Notes from Megameeting 26th January 2009


BruceAmbacher UM
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett GSFC
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
SimonLambert STFC

The meeting began with a discussion of the arrangements for the face-to-face meeting in February. This part of the discussion was partly by audio so the chat transcript does not convey the full content. DavidGiaretta had put an outline agenda on the wiki at WashingtonFaceToFace20090211. It was noted that several attendees will not arrive until later on Wednesday.

SimonLambert confirmed that the current draft guidelines for auditors, edited by JohnGarrett and Simon, is on the wiki. The location is ReqtsForAuditors.

Discussion of the working document continued with section C3.4 (agreed) and then C1.4. C1.4 will be revisited next time.


  • DavidGiaretta and SimonLambert to confirm attendees and send list of names in advance to MarkConrad.
  • MarkConrad to make agreed edits to C3.4.
  • BruceAmbacher, JohnGarrett and HelenTibbo to post their revised sections to the wiki.

SimonLambert >> (All): David probably won't be able to join this time - but he 
has just put a draft agenda for the face to face mtg on the wiki
Mark Conrad >> (All): Has everyone had a chance to look at the draft agenda that 
David posted?
Mark Conrad >> (All): My only comment is that I think it should be 100% metrics 
- especially given the message from Nestor Peccia.
SimonLambert >> (All): I think the idea was to take advantage of anyone who is 
there on Wednesday to do some preparatory work
SimonLambert >> (All): without expecting everyone to be there
Mark Conrad >> (All): Helen, I think we have the room at Archives 2 until 6 pm 
on Wednesday.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, If I could get a final list of attendees to give to the folks
at the guard desk that would be very useful. I just need it by the day before folks start
arriving. I plan to drive into College Park on Tuesday.
SimonLambert >> (All): OK, I'll make sure that the names are confirmed in advance.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Great. Any other logistics issues we need to address?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think we will need a schedule with start/finish times but I imagine
David is working on that
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have the room from 8 am to 6 pm all three days.
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes I think that's right
SimonLambert >> (All): Mark - that would cover the guidelines for auditors
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes it's on the wiki in latest form
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are there any other documents, disaster plans etc we 
want to reference?
Marie Waltz >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, Do you have any specific suggestions?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Helen, What things are you referring to?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Things like the FEMA procedures
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It may be just complicating things.  Perhaps just a 
reminder to contact/consult with disaster recovery authorities
Mark Conrad >> (All): I like that idea better.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think it is better to talk about things in a general way 
that is more relevant to world wide adoption.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Barbara's spreadsheet, the latet version of the document, 
the glossary, perhaps part of OAIS - anything we need to rework the text
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think individual auditors in each country will be able 
to map that general description to typical documents in any location.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): "In the event of a disaster to the repository, the 
repository should contact local and/or national disaster recovery bodies for 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Helen, You want printouts of all that stuff? That would be 
a lot of paper.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): are we going to have access to the wiki in NARA?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Will there be an internet connection?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Consult local and/or national disaster recovery bodies 
when drafting disaster plans and when responding to a disaster.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would change "disaster" to  "wide-spread disaster" in 
Bruce's text. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Helen, Yes and yes.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I like the changes.  I was just getting something out 
there.  What do you think Robert as the drafter?
RobertDowns >> (All): These suggested changes seem appropriate to me.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Me too.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, we also may want/need to contact bodies in a very 
localized disaster - just the repository.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So we add Bruce's sentence to the Discussion section?
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes
RobertDowns >> (All): The Discussion section seems appropriate for Bruce's 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make those changes. Any other comments?
JohnGarrett >> (All): My only thought was if contact was required in all cases
BruceAmbacher >> (All): perhaps add at their discretion or when needed
Mark Conrad >> (All): Instead of "should" "may want"?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Fine with me to add "if needed"
Mark Conrad >> (All): So it would read, "In the event of a disaster at the 
repository, the repository may want to contact local and/or national disaster 
recovery bodies for assistance."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): good
RobertDowns >> (All): That looks better.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Any other comments for C.3.4.?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): no
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I am going to have to leave in about 10 minutes as I have 
another meeting at 12
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
Helen Tibbo >> (All): C.3.4 looks OK to me.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Where to next?  Does anyone know where David posted my 
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK with me
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, What sections were you working on?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): C1.1 to C1.3
JohnGarrett >> (All): I sent my section out on the email list.  Should I post 
them to the wiki or do we want to discuss them first?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce and John, can you post your sections directly into 
the wiki for next time?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I sent them to David because I was not sure where we 
were posting them.   Will do.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I sent out a revised version of B.6. I did not post it to 
the wiki because it is a major rewrite of that section. For the metrics in 
Section C. nothing has been previously posted in the current document. It would 
be helpful to have them in here for discussion.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David wrote me he had posted them.  I will check on that 
since I do not see them
SimonLambert >> (All): I think for major rewrites it is better to circulate them 
by email first to get agreement in principle
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I have been snowed with a grant proposal but will get mine 
(partially done) out to the wiki as well. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Have we discussed C.1.4. through C.1.6., yet?
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
Marie Waltz >> (All): I put those up
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we want to take a look at C.1.4.?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Marie, the disaster you refer to is confined to 
creating/updating all other copies?
Marie Waltz >> (All): It is any kind of a disaster, but would effect the 
updating of the files.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But your concern in C1.4 is the update/synchronization 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce that is the concern in the original TRAC document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Should the examples include some evidence of successful 
changes to all copies and synchronization of all copies?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Marie, Mark, I agree with that.  It may just be because 
we just discussed "big" disasters in C3.4 that any confusion crept in.  I want 
to suggest a little tighter focus on the update/change process.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think we necessarily need to mention a disaster in 
C1.4.  There should be a way to make updates to copies
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone remember, is version control addressed 
somewhere else in the document.
JohnGarrett >> (All): and if the copies can't be updated for some reason, 
regardless of why, it needs to be tracked until the update is made
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Perhaps: "The repository should have procedures in place 
in the event that all copies are not fully updated and synchronized."
Mark Conrad >> (All): In OAIS wouldn't a change in an object lead to the 
creation of a new object?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes if it has to be re-ingested.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I am going to have to run.  Talk with you all next week.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But is it full version control as in DoD 5015.2?  I lean 
that way.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, an updated object becomes a new archival object in 
Mark Conrad >> (All): I suggest that we pick this up next week. John, Bruce, and 
Helen, if you could post your rewrites to the wiki that would be good. I will 
make the changes we suggested to C.3.4. today.
JohnGarrett >> (All): So I guess we should be saying copies of the new object 
should be created and the old object should be handled in accordance with the 
versioning policy for that object. So it may be kept or deleted (or mark as 
obsolete until it is physically deleted)
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye, see you next week

-- SimonLambert - 26 Jan 2009

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2009-02-02 - 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