Notes from Megameeting 30th March 2009

Attendees:

JohnGarrett GSFC
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
DavidGiaretta STFC
SimonLambert STFC
MarieWaltz  
BarbaraSierman KB
KatiaThomaz  

Actions

  • we propose by email some linking text to go between the metric and sub-metric
  • review the document as a whole next week for any gross inconsistencies
  • aim to start the test audits in 2 weeks?
  • read the paper David distributed - may have implications for B1 text
  • John and Marie to complete their sections

David Giaretta >> (All): Test
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Robert
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi David
RobertDowns >> (All): and Simon
SimonLambert >> (All): Hello
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes i can hear you
David Giaretta >> (All): OK but I'll try to stick to typing
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I can hear you, too
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Hi all!
David Giaretta >> (All): Let's wait a few minutes. Bruce said he could not join and I guess Helen is tied up with the conference
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi Barbara
David Giaretta >> (All): I sent some materials out just now but I realise no-one has had time to read them
David Giaretta >> (All): I see you've just added your section SImon
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes, hat's right
David Giaretta >> (All): Only 3 sections to go!
marie Waltz >> (All): Hi All, I'll have my section in tomorrow, promise
David Giaretta >> (All): Great!!
RobertDowns >> (All): Its good to see all of this progress
David Giaretta >> (All): We'll soon be in a position to do the test audits - the next thing to get underway
David Giaretta >> (All): No rest for the wicked
marie Waltz >> (All): :)
marie Waltz >> (All): Was he from Isreal? 
marie Waltz >> (All): OK, we had an IBM guy from Isreal contact us to put a link on our website, that's why I asked
David Giaretta >> (All): Interesting
marie Waltz >> (All): A link to a product they're developing to certify automatically
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi all.
JohnGarrett >> (All): HI
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi
David Giaretta >> (All): I heard they were doing some work related to this - I'd be interested in the link
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi John
David Giaretta >> (All): Should be start now?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Marie, is that based on the current TRAC version? Our IBM guy told us about this a year ago
marie Waltz >> (All): IBM Research's Long Term Digital Preservation (LTDP) Automated Assessment LTDP is an automated tool developed by IBM for assessing the maturity level of Long-Term Digital Preservation archives. The tool is based on TRAC criteria. http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/projects/storage/datastores/ltdp.html
marie Waltz >> (All): This is from our website
David Giaretta >> (All): OK sound like the thing I also heard about a year ago - they must have made some progress
David Giaretta >> (All): John - any idea when you might get your section completed?
David Giaretta >> (All): That would just leave Helen - and I uess she will finish after the conference
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess B1 and B6 have just been put on recently but have people had a chance to review the others?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I hope to get my section completed in the next day or so
David Giaretta >> (All): Great!
David Giaretta >> (All): Most sections seem to have fairly light changes - which is probably good. But the changes I have seen make sense
JohnGarrett >> (All): Actually, one question we had in a previous meeting was about the format to use.  Does each "sub"item require discussion, example, etc. or is it just neeed at the top criteria?
RobertDowns >> (All): I have been looking at B1 and noticed that it contains cross-outs and that some things appear underlined while others do not and was wondering whether that is intentional
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Considering that Metrics are independent and sub-metrics just provide extra things to look at, I suggest the following templates for redaction before the list of sub-metrics:This requirement provides ... This includes but is not limited to:Examples of plans include, but are not limited to:Some of the key features of a plan include, but are not limited to:These plans are reflected in numerous factors, including, but not limited to:This includes items such as, but not limited to:These risks include, but are not limited to:This information includes, but is not limited to:This information frequently supplied as supporting detail includes, but is not limited to:
David Giaretta >> (All): Rick used the <del></del> and <ins></ins> which allows one to paste into Word and see it as markup
David Giaretta >> (All): Katia - in B2 I had suggested that we put in "In particular the following aspect must be checked. " before the sub metrics. Your wording seems a good extension of that - have to try it in a few cases.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sorry. I don´t know if you undertand me.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i gave a lot of different examples
David Giaretta >> (All): However it would be good to avoid a wholesale re-editing - perhaps we can add something in the introduction?
marie Waltz >> (All): In regard to how much text to put in, it seems to me that it will depend on how explicit the sub-metric is on its own (which in most cases is not very). However I think the more info the better, though I'm not sure if you all intend to submit it to the committee as part of the standard.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): we may use one of them in each metric. it depends on the context
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes David I agree - we must make it clear that the sub-reqts are not meant to be exhaustive - in most cases it's obvious but might puzzle people.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the main point is always use "not limited to"
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, the "In particular the following aspects must be checked." may make it look as if these are the only things to be checked. SOme extra wording is necessary to introduce the sub-metrics.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): right
KatiaThomaz >> (All): or at the end of the metric in order to introduce the submetrics.
RobertDowns >> (All): Do we want to have all examples include the same phrase for consistency?
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - it would be good to be consistent - also easier to edit. As Katia said - introducing each set of sub-metrics
JohnGarrett >> (All): Ok, I agree that some introduction text may be necessary.  But the question really was are all the sections of text necessary for each subitem?  For example, in B2 due to the way it developed, didn't have examples for each of the sub-items.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes B2 has a lot of sub-metrics without text - but the discussion etc is after the whole lot of sub-metrics
David Giaretta >> (All): ..., should have said sub-sub-metrics
marie Waltz >> (All): Yes sub*2's seem to be more explicit in terms of what it being asked.
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess Bruce felt they were self-explanatory and the following text encompassed them all
David Giaretta >> (All): It did make sense to me I guess 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes I think he did.  And I think that maybe Mark had originally worked on breaking them down into submetrics and didn't include separate text at that time.
David Giaretta >> (All): In other words it did not seem necessary to generate a whole lot more text - and thereby introduce delays
JohnGarrett >> (All): Either way makes sense to me.  I just think that once we put it all together, the difference in style will be noticed by reviewers.
marie Waltz >> (All): C1.1 has similiar construction, we should be consistent whatever we do.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, we did have a slight disconnect in the way we did things but I hope it will be easy to fix up with a technical editor 
David Giaretta >> (All): Seeing each section separately does make it difficult to check the differnt styles but we should soon have the whole thing
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess not many people are coming to Colorado Springs for the CCSDS meeting. Those who are can meet face to face
David Giaretta >> (All): SO how about (1) we propose by email some linking text to go between the metric and sub-metric (2) review the document as a whole I guess next week (3) aim to start the test audits in 2 weeks?
David Giaretta >> (All): Simon, how is the Guidelines doc?
SimonLambert >> (All): The latest version has been cleaned up to remove refs to its origins
marie Waltz >> (All): How do you want to review the whole document? We need a plan or we'll get bogged down. 
RobertDowns >> (All): Will the whole document be place within a single web page? 
David Giaretta >> (All): In the interests of finishing in a timely way I will put the whole on the WIki as a WOrd doc.
David Giaretta >> (All): You can see all the sectiosn put together on the WIki at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/CombinedMetricsDocumentsFollowingFaceToFace
David Giaretta >> (All): I was hoping we could start the test audits - which tests the understandability of the doc - forgiving any slight inconsistencies in style. Then when we find and resolve difficulties we make the final edits
JohnGarrett >> (All): Does that document automatically include the updates or is it a snapshot?
marie Waltz >> (All): So the review next week is just to say "its acceptable for now?'
David Giaretta >> (All): The link I sent just adds all the existing sectiosn together on the fly
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, a gross acceptance without word-smithing
BarbaraSierman >> (All): I made some suggestions for terminology in B3, this might influence the terminology used in other chapters
David Giaretta >> (All): Otherwise we'll be at this for another many months
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes Barabara I noticed you suggested "preservation strategies, preservation policies, preservation plans, preservation implementation plan, preservation planning, preservation strategic plan, preservation issue" - need to check how this fits into our agreed "Mission statement--> Strategic Plan--> Preservation Policy --> Pres Impl Plan "
David Giaretta >> (All): It seems a bit inconsistent - some people were adamant that Strategic Plan comes before Policies 
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Ok David, may be I missed something, but the only thing is that the terminology should be used consistently and that was not the case everywhere
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Yes, I remeber that discussion, may be we should just make a choice
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, I agree we should do that
David Giaretta >> (All): As long as we are consistent I'm pretty easy
marie Waltz >> (All): I think?I hope the editor will bring all the different terminology usage together.
David Giaretta >> (All): Not sure who was so adamant - not present at this meeting obviously
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - but we need to make a decision about hierarchy
David Giaretta >> (All): Actually maybe there really is not a problem - looking at the words more closely. Need to think off-line
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - you noted there was some repeated text in B3
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Yes, I think twice the supporting text was repeated in the submetric, was that agreed upon?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): sorry it was in the discussion part
David Giaretta >> (All): I suspect we thought there would be some  (slight) changes of wording needed between the repeated text
BarbaraSierman >> (All): But it might not help the reader to repeat (almost) the same text??
David Giaretta >> (All): Otherwise we can just refer back - but it would be strange if the discussion between two metrics was identical
David Giaretta >> (All): Maybe that needs some more thinking about in this week while we wait for the other sections. I don't recall repeated text elsewhere.
marie Waltz >> (All): I think its a mistake
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I agree that referring back to the previous text would be more succinct than repeating the text.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Yes Marie I think you are right
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree
David Giaretta >> (All): It may be simply that when I spliced things together immediately after the face to face I accidentally repeated block of text - I guess it depends on whether the text makes sense.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK mea culpa
BarbaraSierman >> (All): yes, let's have a look at it and skip when we think the text does not make sense
marie Waltz >> (All): These things happen.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
BarbaraSierman >> (All): no problem
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
David Giaretta >> (All): I had a point about B1 - but you need to read the paper I sent around in order to discuss it
RobertDowns >> (All): We can take that as an action to read the paper this week.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes please.
marie Waltz >> (All): OK
BarbaraSierman >> (All): What was your point?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): may be you can mail us that as well?
David Giaretta >> (All): Also Ric asked in B1.6 about a missing comment from Katia - The missing question was "-- KatiaThomaz - 20 Mar 2008 - What does "physical control" really means? Controlling the boundaries of a digital object? Is it physical or logical control? "
David Giaretta >> (All): Sorry my point was that we talk about properties and the paper discusses SIgnificant Properties in the context of AUthenticity as opposed to understandability - but you need to read the whole paper to see the suggestion that SIg Props and Rep Info complement each others 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I have another point about B6.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I am not convinced about removing the metric “Repository communicates to its designated community what access and delivery options are available”.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): The designated community could help the repository in the protection of the information. It´s very important for preservation reasons.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): You mean that there should be a two way communication?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): why "two way"?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok, now i understand you.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
BarbaraSierman >> (All): from the rep to the Des Com and vice versa
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): it´s important to have an external control
David Giaretta >> (All): The introductory text in B6 says "It must be understood that the capabilities and sophistication of the access system will vary depending on the repository’s designated community(ies) and the access mandates of the repository. Because of the variety of repositories, archives, and access mandates, these criteria may be subject to questions about applicability and interpretation at a local level. "
SimonLambert >> (All): Revised B6.2.1 allows the users to report errors i.e. feedback to the repos
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think it should be a metric
David Giaretta >> (All): That was a long discussion at the face to face - we probably need Bruce and Don here to discuss it properly
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i know. but i should say i am not convinced yet.
David Giaretta >> (All): We took out a couple of metrics along these lines. I would guess that it would not be too difficult to add them back in if at the end we decide we need to. But it would need the whole group to agree.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remember B6 refers to Access management
KatiaThomaz >> (All): include this in other section is completly different
David Giaretta >> (All): But the understanding was that at this stage we are just fixing up the supporting text so that we can get on to the test audits
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the main point in face-toface meeting was let only preservation issues.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but i think it is a preservation issue. do you understand me?
marie Waltz >> (All): Why, because it is a check on the system?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): in B3.2 the user feedback for preservation planning is also mentioned
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes,  I understand you but this was argued out at the meeting
KatiaThomaz >> (All): do you undersatnd my point?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i do belive it is a preservation issue...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): believe
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes but to open it up now or add metrics would not be a good thing. 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i know. i want only to express my point of view
David Giaretta >> (All): Sure - point made - and I would guess Bruce would support you when he get's back.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ojk. thanks.
David Giaretta >> (All): Clearly my overriding concern is to stick with the face to face agreements and to get the document finalised.
David Giaretta >> (All): ...imperfect though it may be
David Giaretta >> (All): We'l comemnts in the ISO reviewl get othe
David Giaretta >> (All): opoops
marie Waltz >> (All): Yes and we will be able to revise once thwe audits are done, correct?
David Giaretta >> (All): We'll get other comemnts in the ISO review
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, we must anticipate revision after the test audits
David Giaretta >> (All):  ... and more after the ISO responses are in
BarbaraSierman >> (All): yes, but that will make the document better I think
BarbaraSierman >> (All): even better...
marie Waltz >> (All): So Katia, hold that thought because Designated Community is likely to be revisited several more times
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok.
David Giaretta >> (All): I'll be seeing Don this week and perhaps Bruce - I'll point this out to them
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the designated community should work with the repository
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): reporting any irregular access or something else
David Giaretta >> (All): ANy other comemnts on the supoprting text?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no.
marie Waltz >> (All): no
David Giaretta >> (All): So we have some actions and some promised sections for the end of the week. As I say, I guess Helen is somewhat busy this week
David Giaretta >> (All): So same time next week and we should have just about the complete docuemnt. 
marie Waltz >> (All): OK
KatiaThomaz >> (All): great!
David Giaretta >> (All): Any major  concerns can be sent by email
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye all
-- DavidGiaretta - 30 Mar 2009
Topic revision: r1 - 2009-03-30 - DavidGiaretta
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback