Notes from Megameeting 1st July 2009

Attendees

BruceAmbacher UM
DavidGiaretta STFC
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE
MarkConrad NARA
SimonLambert STFC
TerryLongstreth  

Summary

With reference to the version of the metrics document dated 20090701 on the wiki, Mark Conrad's comments were discussed in sequence, reaching about number 17.

It was agreed at the end that it is important to make swift progress and therefore work must be done offline with deadlines. The aim is to submit the document to ISO soon after July 15th.

Terry Longstreth volunteered to look over the metrics document and the requirements for auditors with fresh eyes.

Actions (see transcript for details):

  • All to review the documents urgently and send emails to the list with specific suggestions or objections.
  • David Giaretta to propose resolutions to Daniele's comments.

Action added in audio exchange:

Transcript of chat

David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Terry
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Hi. I won't use the mike.  I have one suggestion: 
expand glossary; at minimum define 'metrics' . 
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, we normally just use the chat text rather than 
mikes
David Giaretta >> (All): Ah ha - metrics - any suggestions for a good 
definition?
Terry Longstreth >> (All): I've been out of the mix for so long, that I will 
probably be digging up a lot of old ground, but my thoughts follow
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Helen
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Metrics: empirically derived, and consistent measures 
of effectiveness. When evaluated together, metrics can be used to judge the 
overall suitability of a repository to be trusted to provide a preservation 
environment that is consistent with the goals of the OAIS. Separately, 
individual metrics or measures can be used to identify possible weaknesses or 
pending declines in repository functionality.
David Giaretta >> (All): Looks like a good start - need to see where Metrics is 
used in the docs
Terry Longstreth >> (All): it starts in the Foreword
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Actually, it starts in the Title
David Giaretta >> (All): By the way, just in case you did not catch it in the 
notes from the last meeting, I was advocating trying to submit the docfairly 
soon
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Hi! Reagan and I are presently conducting a self-audit of 
the institutional repository here at UNC so I will be doing 2 things at once 
this am
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Hello to all and welcome Terry.
David Giaretta >> (All): Helen - multi-tasking is good
David Giaretta >> (All): Shall we wait a few more minutes for others to join?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Terry's definition included the need to be compliant 
with OAIS.  While that is highly desirable, could arepository be trusted and not 
fully adhere to OAIS?
David Giaretta >> (All): By the way, did you get a chance to download the 
docuemnt I put up on the Wiki 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have it open and have looked at some of it but have 
only had less than one hour
David Giaretta >> (All): I think/hope that there are not too many of Mark's 
comemnts to resolve
David Giaretta >> (All): Daniele's comemnts need a little more thought but are 
at the level of suggested changes to metrics - mosly quite localised
Mark Conrad >> (All): Just opened it a few minutes ago.
Terry Longstreth >> (All): I said 'consistent with the goals of", which is 
weaker than Compliant.  
David Giaretta >> (All): This encourages me to keep pushing for aiming to submit 
to the CCSDS editor in a few weeks. The argument was that we could spend many 
more months arguing about things but if we submit soom the timescale of the ISO 
review (8 months) would mean that we would need an intensive get together to 
resolve comments early next year and it would be good to do so while there is 
the possbility of funds for a meeting.
David Giaretta >> (All): We lost Helen!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi all
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Katia
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hi Katia
David Giaretta >> (All): Maybe we should start
David Giaretta >> (All): Simon, Bruce and Robert provided responses to Mark's 
comemnts and I have included those in the doc on the Wiki
David Giaretta >> (All): I then, in a fit of enthusiasm, went through Mark's 
other comemnts and mostly just followed his suggestions or found out what the 
missing words were and put them back in
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we start at the beginning and slog our way through?
David Giaretta >> (All): Finally I put Daniele's comemnts on the metrics in - as 
Word comemnts
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark has a comment that is repeated several time 
concerning the use of the specific word preservation to narrow the focus of a 
trusted repository to just preservation (perhaps overstated by me).  Should we 
do a more careful scrub?  a trusted repository is trusted on several fronts, all 
combining to ensure long term access andf preservation.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - yes OK by me OR we could look at the ones I know 
are unresolved from your list
Mark Conrad >> (All): If you look at the charter for this group we are supposed 
to be covering more than just preservation.
David Giaretta >> (All): I edited the Purpose and scope and used the wording 
"audit and certification process for assessing the trustworthiness of digital 
repositories, particularly of their preservation capabilities "
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi,  I'm here for a bit, but need to leave early today.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes, hence the many complementary metrics
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I think the over use of preservation is a residue from 
David's earlier effort to make every mmetric focus on preservation - plan, 
strategy, etc,
David Giaretta >> (All): ...will that wording do?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Let's start with the forward.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, yes in that instance.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry Foreword
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I realise I did not edit the Foreword - it 
should be made consistent
SimonLambert >> (All): Just to be clear - we're looking at 20090701 version?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have to switch back and forth between text and 
document so I will have a little delay
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, yes
David Giaretta >> (All): So Bruce - you were OK with the "audit and 
certification process for assessing the trustworthiness of digital repositories, 
particularly of their preservation capabilities " so we can use that in the 
Foreword
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is there any way to include the names of the agencies 
that have been supporting the BOF?  Many are not on the list.  Including them 
will broaden the support for the docvument when others see their communities 
represented in the process.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - good question - TRAC had a name of the 
individuals involved and their affiliations. CCSDS tends not to do that but we 
could ask
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Perhaps as an annex?
David Giaretta >> (All): Good idea!
Terry Longstreth >> (All): If it were just CCSDS, we couldn't, but as ISO we 
can.
David Giaretta >> (All): Even better
David Giaretta >> (All): If we puch on to the References section 1.8 - there is 
a question
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can we resolve this one first?
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, which one?
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, What would the sentence in the Foreword say if you 
reworded it?
David Giaretta >> (All): The sasme as the Intro "audit and certification process
for assessing the trustworthiness of digital repositories, particularly of their 
preservation capabilities "
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, The first comment in the Foreword.
Mark Conrad >> (All): It will have to be reworded somewhat to make sense here.
David Giaretta >> (All): "This document is a technical Recommendation to use as 
the basis for providing an audit and certification process for assessing the 
trustworthiness of digital repositories, particularly of their preservation 
capabilities "
BruceAmbacher >> (All): How about: "This document is a technical Recommendation 
to determine the trustworthiness of digital repositories.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think I like David's version better.
David Giaretta >> (All): I'm OK with either
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David's still places extra emphasis on preservation over 
all other measures/purposes but I can accept it.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK, let's go with that
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is everyone else ok with that?
SimonLambert >> (All): Good for me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): for me too
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
Terry Longstreth >> (All): "a {library, repository, database, filing cabinet } 
is not so much a place to put things as to find them later". I think we should 
acknowledge access more forcefully
David Giaretta >> (All): It's a necessary part
David Giaretta >> (All): But preservation is more than just finding them later
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets not fall back into the trap of trying to everything 
in one sentence.  That's why we have lots of metrics to develop the overall 
picture
David Giaretta >> (All): OK good point
Mark Conrad >> (All): How about if we just remove the phrase, "particularly of 
their preservation capabilities."?
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - that's more or less Bruce's sentence - OK for me
David Giaretta >> (All): Should we just go down the list of comemnts and shout 
out if there is something to object to?
David Giaretta >> (All): ...otherwise we will run out of time
Mark Conrad >> (All): Next comment just needs a citation.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have not had time to examine/reflect on the DB (CNES) 
comments in context
Terry Longstreth >> (All): The Foreword already mentions the OAIS.  It is our 
"spec", and can be used to resolve any scope issues.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - I guess that is [2]
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - let's focus on Mark's comemnts for now and come 
back to Daniele's
David Giaretta >> (All): ...also no-one has put in any responses to daniele's
David Giaretta >> (All): ....yet
Mark Conrad >> (All): For [3] I would suggest removing the phrase about 
preservation to make it consistent with the Foreword
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): so the first sentence in the Intro ends at the end of 
the second line?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yes.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections? If, not I believe all of the comments on 
this page have been addressed.
Mark Conrad >> (All): on to [7]?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): mc7 - David indicates he addressed this and standardized 
citations
Mark Conrad >> (All): Actually I guess [7] and [8] have been addressed.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes [8] was on the day you were away Mark at the face 
to face
Mark Conrad >> (All): [9] then?
Terry Longstreth >> (All): And 9 and 10 , but 10 needs syntax repair
Mark Conrad >> (All): It looks like a change has been made for [9] but I can't 
see what was changed.
Terry Longstreth >> (All): 10 - "has long BEEN used"
David Giaretta >> (All): OK "long been used" for [10]
David Giaretta >> (All): Cannot see any change for [9]
BruceAmbacher >> (All): mc9-I agree
BruceAmbacher >> (All): mc10 - I agree with Terry's language
David Giaretta >> (All): But what to change for [9]??
Terry Longstreth >> (All): probably OBE
David Giaretta >> (All): ??
Mark Conrad >> (All): [11]?
David Giaretta >> (All): Also at the face to face
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we trying to "force" access into preservation?  They 
are separate, distinct but may be complementary
Mark Conrad >> (All): I still don't understand why we are insisting it be here. 
If it was in a separate document would the repository fail the assessment?
David Giaretta >> (All): Whether it is a separate document is not so important - 
I think the discussion was that there should be a link between preservation and 
access
BruceAmbacher >> (All): mc11- access policy is NOT defined just below in the 
list related to Preservation Strategic Plan
Terry Longstreth >> (All): IMHO -Clearly, if you preserve something so well that 
no one can get to it, you've failed.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, access is developed elsewhre.  An audit looks at 
all metrics and provides an overall assessment
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, This says it must be in this document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Terry, we do emphasize(I think in Preservation 
Planning/Technology watch) to avoid such an outcome
David Giaretta >> (All): I'm fine with removing that mc11 - just reporting why 
it was there
Mark Conrad >> (All): I vote to take it out.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I guess Daniele makes the point that we are 
referring to documents in a fairly general sense i.e. does not have to be in a 
since paper/electronic doc
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - fine by me
Terry Longstreth >> (All): I guess I see that now: we are preserving them FOR 
access
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Access Policy is the first definition in this list and 
hence is a separate document/policy,  I support striking the language in mc11
David Giaretta >> (All): going going gone
BruceAmbacher >> (All): goodbye
David Giaretta >> (All): For mc12 I suggested "for achieving that part of the 
mission of the repository  concerned preservation."
Mark Conrad >> (All): mc12 need to insert the word "with"
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): ok for me
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess we are working on the basis that if people 
object they will "yell"
Mark Conrad >> (All): mc13?
David Giaretta >> (All): Not sure what to do with the comemnt - any suggestions?
Terry Longstreth >> (All): "Preservation policy covers/may cover the following 
topics" ?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): mc13 - this is where access could be worked in: 
Preservation Strategy: A suggested/performed (range of ) actions that mitigates 
risk to long term preservation and access
David Giaretta >> (All): Look good
Mark Conrad >> (All): I still do not understand the relationship between the 
various preservation policies, plans, procedures.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What drives what?
David Giaretta >> (All): ...Daniele had a diagram but not sure it helps that 
much. These are just definitions and the hierarchy is implicit from the 
definitions
Mark Conrad >> (All): It is not implicit.
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Perhaps a template for the  Preservation Policy 
document could be added as an appendix?
David Giaretta >> (All): Arghh - sounds like a nice thing but could take a long 
time
SimonLambert >> (All): Could we delete Preservation Strategy? It only seems to 
be ref'd once elsewhere.
Mark Conrad >> (All): David What do you see as the hierarchy?
David Giaretta >> (All): Good point
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I don't like mission statement indented under 
Preservation Strategic Plan.  It is broader than preservation.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce the indentation is a typo.
David Giaretta >> (All): bruce I remember we had a long debate about that
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I can support Simon's suggestion
KatiaThomaz >> (All): We agreed on hierarchy : Mission statement--> Strategic 
Plan--> Preservation Policy --> Pres Impl Plan 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, OK on fixing the indent
David Giaretta >> (All): Which indent?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, this section does not illustrate that agreement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, These definitions do not make that clear.
David Giaretta >> (All): From the face to face notes we had "Mission statement-
-> Strategic Plan--> Preservation Policy --> Pres Impl Plan "
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David removing the indent that puts mission under 
preservation
Mark Conrad >> (All): We may be having a formatting issue A4 vs legal size page. 
David Giaretta >> (All): There is no indent - just different margine on 
alternate pages
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes, I see this is a page alignment issue
SimonLambert >> (All): It's just an alphabetic list, isn't it?
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Man, that changes everything for me!
David Giaretta >> (All): I have a printed version in front of me
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - for the better I hope!!
Terry Longstreth >> (All): If it's supposed to be alphabetic it needs ordering
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon, It is an alphabetical list but the definitions do 
not make it clear what the hierarchy is.
SimonLambert >> (All): Mark - that is true
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This makes Procedure very problematic.  It makes it seem 
ALL procedures relate just to preservation.
David Giaretta >> (All): If it's a problem we can put in a little explanation
Mark Conrad >> (All): Terry's right. The list is not in strict alphabetical 
order.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can anyone support just deleting the second sentence?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): of Procedure
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - we should check where/how these terms are used
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - OK with me - I think it's in there to show the 
hierarchy but it seems to make it too exclusive to preservation
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce that is one of the few places in the definintions 
that hints at a hierarchy.
David Giaretta >> (All): we could add "for examples to speficy..."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Then say Preservation Procedure(s)
David Giaretta >> (All): Equally good - just need to check the body of the text 
and make the changes
JohnGarrett >> (All): bye, I'm at a conference next week, but will check in if I 
can.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We are in the Glossary.  That should be all 
encompassing, not just preservation
David Giaretta >> (All): How about deleting the 2nd sentence and indicating 
heirachy with a short explanation
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, are all of these terms taken literally from OAIS?
David Giaretta >> (All): No these are terms NOT in OAIS
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, the Glossary should be an alpha list of terms we 
need to define to get all users on the same page, not a hierarchy
David Giaretta >> (All): That also is fine by me since I do not think we use the 
concept of heirarchy in the text
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David - the first sentence under Glossary is: 1.6.2.1   
Glossary Unless otherwise indicated, other definitions are taken from the OAIS 
Reference Model [1].
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, If the definitions don't make it clear what the 
relationships are between these documents the terms are meaningless.
Terry Longstreth >> (All): It could be clearer that this is a partial glossary 
that expands on OAIS
SimonLambert >> (All): It might help to have a short statement of the relation 
between some terms - maybe an action on someone to suggest
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - yes - that meant other definitions ceom from 
OAIS but these ones don't
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, it helps for me to actually read.  It says other 
definitions, not these.  Sorry
SimonLambert >> (All): I could volunteer ...
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): SOmething like "Terms used in the document come from 
OAIS, but the following are new definitions" or some such
David Giaretta >> (All): I'm a littleworried about time
David Giaretta >> (All): At this rate we will be finished next year
David Giaretta >> (All): Would a telecon help? 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This is a section we have not spent much time with 
compared to the real meat
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - but if people leabe in about 20 mins we should 
take the last 10 mins to talk strategy
David Giaretta >> (All): Any more on this page?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we focus on those mc comments maeked XXX or 
Discussion?  My reading is that the other mc comments are addressed.  Discuss 
them only if someone objects.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): The "Discussion" meant I added the heading "Discussion"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Then it is just XXX and Danielle?
Terry Longstreth >> (All): I've made a Word table with the glossary sorted. Want 
it?
David Giaretta >> (All): in [mc16] I was not sure what to do - I left in there 
things actually referred to in the text i.e. that needed a reference like [x] 
but most are not "provisions of this recommendation"
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - yes please just email it to me or the full list
David Giaretta >> (All): The alternative for [mc16] is to leave just OAIS since 
we use definitions from there and put the rest in as footnotes in the text
BruceAmbacher >> (All): mc16 -  what about this: "The following documents 
contain provisions which have been referenced in this Standard."
David Giaretta >> (All): The wording was from the CCSDS publications manual
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, Is that a true statement?
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Ok. It stil has gthe comments attached.
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - I left the comemnts in for reference
David Giaretta >> (All): Maybe someone could check what other standards do and 
we will follow suit
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, I think it is more true than how it is written now
David Giaretta >> (All): ...how about you Terry?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we have more than passing reference to any of these 
documents other than OAIS?
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - no - only passing references to the others
Terry Longstreth >> (All): I'm violently ambivalent, but on balance it's better 
not to have to include things that readers are presumed to have already learned, 
I guess.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Then I would suggest removing them from this list.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But this standard is truly built on 1, 2, 3, 4
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, This says these documents are incorporated by 
reference.
David Giaretta >> (All): It depends what "provisions of this recommendation" 
means
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Perhaps this list can be a footnote in the Intro?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - OK by me
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We need to show our lineage - this led to this and to 
this and to . . 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Isn't that spelled out in the text of the Fpreword or the 
Intro?
David Giaretta >> (All): The text in the intro does that - the question is where 
do we put the full names and URL's for those docs
Mark Conrad >> (All): Foreword
Mark Conrad >> (All): A footnote at that point in the Intro.
David Giaretta >> (All): Works for me
Terry Longstreth >> (All): Sorry, I missed the segue to MC 16. My ambivalence 
was about the glossary
David Giaretta >> (All): That's what I understood
David Giaretta >> (All): ***************************
David Giaretta >> (All): Before people leave could we talk strategy?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I think mc17-mc20 are addressed and that moves us to 
section 3 where Danielle's comments begin
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Sorry. I must quit now. Have a nice week. Bye.
David Giaretta >> (All): I'd like to suggest that people take actions to send 
emails with comments/objectiosn to the list
David Giaretta >> (All): Can you hear me
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): I can hear.
Terry Longstreth >> (All): My microphone's given up.  Show me where the baseline 
docs are, and I'll read through both
David Giaretta >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090701.doc
is the current latest
Terry Longstreth >> (All): that's what I mean by a baseline: fixed, clean
David Giaretta >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That is a workable strategy
Mark Conrad >> (All): agreed
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can the auditor document go a little later?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): ok. see you on the 8th.
SimonLambert >> (All): Bye

-- SimonLambert - 01 Jul 2009

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2009-07-02 - 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