Attendees:

There was general discussion of the current working document (MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace). Some inconsistencies in style and content remain, for example, the presence or absence of supporting text in sub-requirements, though these could be left for a technical editor to deal with.

Apart from section A which is still being worked on, B1.6 contains some outstanding comments (and seems to be the only section that has). However no conclusion was reached about whether those comments were adequately addressed in the current version. Otherwise, some sections contain underlining and deletions, but they do not seem to reflect any remaining issues and could be converted to plain text.

SimonLambert >> (All): Has anyone had a chance to look at the document as a 
whole?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): where?
SimonLambert >> (All): "for any gross inconsistencies" as David put it last week
Marie W >> (All): I haven't
SimonLambert >> (All): The working version is at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace
KatiaThomaz >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/CombinedMetricsDocumentsFollowingFaceToFace
KatiaThomaz >> (All): combined one?
RobertDowns >> (All): The combined document contains, in some places, comments 
from individuals, underscores, and cross-outs.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so, which one?
SimonLambert >> (All): I believe that the combined doc is constructed on the fly 
from the individual sections, so they should be the same
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I brought up the inconsistency of style regarding whether 
the Supporting Text, Examples, and Discussion were included for the requirements 
at all levels of the requirement hierarchy.  But I haven't gone through the 
whole for content issues.
SimonLambert >> (All): And we decided that the lower level reqts did not 
necessarily need those elements - is that right?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the third level and so on?
Marie W >> (All): I don't think we had come to a solid decision on this.
SimonLambert >> (All): Katia - yes, e.g. B2.5.1
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think it is better
SimonLambert >> (All): In some cases the (sub)subrequirements seem to be self-
explanatory
JohnGarrett >> (All): However, in the completed sections, it seems to me that it 
is more likely that lower level requirements have text and the top level one 
does not.  Of course we have examples each way from the different major 
sections.
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes, I suppose the question is can we accept that 
difference in approach or is it going to confuse people?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remembering: In that metrics are independent but sub-
metrics provide extra things to look at – more explicit than just the 
“Evidence”. 
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think we can accept it internally while only we work 
with it.  I think it needs to be made consistent before it is sent out for 
public review.
Marie W >> (All): Yes, let's leave this for the technical editor. 
SimonLambert >> (All): OK - perhaps the major issue then is any outstanding 
comments that haven't been taken into account.
JohnGarrett >> (All): At public review, I expect that we would get a lot of 
comments back and since we need to respond to all comments that would generate 
more work for us to answer comments than it would have been to create consistent 
document.
RobertDowns >> (All): Were there any comments that  were not resolved during the 
face-to-face meeting?
SimonLambert >> (All): I'm just looking through and in fact there aren't so many
SimonLambert >> (All): A few in A2 and A3
RobertDowns >> (All): Were the comments in A2 and A3 resolved in the meeting?
Marie W >> (All): The A section isn't submitted yet. Bernie and I are still 
working on it, so let's not address it today
JohnGarrett >> (All): Which sections would we like to look at today?  I've now 
submitted mine, B4.
RobertDowns >> (All): Has B1 been completed?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): we see B4 as DONE - PLEASE REVIEW
JohnGarrett >> (All): The front page indicates that B1 is DONE.
RobertDowns >> (All): B1.6 contains a comment that has not been crossed out.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, we need to address that comment, as well as other 
comments in there about getting back to it later.  I also believe there are 
issues about gaining control of an object that are not just bit-level control 
issues.
RobertDowns >> (All): The paper that David passed around last week also might 
inform the discussion of B1.
SimonLambert >> (All): I thought that related to B1.1 which talks about 
properties - in David's paper significant properties are related to 
authenticity.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, the paper seems most relevant to B1.1.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, particularly B1.1 and perhaps some may bleed into 
B1.2 also.
SimonLambert >> (All): Maybe one way forward is to nominate a particular person 
to review and polish each section ...?  What do you think?
SimonLambert >> (All): i.e. deal with any outstanding comments, remove 
underlines and deletions
RobertDowns >> (All): However, the individual who made the comment might need to 
be the one to determine whether the comment was addressed.
Marie W >> (All): Could a completely new "freshversion be created rather than 
changing the old one, so we don't lose what is there?
RobertDowns >> (All): Of those that are finished, it looks like there might only 
be a few comments that need to be resolved.
JohnGarrett >> (All): When I worked on my section, I assumed that we had
discussed the issues at the face-to-face and I tried to create a clean section 
without any comments.  I expected that we would then as a group review each 
section again and raise any comments.
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes, that was my understanding
Marie W >> (All): Me too, does anyone think their comment has been strongly 
ignored and that we need to deal with it before moving on?
RobertDowns >> (All): Of those that are finished, it looks like only B1.6 
contains comments that were not removed.
RobertDowns >> (All): Does anyone see any others?
Marie W >> (All): Not I
RobertDowns >> (All): If all issues have been resolved, have the comments in 
B1.6 been addressed?
RobertDowns >> (All): Does anyone feel that the comments in B1.6 have not been 
addressed?
SimonLambert >> (All): From the old vesrion, Katia's question is "-- KatiaThomaz 
- 20 Mar 2008 - What does "physical control" really means? Controlling the 
boundaries of a digital object? Is it physical or logical control? | Bruce 
Ambacher - Katia's question is very pertinent. Under Examples we should consider 
adding the crossed out examples to "documents . . .such as ..." In the 
Discussion the insert should read "It is not always the case" | 
JohnGarrett >> (All): I can't really tell from what's there, but I would say we 
can drop what is there.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am searching for my question in the old document
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the 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?
RobertDowns >> (All): Katia - Do you believe that the text in the combined 
document has addressed your question?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no, i think they tried to take out the word "physical"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): remove, i mean
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but they forgot of removing it from examples of ways...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): and we have also: **Note: We might want to come back to 
this. (First discussed 3/29/08 meeting) 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i can't find 3/29/08 meeting...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think we should ask Riccardo
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sorry, i must quit now.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): have a nice week and bye.
Marie W >> (All): You too.
Marie W >> (All): Bye all, sorry must run.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, Bye
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye

-- SimonLambert - 06 Apr 2009