Attendees:

There was further discussion of the preparations for the face-to-face meeting next February. MarkConrad is waiting until he has a clearer idea of the numbers before booking a meeting room. SimonLambert confirmed that some funding will probably be available for Europeans to attend the meeting, but it could not pay for American participants.

It was agreed that in due course all the sections will be restructured as has been done for B1 and B2 (not yet on wiki but will be done), with sub-requirements made explicit, but the first priority is to finish working through the requirements as they now stand.

Progress continued through section B5.1 and B5.2.

Actions:

• SimonLambert to put restructured sections B1 and B2 on the wiki.
• KatiaThomaz to write something on packaging information and where it should be placed.
• MarkConrad to make changes on wiki as agreed in the discussion.

Mark Conrad >> (All): Good day. Simon, I did a little research and at our
meeting of 28 July 2008 we agreed to replace the text for Section B.2. with 
version 2 of my rewrite of that section. I did not prepare a similar document 
for other parts of Section B.
SimonLambert >> (All): Thanks Mark.  I produced a similar rewrite for B1 but I 
don't think it was discussed.
SimonLambert >> (All): I tried to put your B2 on the wiki earlier today but I 
had a problem with editing.
SimonLambert >> (All): I clicked on "save" and the page just hung up.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have had trouble with editing on the wiki too. Sometimes 
I push the save button and it will take up to 30 minutes for the edits to be 
saved.
SimonLambert >> (All): OK, so it's not just me.  I should ask someone to 
investigate.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think that Barbara was reporting similar problems
Mark Conrad >> (All): Just got an e-mail from David saying that he will not be 
able to join us today.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi alll
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi. In the past, I also have noticed a delay when saving 
on the wiki.
Marie W >> (All): Bruce can't join either and Helen and Ric Ferrante will be 
late
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Hello All,
Marie W >> (All): Hi all\
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello. David did say in his e-mail that he hoped that we 
could have some discussion of the face-to-face meeting in Washington. He did not 
say what specifically he wanted us to discuss about the meeting.
SimonLambert >> (All): Maybe we could start with the actions from last time?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have not made arrangements for a meeting place, yet. I 
was waiting to get a better idea about how many folks will be attending.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have not posted information about hotels in College  
Park yet, either!
SimonLambert >> (All): I just remembered that David did mention that he has some 
software to record the audio, but I don't have access to it yet.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Here are all of the action items:     *  DavidGiaretta to 
send email to the lists confirming the dates of the face-to-face meeting.    
* DavidGiaretta to put up a table to collect requirements for accommodation and 
flights.    * MarkConrad to investigate booking a meeting room at Archives II.   
 * MarkConrad to provide advice on hotels near Archives II.    * DavidGiaretta 
to look at block booking hotels by end of November.    * Everyone to provide 
comments for section B.5.    * DavidGiaretta and SimonLambert to put 
restructured sections A and B2 on the wiki (these were only circulated by email 
previously).    * DavidGiaretta to investigate recording of MegaMeeting audio. 
SimonLambert >> (All): I was saying earlier that I started to put Mark's 
restructured B2 on the wiki but had editing problems.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think David wanted to try to get a single hotel if 
possible for Europeans to make billing easier for him.
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes, that's right.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Simon do you happen to know about how many people David 
was hoping to have at the face-to-face
SimonLambert >> (All): Not sure exactly but I would guess 4-5 from Europe.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I believe David estimated at the last meeting that there 
would be about 20 people all together.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK, that sounds reasonable, but fairly high level
Mark Conrad >> (All): Are there other things that we need to discuss in relation 
to the face-to-face meeting, today?
SimonLambert >> (All): Going back to the restructuring of B1 and B2 ... those 
exist, but what about all the sections?
SimonLambert >> (All): Do we intend to restructure all of A, B and C in the same 
way?
SimonLambert >> (All): Sorry .. I'm jumping ahead
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, We agreed that we would restructure the entire 
document in the manner of B.1. and B.2. To the best of my knowledge no one has 
drafted any other sections or subsections of the document.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we assign sections and have folks begin drafting?
Marie W >> (All): I think that's a good idea
JOhnGarrett >> (All): So the question now would be how to finish this document.  
 I would suggest that we keep working forward and get through reviewing the 
single level text and then assign people to reformat the sections after we 
finish a first review.
SimonLambert >> (All): John - that sounds good to me
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree that we should press forward.
SimonLambert >> (All): So I will put b1 and b2 on the wiki for reference.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok.
SimonLambert >> (All): In separate pages so as not to overwrite the current 
version
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes, that sounds good Simon.  Do we want to keep the 
single level in one document and have another that is the multilevel version? or 
do we just want to start replacing sections?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Answered my question before I type it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am not quite sure how we sort out the mandatory from the 
non-mandatory if we don't use the new template for all requirements.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did everyone make their comments on B.5.?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Was the multi-level version separating into mandatory and 
not?  I thought they were still all mandatory.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The text within each requirement is divided into mandatory 
and non-mandatory requirements.
SimonLambert >> (All): Mark, I don't see that distinction in the restructured 
B2.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Nor do I
Mark Conrad >> (All): Item and supporting text are mandatory. Examples and 
discussion are non-mandatory.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, that is my understanding as well.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK, I agree with that, but that is the same as it is in 
the single level version
KatiaThomaz >> (All): we have many comments on B5.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, What is it that you are calling the single-level 
version? multi-level version?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I'm calling the single level version the version we have 
been working on that is currently on the wiki.  I'm calling the multilevel 
version what has been in email and where the supporting text has separately 
numbered sub-requirments
Mark Conrad >> (All): ok.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So shall we plunge ahead with B.5.?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes
Marie W >> (All): please
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did everyone post their comments? I know Barbara sent hers 
via e-mail.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara's comment on B.5.1. is asking if we should advise 
folks to use a specific metadata standard like Dublin Core under the supporting 
text.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would oppose this because the supporting text is 
supposed to be mandatory.
SimonLambert >> (All): Could be under the discussion
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I don't think that we should specify specific ways to do 
something unless that is the only way we would find acceptable.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes I would add that under discussion section as a good 
practice.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): agreed
Marie W >> (All): I agree we should add it to good practices
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think we decided that we were going to try to use OAIS 
terms if that is what we meant.  So in answer to Mark's comments, I would say 
that we would use Description Information
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok so we put a phrase in the discussion that says Dublin 
Core metada might be one approach to satisfying this requirement.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): YEs
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok for me
Marie W >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Will do.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, but it would be good to encourage other descriptive 
information, such as documentation.
RobertDowns >> (All): As well as DC
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you have a suggested phrase for that?
RobertDowns >> (All): Dublin Core, and other descriptive information, such as 
documentation of the object
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we put this under examples rather than discussion?
RobertDowns >> (All): Under examples seems appropriate
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no
Marie W >> (All): No 
Mark Conrad >> (All): ok. That is what we will do.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John started addressing my comment earlier about 
consistent use of "Descriptive information" I have this same suggestion in 
several places. Would you accept this suggestion in all of the places where I 
have noted it?
Marie W >> (All): Yes, as it is in agreement with OAIS terminology.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK. That knocks out quite a few comments.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Shall we look at B.5.2.?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
Marie W >> (All): Let's move on
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am not sure how to summarize Barbara's first comment for 
B.5.2..
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes,  I'm for substituting AIP as Mark suggests.  We've 
done this in several other locations.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok . Any objections?
Marie W >> (All): AIP is A-OK with me too
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
RobertDowns >> (All): Agreed
Mark Conrad >> (All): What about David's comment? I am not sure I understand 
what he is getting at here.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think the point that was raised in the Berlin meeting 
was that the descriptive information needs to be captured sometimes from the 
Producer at ingest time.
RobertDowns >> (All): B.1 describes requirements for acquiring from producers.
 B5.2 specifies requirements for associating the information received with the 
object 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Doesn't the supporting text in B.5.2. cover this?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): what about B2 either?
Mark Conrad >> (All): That should be B. 5.2. That was a typo in my comment.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think the concern was that there may be some overlap.  I 
personally don't mind if there is some overlap as long as the requirements are 
easy to prove.   I'd rather have overlaps than gaps.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So what do we do about David's comment?
RobertDowns >> (All): We could make that point that associating the descriptive 
information with the object contributes to the creation of the AIP
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Also I think that not all descriptive information may come 
from Producers.  Some may be added by Archives.  So I think it is appropriate to 
have the requirement here.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I noted B1 and B2 deal with PDI and B5 with descriptive 
information
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I don't think we really have to do much with this 
particular comment from David if we think there is a reason to have this as a 
separate requirement.  As Katia notes, this covers something beyond what B1 and 
B2 cover. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert, Your suggested phrase is very close to one that is 
already there in B.1.2.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So do we strike David's comment and move on?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes.
Marie W >> (All): Yes, he'll see what we did in the minutes, and can bring it up 
again (if he needs more clarity) at the next meeting
Mark Conrad >> (All): The next comment is mine under the supporting text. I 
really do think this is a separate requirement.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): In OAIS terms, Descriptive Information is primarily 
information used to get users to the data.  It is not necessarily something that 
is considered part of the preserved information of the AIP
RobertDowns >> (All): We might want to improve the phrase "metadata may not be 
stored with the AIP" to read descriptive information may be referenced within 
the AIP.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): To answer Katia comment, I wouldn't normally think that 
pakaging metadata would necessarily need to be part of Descriptive Information.  
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Not in OAIS terms...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so which requirement includes packaging information?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Does B.2.11. address your concern?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B2.11?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I don´t think so... B2 deals with PDI, do you remember?
Mark Conrad >> (All): The repository must be sure that the AIPs it generates are 
as they are expected to be by checking them against the associated written 
definition for each AIP or class of information
Mark Conrad >> (All): (see B2.1 and B2.2.) and the description of how AIPs are 
constructed from SIPs (see B.2.3.).
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think the packaging information should probably be 
mentioned in B2 probably B2.1 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the document cites clarly PDI and descriptive information 
and never mention packaging information.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): It talks about Content Information and PDI and the 
definition of an AIP probably should talk about how that info is tied together 
with packaging info 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I think packaging information should be considered in B5
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes I agree it doesn't mention Packaging Information 
currently.  Do others think that is where it should be talked about?
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.2.1. doesn't use the words packaging information, but it 
is clearly talking about it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, How are you suggesting we include packaging 
information in B.5.?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remember descriptive information and packaging information 
are more flexible and come out of AIP
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B1 and B2 deals with AIP
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Sorry people, but I must quit now.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Have a nice week and bye.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Can you write something up on packaging information 
and where you think it should be placed for next week?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Logically AIP can be thought of as Content Information + 
PDI.  But when you physically think of AIP you need to include packaging info.  
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I´ll try. bye.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK then we can continue next week.  Good work today people.  Talk to you next week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Thanks, bye>
Marie W >> (All): bye?
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, will you capture that chat?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will make the changes to the wiki that we agreed today.
Marie W >> (All): I forgot to say I won't be at the meeting next week.
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes, I will get the chat

-- SimonLambert - 17 Nov 2008