Notes from Megameeting 15th December 2008


JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RiccardoFerrante Smithsonian Institution Archives
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University

Discussion started on B6.3 but broadened to cover possible overlaps and missing requirements in section B6.


  • MarkConrad to draft new version of B6, taking acount of overlaps and missing requirements, to discuss at next meeting.
  • JohnGarrett to make sure that all of the updates from last week for B5.4 and B6.1 and B6.2 are posted.

Mark Conrad >> (All): I read the chat from last week. It does not look like the 
changes discussed at that meeting have been posted. Is that correct?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi,  just took a quick look and it doesn't look like 
agreements from last week were posted.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, The action items for last week said that you would 
be posting changes. Did you post them?
JohnGarrett >> (All): No, I didn't post them.  Sorry, I didn't read the minutes 
and I didn't know that I had the action.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So where do we start? Has anyone heard from David?
He usually sends an e-mail if he is not going to be able to attend.
Marie Waltz >> (All): They ended with B6.3 last week
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes,  we decided to start fresh on B6.3 this week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The first comment is David's. I am not sure I understand 
his point. This section is on access not preservation.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think david was proposing to delete this item...
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think there was a feeling at one time that we only 
include checklist items that were necessary to ensure the repository preserved 
the data.  But I think we decided that we were auditing the entire functioning 
of the repository and not just the preservation function.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): and i think this is important for preservation
Mark Conrad >> (All): The discussion for B.6.3. seems to talk about multiple 
requirements. The requirement itself is very generic. It could cover almost 
anything. The supporting text does not clarify what is meant by the requirement. 
Not sure how to proceed.
RobertDowns >> (All): The repository should preserve agreements regarding access 
and such agreements should be associated with the data to which they pertain. 
JohnGarrett >> (All): David also has a comment on B6.4 that relates to this
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert, I don't know what the final version of B.6.2. will 
look like, but it seems that at least some of what you are proposing would fall 
under that requirement.
RobertDowns >> (All): Mark, I agree.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): many items are almost the same
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): B6.3 seems to speak to enforcement of the access 
agreements. Preserving the agreements and associating them with the data to 
which they pertain would be a pre-condition for documenting adherence over the 
life of the object.
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): Still, as currently stated B6.3 says nothing about 
maintaining a history of agreements
KatiaThomaz >> (All): it is addressed in B6.2
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): I agree
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am putting together a list of just the requirements from 
B.6. so I can try to see how they relate to one another. Can someone who was 
there last week tell me what the final agreed text was for B.6.1. and B.6.2.?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so, it seems that B6.3 is unnecessary
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): See David's comment under B6.4 Requirement: "-- 
DavidGiaretta at RAC - 15 Oct 2008 - this looks like a more detailed restatement 
of B6.3. Maybe B6.3 should be "you have a policy to stick to deposit agreemnts" 
and B6.4 "you implement those policies" "
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but B6.1 addressed the policy
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): I agree, Katia. I'm inclined to remove B6.3
Mark Conrad >> (All): Here is the current text of requirements 3-10. so we can 
see the big picture.
Mark Conrad >> (All): 3. Repository ensures that agreements applicable to access 
conditions are adhered to. 4. Repository has documented and implemented access 
policies (authorization rules, authentication requirements) consistent with 
deposit agreements for stored objects. 5. Repository access management system 
fully implements access policy. 6. Repository logs all access management 
failures, and staff review inappropriate "access denial" incidents. 7. 
Repository can demonstrate that the process that generates the requested digital 
object(s) (i.e., DIP) is completed in relation to the request. 8. Repository can 
demonstrate that the process that generates the requested digital object(s) 
(i.e., DIP) is correct in relation to the request. 9. Repository demonstrates 
that all access requests result in a response of acceptance or rejection. 10. 
Repository enables the dissemination of authentic copies of the original or 
objects traceable to originals.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): 'look at B6.5!!!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): again "implements access policy"
Mark Conrad >> (All): Are B.6.7 and B.6.8. the same requirement?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can someone who was there last week tell me what the final 
agreed text was for B.6.1. and B.6.2.?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): exactly the same
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): on b6.7 and b6.8, the difference is "is completed" v. 
"is correct"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): you are right
RobertDowns >> (All): B6.1 Accepted David's changes Requirement, Supporting 
Text, and ExamplesUnder Supporting Text: remove extra "to" from "in order for 
users to know" Under Discussion: "The repository may contain restricted 
information. In that case, the repository will have an access policy for that 
data.  However the repository may not be able to make that policy or even the 
existence of the policy known to parties without access to that data."
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): On 6.7 and 6.8 - personally, I wouldn't consider it 
complete until it was correct. Maybe we could combine them using "completed 
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): Which one are we working on?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am trying to get the big picture across all of B.6. to 
see what is covered by each requirement and how they relate to one another.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert, I do not understand what effect adopting David's 
comment has on the text of the B.6.1. requirement. How should B.6.1. now read?
RobertDowns >> (All): Mark, the B.6.1 Requirment should read: Repository 
documents what access and delivery options are available. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Thanks. It looks like that change has already been 
made and David's comment just wasn't struck out.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, Mark, I believe that is the case.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What about B.6.2.? Is the text there already changed to 
reflect last week's discussions?
RobertDowns >> (All): We agreed to remove the last three sentences under the 
B.6.2 Discussion. Those sentences are still there.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. What about the text of the requirement itself?
It looks like David's comment has been addressed.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, Mark the cross-outs in the Requirement in B.6.2 
appear to reflect David's comment. 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi, I just made a couple of the updates in B6.2 from last 
week.  But the save seems to be taking a very long time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The save can take up to 30 minutes if my recent experience 
is any guide.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK,  the requirement itself already had the updates from 
David.  I deleted his comment and the two sentences from the discussion that we 
decided to drop.
RobertDowns >> (All): Great, John!
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have compiled a list of the text of just the 
requirements for B.6. There appears to be some overlap. There also appears to be 
some missing requirements. How about if I draft a new section B.6. and then we 
discuss them at the next meeting? Are we meeting next week?
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): I will not be able to meet until January 5
Marie Waltz >> (All): December 22 is not a holiday for me.
RobertDowns >> (All): I should be able to participate next week.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): by now is ok for me
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. So I will try to put together a draft of B.6.
for next week and we can discuss it then. Is that ok?
Marie Waltz >> (All): I like the idea of a redraft to take out the overlap.
Ricc Ferrante >> (All): thanks, mark
KatiaThomaz >> (All): great, mark
RobertDowns >> (All): Thanks, Mark
Mark Conrad >> (All): Don't thank me until you see what I come up with! :)
KatiaThomaz >> (All): :(
Mark Conrad >> (All): John will you make sure that all of the updates from last 
week for B.5.4. and B.6.1. and B.6.2. are posted?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I'll check that they have been made.

-- SimonLambert - 17 Dec 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-12-17 - 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