Notes from Megameeting 3rd November 2008


BarbaraSierman Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands
BruceAmbacher UM
CandidaFenton HATII, U Glasgow
HelenTibbo UNC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RiccardoFerrante Smithsonian Institution Archives
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University

Progress made: Sections B4.3, B4.4 and B4.5 of the working document were discussed and revisions were agreed.


  • DavidGiaretta to give more explanation of what was decided in Berlin, and to post the timeline that was drafted there.
  • Someone (who?) to update the glossary to incorporate the revised candidate terms.

Next meeting: Continue into section B5. May also need to revisit and clarify B4.2.

BruceAmbacher >> (All): Where are we starting today?  Has anyone heard from
David or Simon for today?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello everyone.
Marie W >> (All): David isn't coming, no Internet in Budapest
KatiaThomaz >> (All): iŽve just received his message
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.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, will you herd the cats today?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I just put up the action items from last week's 
meeting. Unfortunately we need David for most of them.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We can continue with looking at the items in the text. I 
think we were working on B.4.2.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David has posted a beginning look at the auditor 
requirements at:
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we want to discuss the auditor requirements?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Not now.  I think we need to finish the document review. 
 It does not appear that anything from last week was added/changed in the text 
of B4.2 - right?
Mark Conrad >> (All): That is how it appears to me. Should we skip to the next 
item and come back to this one once it has been revised?
Marie W >> (All): Sounds fine to me
RobertDowns >> (All): On 4.3, everyone's comments appear to be crossed out. Were 
they addressed?
Mark Conrad >> (All): It looks like there are two comments that still need to be 
addressed on B.4.4.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I believe we finished B. 4.3.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): In the discussion part it says that a repository should 
not delete AIPs at any time. I think there will be situations where a repository 
should delete AIPs for example if a producer wants to retract all his 
submissions to the repositories.
RobertDowns >> (All): The repository should be able to follow its procedures to 
retract objects, if necessary.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, I do not see that in the discussion. Where is it?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): I was not able to add it on the wiki,
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Sorry Mark, discussion 4.3
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we doing 4.3 or 4.4?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, It says, "One approach to this requirement" This 
is not mandatory.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce,
Mark Conrad >> (All): I thought we had moved to 4.4, but Barbara was raising a 
point about 4.3.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I thought we were on 4.4 as well.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Sorry!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we keeping non-mandatory aspects of requirements?  I 
can accept it as part of the Discussion section, as that is non-binding 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Non-mandatory aspects are only supposed to show up in the 
discussion or the examples sections of each item.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, Have we addressed your concern?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Yes, if it non mandatory
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. On to 4.4?
Mark Conrad >> (All): It looks like the next comment to be addressed is mine. 
John thinks we should turn this into a separate requirement. What do you think?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Given the item at B.2.12, do we need this sentence pair 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.12 and B4.4 appear to deal at different levels - 
overall holdings v. individual AIPs.  I can accept keeping both or eliminating 
the sentence pair here but I do not see them inconflict and only slightly 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should they be a separate requirement?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): As the log is also mentioned in the Example of ways 
etc. I think those sentences can be deleted here
Mark Conrad >> (All): In the examples section the requirement is not mandatory.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The two sentences have a stronger link to B2.12.  They 
can be eliminated here.  There may be a need to reinforce B2.12 with this 
sentence pair.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we move the sentence pair to B.2.12?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I do not see the need but will accept it if someone 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone else have a suggestion?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): b2 Ingest: creation of the AIP; b4 Archival storage & 
preservation/maintenance of AIPs
KatiaThomaz >> (All): just to remember
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, good point. Should we just leave the sentences here 
and move on?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
RiccFerrante >> (All): ok
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): So Mark and John's comments will be strike through and 
that ends 4.4.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, leave them here. One covers ingest and the other 
ongoing preservation.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Done! I would accept John's last comment for B.4.4.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
RobertDowns >> (All): ok with me
RiccFerrante >> (All): no objections
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): Great! On to B.4.5.?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): 4.5 looks clean with no comments.
Mark Conrad >> (All): OOOPS! There are two more comments on B. 4.4.
Mark Conrad >> (All): How do we want to address David's comment?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The second sentence in Supporting Text is: This is 
necessary in order to protect the integrity of the archival objects over time.  
Is this sufficient?  It is for me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): It is for me. Especially given the sentence above it. I am 
not sure how you are going to audit this requirement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So do we strike through David's comment?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes
Helen Tibbo >> (All): It's fine by me as 4.5 talks about keeping a record of 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): does integrity refer only to information content?
RiccFerrante >> (All): Yes, strikethrough. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): The integrity checks are on the AIPs and the repository as 
a whole.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In this instance I think so because there could have 
been a basic structural change from SIP to AIP. So we can only check on the AIP 
as it is being maintained.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so fixity changes every time you change provenance
Mark Conrad >> (All): Unless you are storing the provenence outside of the AIP. 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): form OAIS RM point of view Fixity Information: The 
information which documents the authentication mechanisms and provides 
authentication keys to ensure that the Content Information object has not been 
altered in an undocumented manner.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So you want separate integrity checks for the Content 
Information inside the AIP? Dependnig on how the AIPS are created this may not 
be possible.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no, i am only understanding things
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok. fixity refers to AIP as a whole.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So we strike through David's comment?
RiccFerrante >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie W >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
BarbaraSierman >> (All): yes
candida fenton >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Then we have a comment from Katia.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): trac only refers to integrity and doesnŽt mention 
readability and interpretability
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia asks whether interpretability and readability  
should be mentioned.  Are they assumed parts of AIP integrity?  If so, they do 
not need to be mentioned.; if not they need to be mentioned
Mark Conrad >> (All): Isn't this covered by B.4.3.?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Faithfully reflects the content information?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): right.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So can we strike through this comment?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes.  These requirements are collective, not mutually 
RiccFerrante >> (All): ok
Marie W >> (All): Yes
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
Helen R Tibbo >> (All): I think it is in 4.3.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, is this ok with you?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am not sure
KatiaThomaz >> (All): 4.3 is worried about delete an AIP
Mark Conrad >> (All): I don't see it that way. The first sentence of the 
supporting text reads, "The repository must be able to demonstrate that the AIPs 
faithfully reflect what was captured during ingest and that any subsequent or 
future planned transformations will continue to preserve that aspect of the 
repository's holdings."
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the thing is that readability and interpretability change 
along the time
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The purpose of technology watch and preservation 
planning is to keep AIPs readable and interpretable.  This is a basic goal of an 
RiccFerrante >> (All): From B3.2 - "The repository must show that it has some 
active mechanism to ensure that the preserved information remains understandable 
and usable by the designated community(ies). " Together with B4.3, I am 
comfortable striking the comment.
Helen R Tibbo >> (All): Indeed, if we want future generations to be able to 
understand content, changes to the metadata describing that content will be 
necessary. I know we talk about preserving understandability somewhere in here. 
This is different from strict "readability" of files.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): and ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sorry.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): and what about Designated Community:?
Mark Conrad >> (All): See Ricc's comment about B.3.2.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): iŽll see
BruceAmbacher >> (All): 4.2 keeps this focused on the designated community as 
does the overall theme of the standard
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Have we addressed your concerns?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): 4.5 has no issues so we can move to 5.1
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok we will strike the comment and move on.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would vote for striking both of David's comments.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): His second comment may have some merit since the 
preservation aspect is not clear.  This reads more like a discovery (DIP) issue 
as written.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Scratch that argument.  Section 5 deals with information 
management, not preservation.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi,  Just slipping in here for the last few minutes.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, exactly.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I second striking both of David's issues
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections?
RiccFerrante >> (All): none
RobertDowns >> (All): Fine with me
Helen R Tibbo >> (All): none
KatiaThomaz >> (All): none
Marie W >> (All): OK
candida fenton >> (All): none
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make the changes that we discussed today and 
forward the chat to Simon for posting. For next time we can hopefully get David 
to address the action items from the previous meeting and keep going with B.5.

-- SimonLambert - 05 Nov 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-11-05 - 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