Notes from Megameeting 13th April 2009

Attendees:

BruceAmbacher UM
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University

Actions:

  • SimonLambert/DavidGiaretta to provide directions on where/how to post edits and comments.
  • All to post all edits and comments after directions.

BruceAmbacher >> (All): Has there been any discussion of how to submit edits 
after reading the document?
Marie W >> (All): I was assuming we were commenting on the wiki
RobertDowns >> (All): I do not believe that we discussed that. We could propose 
changes here as well.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Bruce, in B2 i noticed two metrics with if clause. they 
are: B2.3.1 an B2.7.3
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The "If" s appear to be leftovers from the previous 
version released in 2007.  There is a lot about B2 I am not comfortable with - 
the multiple dependent clauses without text bother me most.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): so should  we submit our comments on the wiki?
Marie W >> (All): Will this be something the technical editor is intended to 
address? 
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think submitting them on the wiki is probably the best 
way to track them and ensure they are addressed.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have lots of small edits I can post.  They probably 
will not require discussion.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): It would be great to get all the small edits and work 
through them.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Some are worth discussion.  A1.2.1 - the discussion 
appears to actually be examples
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I also had uneasiness about the dependent clauses not 
having text.  Mostly because of the inconsistency with other sections, some of 
which have text for all dependent clauses, but not for some of the superior 
clauses.
RobertDowns >> (All): To remove the "if" in B2.7.3, we could rephrase it as 
follows: The repository must bring the Content Information to the required level 
of understandability when the AIP fails understandability testing.
Marie W >> (All): That's clear, should we be recording these in the wiki as we 
do them?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That is a good rewrite
KatiaThomaz >> (All): good
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Good, rewrite.  Yes we should record them.  Who will do 
that.  I would volunteer, but it takes an extremely long time for edits to go 
through from my system for some reason.
Marie W >> (All): I will do it if no one else has already gone in
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.3.1 what if we change "If" to "In the event that a 
SIP is discarded . . ."
Marie W >> (All): There's something funny goign on with the wiki, I noticed this 
before when I was putting in edits, it flashes the text then says "Please 
wait... retrieving page from server." I"ll record the changes and send them to 
Simon as we decide.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I thought maybe "The repository must follow documented 
procedures to indicate why any SIP is deleted."
KatiaThomaz >> (All): better this way: the repository must follow... in the 
event...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): first the requirement
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Marie W >> (All): "The repository must follow documented procedures in the event 
that a SIP is deleted."
Marie W >> (All): That doesn't quite make sense
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ...to indicate why any SIP is deleted
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which document are you looking at? http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/MetricsSectionB2? or some other?
Marie W >> (All): got it
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK
KatiaThomaz >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/CombinedMetricsDocumentsFollowingFaceToFace
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, the rewrite of B2
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the combined is better
Mark Conrad >> (All): It would be helpful if we were all looking at the same 
document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I am looking at what I printed down from the wiki.
Marie W >> (All): I thought the face to face was more up to date?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I am using the text we all revised by 03/31 as a result 
of our assignments.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): they are the same
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have to reconnect.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I thought the combined document was just the concatenation 
of the individual sections
Marie W >> (All): Just tell me where to look
KatiaThomaz >> (All): the combined just join the pieces...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): 
http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/CombinedMetricsDocumentsFollowingFaceToFace
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which version of the face-to-face document are you 
referring to? I see several documents labeled face-to-face.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): look at the bottom of the page
KatiaThomaz >> (All): The combined document may be read here:
Mark Conrad >> (All): There are three documents under that heading that 
reference the F2F. Which one are you referring to?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): go to http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace and look at the bottom of the page
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I see a number of documents referencing the F2F at the 
bottom of the page. Which one are you using?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): just after the phrase : The combined document may be read 
here
RobertDowns >> (All): I believe that the following combined document is 
generated on the fly to reflect changes to the individual sections: http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/CombinedMetricsDocumentsFollowingFaceToFace
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is that the document everyone is looking at?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): click on "Combined working document following face to face 
here
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): I did it takes me to: http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/CombinedMetricsDocumentsFollowingFaceToFace.
Is that the document you are using?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok thanks!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): exactly
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we staying in B2 or starting at A1?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): just rephrasing B2.3.1
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we all comfortable with the suggested rewrite?  Yes 
for me.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
JOhnGarrett >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): yes. I believe that we also had agree on the rewrite of 
B2.7.3
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie W >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): So B.2.1. would read, "The repository must follow 
documented procedures to indicate why any SIP is deleted."? 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B2.3.1
Marie W >> (All): The repository must follow documented procedures in the event 
that a SIP is deleted to indicate why any SIP is deleted
BruceAmbacher >> (All): One solution to the multiple subclauses without 
Supporting text/Examples/Discussion would be to go back to the 2007 version and 
pull the (redundant) text for the clauses when they were stand alone clauses.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): to indicate any deletion of a SIP?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i like the template used in section A
BruceAmbacher >> (All): My earlier suggestion: "In the event that a SIP is 
discarded . . ." may be more straightforward.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Are there procedures that need to be followed other than 
just indicating why it was deleted?  Possibly so.  I would drop "to indicate why 
any SIP is deleted."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I see the heart of B2.3.1 as documenting why a SIP was 
discarded and documenting the standard procedures used to discard it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, So it would read, "The repository must follow 
documented procedures in the event that a SIP is deleted."? I like that.
RobertDowns >> (All): I like it too
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Marie W >> (All): ok too
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce. You seem to be asking for two separate metrics.
Mark Conrad >> (All): 1. Document the procedures. 2. Document the procedures 
were appropriately used.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but the original text intend to document the reasons to 
delete the SIP
KatiaThomaz >> (All): "why the SIP was dircarded"
Mark Conrad >> (All): How would you audit this metric?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I am still having trouble getting my mind around these 
multiple dependent clauses and how to write them up.  In this one there is a 
clause - B2.3 and then one dependent clause - 2.3.1 but no other.  In 2.4 there 
is a clause and five dependent clauses.  Very uneven, very redundant.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): take a look at section A. in the higher levels they put 
only "discussion". in the lowest level they put "supporting text", "examples" 
and "discussion".
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Auditors would trace every SIP into one or more AIPs, 
then check to see that all discards are one, documented and two, discarded 
according to the repository's standard operating procedures.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, I like B.2.4. better than B2.3. It is much clearer 
as to what is expected.
Mark Conrad >> (All): How would auditors trace every SIP if the repository did 
not document SIPs that were received and discarded?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Bruce, i understand you. Itīs very strange having a 
requirement with only one sub-requirement
JOhnGarrett >> (All): We've said in past meetings that the lowest level clauses 
are not an exhaustive expansion of the higher level.  Seems to me in that case 
that we would need evidence at the higher level.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but one subrequirement?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark,  auditors would have to look at operational 
logs/audit trails for the ingest function to see what SIPs were received, then 
trace them to AIPs.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think the sub-requirements only pull out significant 
parts of the higher requirement that need to be checked.  They are not an 
exhaustive breakdown.  Therefore, it is not too bad to have only 1 sub-
requirement.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but the requirement B2.3 does include B2.3.1...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, Can this issue be put on the agenda for the CCSDS 
meeting when you get to this document?  B2 is not properly developed and could 
benefit from those who have developed ISO standards.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): or otherwise disposed of in a recorded fashion
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, Very difficult to prove a negative (i.e., there 
were no SIPs that are unaccounted for.)
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK, I'll bring it up.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, the ingest system should capture all SIPs.  This 
would bereinforced by the transfer document(s).
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, ok.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I'll agree with Mark.  But we can show that we have 
procedures and we do log SIPs that we delete and follow procedures for them.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Some SIPs could be discarded/rejected before ingest 
because they were incomplete.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): or not up to the repository's standards.
RobertDowns >> (All): SIPs also could be discarded or rejected before ingest if 
the producer resubmitted the SIP
Mark Conrad >> (All): So this requirement is dependent on how well the 
repository logs all transfer attempts. Presumably this is covered elsewhere.
Mark Conrad >> (All): This would be covered under B.1.8.?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we have agreement on Katia's endorsement of the 
pattern used in A as the preferred approach for B2? Requirement, discussion, 
subrequirement, supporting text, examples, discussion.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we put our changes in the combined document?  Do we 
show them as suggestions/questions at the spot or after the discussion?
Mark Conrad >> (All): No. If the sub requirements are not exhaustive, there 
needs to be supporting text (mandatory requirements) at the requirement level.
RobertDowns >> (All): A5.1 has the pattern: Requirement, Supporting Text, 
Examples, Discussion, Sub-Requirement, Supporting Text, Examples, Discussion
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes, i found this just now.
RobertDowns >> (All): It seems that the pattern is contingent upon context, as 
suggested by Mark
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But we may not have that much unique, relevant text for 
each such requirement and sub-requirement(s)
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, I would suggest that we put in comments the way 
that we used to do - at the point in the text that they apply to.  Do we want to 
start by commenting on the rest of section B or should we start with A.?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think the easiest way to deal with updates is if we put 
the updates where we would like to see them.  We can check with David and Simon, 
but I think we would put the updates in the subsections.  I think the combined 
document is formed by concatenating the subsections. 
Marie W >> (All): On the wiki you can't edit the combined document, only in the 
subsections.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree that we should update the subsections, since we 
believe that the combined document concatenates the subsections on the fly
Mark Conrad >> (All): We should verify this before posting comments.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): We need to make very quick progress on whatever we do.  We 
wanted the document complete at  the end of March to start doing test audits 
now.
Marie W >> (All): Yes, we'll have to start the audits soon and this may be where 
we should be putting our efforts.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, it will be difficult to complete a test audit if the 
requirements are changing
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But we need a satisfactory document BEFORE doing test 
audits.  Do we consider this adequate?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I do not see edits and added text as affecting the basic 
requirements.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So what are the action items for this week?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): So you feel we have an adequate document now?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I need to re-read the entire document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I do not have any revolutionaru changes, just edits, 
nits, text.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Action item - get directions on where/how to post edits 
and comments.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Action item - post all edits and comments after 
directions
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We need to have a complete document before the CCSDS 
meeting.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will ask Simon and David to send an e-mail with 
information about where to post comments and edits.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have ten days and one more megameeting before then. It 
that realistic?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i must quit now. thanks and have a nice week. bye.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): See you next week
Marie W >> (All): Bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bye.
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I'll be at other portions of CCSDS meeting next Monday, so 
I probably won't be on megameeting.  Bye
Marie W >> (All): Mark are you goign to give Simon the chat?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yes.
Marie W >> (All): OK, bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bye.

-- SimonLambert - 15 Apr 2009

Topic revision: r1 - 2009-04-15 - SimonLambert
 
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