Notes from Megameeting 5th April 2010

Attendees

DavidGiaretta STFC
JohnGarrett GSFC
RobertDowns  
HelenTobbo UNC
BruceAmbacer  

Summary

Update to section 1.2

Updates to section 9.

David Giaretta2 >> (All): test
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi David and Bruce
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Hi all
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I was not sure if anyone would join
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Hello.  I was not sure if there would be ameeting today
David Giaretta2 >> (All): It's a holiday in the UK
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Is it a holiday in the US?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Not in this nation where church and state are separated.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Ah ha - very sensible
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Let's see who else joins
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Not when you like holidays as in days off.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I just put up the edited doc from last week's discussion
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ...http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReqtsForAuditors/AuditorGuidelines-CCSDS-format-4-20100329.doc
David Giaretta2 >> (All): but Simon and I have not checked if I missed anything. I was editing as we were talking
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Hi John
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I'm not sure where we ended up last week - we were jumping around a little bit at the end
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi, I think I'm actually connected now.  Having problems seeing the chat.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): We finished with 7.2.1 I think
BruceAmbacher >> (All): As I started through what you just posted - we do need to add Candidate to the title; we do need to make a direct reference to the ISO number for the metrics.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Yes - we will when we get te ISO numbers
BruceAmbacher >> (All): A flag went up on the concept that the auditor's guide provudes more information/interpretation of the metrics.  The metrics should stand alone and should not need any further explanation in the auditor's guide.  That should focus on the audit provess.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I'll add "Candidate"
RobertDowns >> (All): Bruce - does that flag require us to alter specific text?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I think so.  Let me find the sentence again.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It is in the second paragraph of section 1.2 Scope
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Yes, I guess the works "additional interpretation of these requirements " is wrong
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It is: "the guidance contained in this International Standard provides additional interpretation of these requirements  for any body providing candidate TDR certification."
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps we should change the comma to a period and delete the entire phrase that you just quoted.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Yes - I think that's OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The thrust of the document is to provide guidance to auditors on how to analyze and score the metrics.  Can we say that?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I don't think it is even doing that - it's saying how the audit should be run as a procedure and what the audits should know - at a high level etc. But no scoring system.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets adopt Robert's approach.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): OK
JohnGarrett >> (All): How about "The thrust of the document is to describe the process used to audit candidate TDRs on the metrics.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I'll try to keep editing the doc as we go. I've accepted all previous changes so we can keep track of things
David Giaretta2 >> (All): JOhn - that would be OK but not sure if we need anything.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Where were we up to last time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think we were at 9.1.2, bu then we went back to  Section 1.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): For such a small section it has a strange attraction
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, indeed.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I think Mark said his comemnts finished around section 9 - he was going to take a further look
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, that's right.  We were all going to add comments from that point on.  Unfortunately, I haven't done it for this week.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): All of (.1.3 to the end of 9 has been deleted.  I just want to make sure that was the intention
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That's 9.1.3 to end
David Giaretta2 >> (All): It does not appear in the chat - but we switch to audio?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Was there agreement to changing TDR to digital repository?  I thought we were going with candidate TDR.  To me, saying that implies much more than saying digital repository in terms of the repository preparing for audit, adopting best practices for long-term preservation and access, etc.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I seem to remember that the argument was made that 9.1.3-6 just repeated 17021
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Bruce - which sectoion are you lookin at?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It is in 9.1.2 and elsewhere
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think last week we were looking at several things and deciding that they were just re-stating what was in 17021.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I guess we did not change to "digital repository" candidate TDR where the context made it clear
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The deletion is fine, just making sure it was intended.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Hi Helen - just noticed you joined
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yup, sorry to be late - so many things to squeeze in!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But the auditors are dealing only with candidate TDRs, not with digital repositories in general.  So the phrasing should be the same throughout the document.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): begining with the title
David Giaretta2 >> (All): OK - change "digital repository" to "candidate TRD" in 9.1.2 - I've edited the title
Helen Tibbo >> (All): It's 1/2 a holiday in North Carolina - I think the public schools are closed today but the university is open. Not a religious day... big softball game at the NC State House....
Helen Tibbo >> (All): What is the address of the most recent document?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReqtsForAuditors/AuditorGuidelines-CCSDS-format-4-20100329.doc
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen, and you must get ready to cheer for that little school north of you in the NCAA final.  I know you are looking forward to that
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Well, I always cheer for any ACC teams in these circumstances....
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In the new 9.2.1 it reads" The certification body shall require that a client organization " shouldn't this also be candidate TDR?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I'm having trouble keeping track of the windows on my small screen - I need to see what 17021 says because we were deleting a lot of words which really repeated 17021
David Giaretta2 >> (All): But the candidate TDR is part of the client organisation isn't it?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): in bullet (a) it should be "candidate TDR"
David Giaretta2 >> (All): (b) also
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We will not be auditing the client organization, only the candidate TDR whether it is either stand-alone or part of a larger organziation
David Giaretta2 >> (All): but the it is saying that the organisation makes all necessary arrangement
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ..so it could just be the candidate TDR or the management in the parent organisation
David Giaretta2 >> (All): in 9.2.1 (b) it mentions section 4.3.1 in the Metrics doc - I guess tha should be deleted since it is probably a carry-over from the doc we copied
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think the term "client organization" is a bit confusing in general. The auditors are not working for the "client organization." It makes the auditors sound like consultants.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It appears that the global search and replace - a) did not work on this phrase and/or b)was not applied to this part of the document.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): OK - change "client organisation" to "candidate TDR" - is that right?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): also delete "Clause 4.3.1"
JohnGarrett >> (All): In general I think that is OK, but I think sometimes there are discussions of doing things with portions of the client organization that are outside the TDR.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, that is based on an assumption that all candidate TDRs are part of a lerger organization.  While generall true, it is not an absolute and may be less so in the future.  We also may be auditing stand-aslone commercial digital archives that provide service for the digital assets of a large number of repositories.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I suppose the point is that some organisation pays the audit/certification body to do the audit and whoever pays is the "client organisation"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That may be a grant making organization such as NEH, IMLS, etc.  They would be the clients, just the funders
BruceAmbacher >> (All): not be the clients
JohnGarrett >> (All): I was thinking of possible restrictions on the auditing body not being able to be a  consultant for the client organzation. 
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Hum... Am. Lib. Assoc. accredits library and info sci programs in the US. I don't think we ever use the term "client." It would be something more like "applicant organization."
Helen Tibbo >> (All): The organization/potential TDR is applying for TDR status
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I guess NEH etc could insist that a repository was audited but the client would be the organisation in which the repository was embedded OR the repository itself
David Giaretta2 >> (All): .. could ask for the audit
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, the audit organization or individuals who may be both auditors and consultants?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Sorry to leave early but I have to be at a site visit in DC in a little over an hour.  I'll be here next week.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): OK bye Bruce
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bruce, yes in either case.  We probably don't want the auditing body or the individuals being a consultant to the parent of TDR and then being the auditor for the TDR.  That would just call into question the auditing bodies and individuals objectivity.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): So, how about the term "applicant organization" rather than "client organization"?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Sounds good
RobertDowns >> (All): sounds good to me, too.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I'll delete the refs to 4.3.1 
JohnGarrett >> (All): 17021 uses the client term quite a bit.  I could become more confusing to make the change, but I'm not totally opposed to it.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, delete the 4.3.1 reference
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Actually we probably need to delete bullet (b) because in ISO 27001 section 4.3.1 there is a list of general docs which we don't have.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ...deleteing just the ref to 4.3.1 would then say that essentially ALL the docs mentioned in the Metrics doc would have to be supplied
JohnGarrett >> (All): Ok with me to delete it.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Me too
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Also first para of section 9.2.2.1 "At this stage..."
JohnGarrett >> (All): What documentation should the candidate TDR be supplying for the stage 1 audit before the auditors arrive on site?
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Just looked at 17021 and the list it has looks pretty good.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I find myself adopting Mark's point of view - there is a lot we should probably just delete.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ...just inherit from17021.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): #....just keep those very specific things to the TDR
RobertDowns >> (All): I was interrupted and also agree to delete 9.2.1 b.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think tihs is a good approach. If when the thing is reviewed people want other stuff here we can add.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Works for me.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): It's almost 5pm my time - I should probably call it a day - but I'dlike to really take a critical look at what we really need in this doc to supplement 17021
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK see you next week.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): See you next week!
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
Topic revision: r1 - 2010-04-05 - 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