run out now.  Catch you all next week.
Marie W >> (All): bye John
Marie W >> (All): What does the revised version of Bruce's text read now?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, I thought OAIS was our guide but we are not totakky conjoined with it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Action items for next week - more explanation of what was decided in Berlin. Posting of the timeline that was drafted there. Update the glossary to incorporate the revised candidate terms.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What else?
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I put brief notes on the Berlin meeting on the Wiki
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is this acceptable?The repository must preserve the AIPs at the bit level or, when necessary,  rpresent them in a form that ensures that the Content Information of the AIPs is usable by the designated community.
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, We looked at those , but still had many questions. See the beginning of this chat.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, the wiki notes say discussion of B was finished.  Were there any edits made to the text?
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - will look at the chat. The USA will have move back 1 hour by next Monday - is that right?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, Preserve or Store? otherwise it looks ok to me.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - in Berlin we went fairly quickly through the rest of B and put mostly comments - to be reviewed in the MegaMeetings
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, I can go with either here since preservation type actions are required to present them.
Marie W >> (All): With change to store, it is fine with me.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce "rpresent" - is that represent? Not sure that is right.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David present - purposely vague to allow repository to use the techniques it prefers.
David Giaretta >> (All): we could say "repackage or transform" - the other types of migration preserve the bits
Mark Conrad >> (All): Maintain?
Marie W >> (All): yes, maintain
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets pick this up next week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Who is doing what action items?
David Giaretta >> (All): OK pick up next week - synchronised. However I will be in Budapest and not sure of the network links yet.
David Giaretta >> (All): Are actions notes in the chat?
David Giaretta >> (All): sorry "noted"
Mark Conrad >> (All): See you all next week.
Marie W >> (All): bye all
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye all
-- DavidGiaretta - 27 Oct 2008
Topic revision: r1 - 2008-10-27 - DavidGiaretta
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