Notes from Megameeting 19th April 2010

Attendees

BruceAmbacher UM
DavidGiaretta STFC
JohnGarrett GSFC
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
SimonLambert STFC
TerryLongstreth  

Summary

Today's discussion was partly spoken, so the chat transcript below is not a full record.

It was agreed to replace the term "Initial Audit Committee" with "TDR Accreditation Board".

Actions

  • All to read section 9 and circulate views on how much of its content is really necessary.
  • DavidGiaretta to circulate draft Memorandum of Understanding (for European framework for audit/certification) for comment.

TerryLongstreth >> (All): Simon did a good job putting some of the cats back in 
the bag, but we still have some inconsistencies.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I was looking at the what he did. Yes looks better.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I was looking at the new version and have questions 
about the use of "client organization" that I raised before and they still 
bother me.  Our focus is on the digital repository charged with long-term 
preservation.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I think we have varying views of the size of TDRs and 
the degree of independence they possess and the degree they are under the day-
to-day control of a client organization, if they are part of such an entity.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I agree. I think we need a relationship chart, 
relating all of the organizational units mentioned
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I seem to remember that the question was whether the 
repository can be part of a contract or whether it may be part of another larger 
organisation
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi All,  Sorry I was going to try to work on such a chart 
and started on it, but never sent anything out
David Giaretta2 >> (All): I think "client org" was suppored to cover both cases
BruceAmbacher >> (All): TDRs will not all be large science data centers with 
massive daily ingests and multiple , frequent users.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Bruce - yes we have to cover all cases
TerryLongstreth >> (All): 3 Layers: 1 - tangible evidence, publically displayed 
(diploma on the wall)
TerryLongstreth >> (All): 2- Tangible evidence- reviewed and approved by 
auditor(s)
TerryLongstreth >> (All): 3 - Full on-site inspection and audit
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Self audit = "I comply with OAIS"
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Evidence presented must conform to RAC document
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Here is the meat of the NEH guidelines: Eligible 
activities include: the development of technical standards, best practices, and 
tools for preserving and creating access to humanities collections;  the 
exploration of more effective scientific and technical methods of preserving 
humanities collections;  the development of automated procedures and 
computational tools to integrate, analyze, and repurpose humanities data in 
disparate online resources; and  the investigation and testing of new ways of 
providing digital access to humanities materials that are not easily digitized 
using current methods.  NEH especially encourages applications that address the 
following topics:  Digital Preservation: how to preserve digital humanities 
materials, including born-digital materials, for which there is no analog 
counterpart;  Recorded Sound and Moving Image Collections: how to preserve and 
increase access to the record of the twentieth century contained in these 
formats; and  Preventive Conservation: how to protect and slow the deterioration 
of humanities collections through the use of sustainable preservation 
strategies.  Eligible activities include: the development of technical 
standards, best practices, and tools for preserving and creating access to 
humanities collections;  the exploration of more effective scientific and 
technical methods of preserving humanities collections;  the development of 
automated procedures and computational tools to integrate, analyze, and 
repurpose humanities data in disparate online resources; and  the investigation 
and testing of new ways of providing digital access to humanities materials that 
are not easily digitized using current methods.  NEH especially encourages 
applications that address the following topics:  Digital Preservation: how to 
preserve digital humanities materials, including born-digital materials, for 
which there is no analog counterpart;  Recorded Sound and Moving Image 
Collections: how to preserve and increase access to the record of the twentieth 
century contained in these formats; and  Preventive Conservation: how to protect 
and slow the deterioration of humanities collections through the use of 
sustainable preservation strategies.  
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Can we subset the metrics ?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we need to write into the auditor's handbook or the 
standard itself the levels of compliance (self-bronze-silver-gold)
RobertDowns >> (All): Writing into the auditors handbook makes sense
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes for  the provisional stamp (bronze)
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But who, beyond the teams, will see the operational 
handbook?
RobertDowns >> (All): We might want to include the levels in the guide that we 
are currently writing
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But we can put the concepts and levels in this doc and 
fully develop them in operations handbook
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, a broad statement or two can set this up
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That seems to be a good approach.  Can we write in  the 
intention to interact with larger bodies such as EU structure?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): My sense of the discussion is that we are talking about 
even self-assessment would be examined, approved by the audit body.
RobertDowns >> (All): Bronze: review of submitted self=assessment report
RobertDowns >> (All): Bronze: review and approval by committee of submitted 
self=assessment report.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): How much review is required at the lowest "certification 
level"?  Who would do it?  How much cost outside the organization will it 
entail?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Robert: bronze is second step?
RobertDowns >> (All): Self-assessment is first
TerryLongstreth >> (All): where first step is public disclosure
TerryLongstreth >> (All): If an organization doesn't want to publically disclose 
stuff, they go directly to bronze
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Silver - audit team onsite, audit conducted, revisions 
pending
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Gold  = full audit and correction of all deficiencies
RobertDowns >> (All): Bruce's suggestion for silver and gold make sense
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Correcting some deficiencies could take one or more 
budget cycles = 2-3 years
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I'm not sure I would want to advertise that I was 
silver
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Full certification is only given to digital repositories 
that have completed the process and addressed all deficiencies cited in the 
report.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): dini and nestor
RobertDowns >> (All): See http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/CRL Report on Portico Audit 2010.pdf 
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Self audit must be substantiated with public 
disclosure
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Some of us can try to talk with grant officers to see 
their enthusiasm
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Once in place we can try to get them to build this into 
the grant process
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Europe has always been more unitary that the US
JohnGarrett >> (All): Maybe Primary Audit Committeee
JohnGarrett >> (All): Auditors for many of the ISO Standards have National 
Accreditation Boards that accredits the auditor organizations.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I like TDR Accreditation Board with audit teams below it 
that do the work.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, the TDR Accredition Board can accredit audit team and 
conduct the initial audits
RobertDowns >> (All): correction: teams
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Id not agree Terry
BruceAmbacher >> (All): My big issue is with the relationship of client 
organization and the repository
JohnGarrett >> (All): Client organization in my view is the digital repository 
or one of its parents
RobertDowns >> (All): A department of an organization should be able to sign the 
agreement
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I agree. But we need to look through the requirements 
and ensure we are just auditing the digital repository itself and any 
iteractions from the outside organization that effects the digital repository 
operation.
JohnGarrett >> (All): So as homework we should all read through Sections 8 and 9 
and make sure they refer to auditing only digital repository
BruceAmbacher >> (All): IN RAC and this handbook our primary focus has always 
been on the part of the digital repository that preserves data for the long-
term.  Introducing other terms now confuses
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps we should state that all levels of audits will 
evaluate how the repository meets all of the requirements
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The client can add but not delete any core functions to 
be audited.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets run TDR Accreditation Board by our active 
participants
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ACTIOn - use TDR Accreditation Board instead of 
initial audit committee
TerryLongstreth >> (All): and describe scope of TAB
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we circulate comments, issues on section 9 to the 
list before the next telecon?
RobertDowns >> (All): We also might want to state that all requirements are 
evaluated for all levels of certification.
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ACTION - what do we absolutely need in section 9 - 
email to the list
David Giaretta2 >> (All): ACTION - DG to circulate draft MOU for comment
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets write them up and get feedback from our group - 
several 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have to go now
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye

-- SimonLambert - 19 Apr 2010

Topic revision: r1 - 2010-04-19 - 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