Notes from Megameeting 14th June 2010


BruceAmbacher UM
JohnGarrett GSFC
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
SimonLambert STFC


It was agreed that the latest version of the "Requirements for Bodies ..." document is acceptable for submission to CCSDS. JohnGarrett suggested passing the Security section by the CCSDS Security WG to get their comments.

Transcript of chat

SimonLambert >> (All): Hello Bruce
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Hello Simon.  Will we have anyone today?
SimonLambert >> (All): Not sure - not David
BruceAmbacher >> (All): nor Mark
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I did review the latest draft and find it acceptable.  
Once all the revisions are cleaned up it will not seem long enough to reflect 
all of the discussion and editing.
SimonLambert >> (All): Yes, it has get shorter and shorter!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Hopefully brevity equals clarity.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Looks like no one is joining today.  Should we log off?
SimonLambert >> (All): Spoke too soon!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): So I did
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Anyone get a look at Section 12?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes.  I had no issues
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Okay.  Looks like consensus
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi, All.  Sorry I'm late.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Terry sounds like you got your problem with the email list 
cleared up now.  Did they say what the problem was?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Only that they had to put me on the White list for 
their spam filter
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I suspect they've got general blocks on and/or
JohnGarrett >> (All): That makes me nervous that other mail to the list might be 
dropped.  Especially if someone on the list is having problems.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): So, are we at the point we clean up this document and 
submit it to CCSDS for comments, then to ISO via TC20/SC13?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): John - It might be worth a note to the general 
membership, but most people would realize that if they didn't get feedback, 
something was wrong.
RobertDowns >> (All): Terry - Did you receive an error message?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I've known about this problem for over  a year, but 
didn't find the POC until I got lost in the CCSDS pages the other day
BruceAmbacher >> (All): FYI: Did anyone read September/October 2009  Volume 15 
Issue 9/10 [ Full Contents ]Article: Establishing Trust in a Chain of 
Preservation: The TRAC Checklist Applied to a Data Staging Repository
(DataStaR)Authors: Gail Steinhart, Dianne Dietrich, Ann Green in dlib magazine?  
It is available online at:
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Bruce - anything in particuiar we should be looking 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I just ran across it while looking for new materials for 
my digital preservation course.  I have not looked at it yet.
RobertDowns >> (All): Bruce, the following short article describes a self-
assessment using TRAC and recommendations. Downs RR, Chen RS (2010) Self-
Assessment of a Long-Term Archive for Interdisciplinary Scientific Data as a 
Trustworthy Digital Repository. Journal of Digital Information, 11(1), Open 
Repositories 2009 Special Issue. Online: 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Robert,
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Thanks for the citation.  I will try to use it
RobertDowns >> (All): Another recent article builds a model for submission and 
workflow, based on TRAC, and contains a review of several studies that have used 
the TRAC.  Downs RR, Chen RS (2010) Designing Submission and Workflow Services 
for Preserving Interdisciplinary Scientific Data. Earth Science Informatics.
Online First:  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I recently circulated a notice for a training session in 
using TRAC.  If we don't get the new version through ISO we may not be able to 
get traction for it. 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, work your magic and get the ISO review started.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Robert's second one isnt' free
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Robert, you can't get many citation hits that way.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I've put the other two in my private PTAB forlder, for 
when our discussions begin to move in that direction
RobertDowns >> (All): We try to target open access journals as much as we can.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): And you also want to touch as wide an audience of 
disciplines as possible.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sorry, I don't seem to have much magic at the moment. 
Still working on being able to see the Version 2 of OAIS RM.   I did get the 
PAIMAS document re-approved at CCSDS, but there is a real problem going from 
organization to organization.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John,
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is our RAC draft viewable?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'm not sure what David has arranged for the Auditor 
Bodies standard.  I don't know if it will go through a CCSDS review first or if 
he is trying to do a concurrent ISO review which doesn't ever seem to happen any 
JohnGarrett >> (All): Viewable by whom?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I could not get to the cleaned up version of RAC on the 
CCSDS pubs page
JohnGarrett >> (All): The RAC metrics document completed the CCSDS Agency 
review, but I have not seen it yet on the ISO site, although we have a number 
for it now at ISO.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Oh, no the updated RAC metrics where we dealt with the 
comments has not gone through a CCSDS review.  We were waiting until it went 
through ISO and would include the additional updates from that review.
RobertDowns >> (All): ISO/NP 16363
JohnGarrett >> (All): I"m not sure if David added the updated version to the 
working area for RAC.  I normally check the wiki instead of the CCSDS working 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we finished for this week?  We seem to have 
agreement on the auditors' handbook text.  What's next?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I have to sign off now. Going down to NOAA for the OGC 
and geosemantics meeting
BruceAmbacher >> (All): All,
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen and I will be in a week-long institute next week 
and will not be available.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK.  You've looked at the new section and approved.  Maybe 
David can get the ball rolling on this document at CCSDS then.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Ok, I will look at the minutes of nest week (if it 
JohnGarrett >> (All): We should probably pass the Security Section by the CCSDS 
Security WG and get their comments.  They are the only ones likely to comment on 
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK bye all

-- SimonLambert - 14 Jun 2010

Topic revision: r1 - 2010-06-14 - SimonLambert
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback