<div dir="ltr">Hi Mike,<div><br></div><div>I think it would actually be more useful (and a whole lot easier) to simply make it clear that the information lifecycle described in the document is for a specific context (i.e., project/experiment). If you try to re-write the document for a more generic lifecycle it would be very difficult. The current document is far too prescriptive in terms of workflow/responsibilities for all of the different contexts that records/information/data are created under. </div><div><br></div><div>As I said before, I think the document would be very useful for the specific context. I just think the document scope should be qualified to indicate the context in which it can be applied.</div><div><br></div><div>Mark</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Mark Conrad<br>NARA Information Services/Applied Research</div>
<div>IXA<br>The National Archives and Records Administration<br>Erma Ora Byrd
Conference and Learning Center<br>Building 494 Second Floor<br>610 State Route
956<br>Rocket Center, WV 26726<br><br>Phone: 304-726-7820<br>Fax:
304-726-7802<br>Email: <a href="mailto:mark.conrad@nara.gov" target="_blank">mark.conrad@nara.gov</a> <br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/NARACAST" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/NARACAST</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.archives.gov/applied-research/" target="_blank">http://www.archives.gov/applied-research/</a><a href="http://www.archives.gov/ncast/" target="_blank"></a></div>
<div>Twitter: @lmc1990</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Mike Martin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tahoe_mike@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">tahoe_mike@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Mark<br>
<br>
Thanks for your comments. In the "much more generic lifecycle framework" would all the topics still apply? If so, then maybe the paper can be worded to be more inclusive and to make sure that an individual could see that he/she was the "project", and that sometimes the "sponsor" would be one's boss or oneself.<br>
<br>
Thanks, Mike<br>
<br>
On 1/7/2016 9:58 AM, Mark Conrad wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
I am also the one responsible for generating the action item from the<br>
December 22nd meeting as well. As an archivist I am used to a much more<br>
generic information lifecycle framework. Archivists and records managers<br>
use more generic frameworks because we have to deal with<br>
records/information/data that are created in many different contexts.<br>
For example, records/information/data are created in many organizations<br>
on a daily basis in contexts that don't have someone in a formal role of<br>
sponsor. Records/information/data are also generated outside the context<br>
of a particular project.<br>
<br>
I guess my main objection was that the title of Information Lifecycle<br>
Framework was not sufficiently qualified to distinguish it from more<br>
generic frameworks like those used by archivists and records managers.<br>
The document as it currently exists could be entitled something like,<br>
Information Lifecycle Framework for Major Projects/Experiments.<br>
<br>
I think the document would be very useful in this qualified context.<br>
Many archivist or records managers can tell you horror stories about<br>
receiving calls like, "We have shut down this experiment/project/system,<br>
do you want any of the information." The archivist ends up doing "data<br>
archaeology" trying to see what can be salvaged. Having information<br>
reuse considered from the initiation of a project would make our lives<br>
so much easier - not to mention making the results of the work<br>
accessible and usable to a much wider audience.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps explain where my comments come from.<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
Mark Conrad<br>
NARA Information Services/Applied Research<br>
IXA<br>
The National Archives and Records Administration<br>
Erma Ora Byrd Conference and Learning Center<br>
Building 494 Second Floor<br>
610 State Route 956<br>
Rocket Center, WV 26726<br>
<br>
Phone: <a href="tel:304-726-7820" value="+13047267820" target="_blank">304-726-7820</a><br>
Fax: <a href="tel:304-726-7802" value="+13047267802" target="_blank">304-726-7802</a><br>
Email: <a href="mailto:mark.conrad@nara.gov" target="_blank">mark.conrad@nara.gov</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mark.conrad@nara.gov" target="_blank">mark.conrad@nara.gov</a>><br>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/NARACAST" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/NARACAST</a><br>
<a href="http://www.archives.gov/applied-research/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.archives.gov/applied-research/</a><<a href="http://www.archives.gov/ncast/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.archives.gov/ncast/</a>><br>
Twitter: @lmc1990<br>
<br>
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Mike Martin <<a href="mailto:tahoe_mike@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">tahoe_mike@sbcglobal.net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:tahoe_mike@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">tahoe_mike@sbcglobal.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Mark and others<br>
<br>
On 1/5/2016 11:52 AM, Mark Conrad wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
Second, the schedule identifies 8 stages of a project - Formulation,<br>
Approval, Design Development, Manufacture, Fabrication and<br>
Assembly, Pre-launch System Integration and Verification,<br>
Implementation<br>
and Operations, Observational Data, and Evaluation and Termination.<br>
<br>
<br>
Related to this, there was an action item from the meeting on the<br>
22nd of Dec:<br>
<br>
Action: clarify why we need another lifecycle<br>
<br>
I spent many hours going through all the lifecycles in:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.pnamp.org/sites/default/files/data_life_cycle_models_and_concepts.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.pnamp.org/sites/default/files/data_life_cycle_models_and_concepts.pdf</a><br>
<br>
and looking at other archiving documents provided a summary in late<br>
2014 for the DAI group which is included below.<br>
<br>
Most lifecycles don't really consider the interactions of the three<br>
participants (sponsor/project/archive). I wanted our lifecycle to<br>
point out the importance of the sponsor and archive being involved<br>
in the initiation of the project and then to point out the need for<br>
bringing in requirements and tools to the specify and design<br>
stages. The Exploitation activities aren't covered in most<br>
lifecycles. I didn't think that all the themes in the LTDP (PDSC<br>
definition and appraisal, archive operation and organization,<br>
security, ingestion, maintenance, access and interoperability,<br>
exploitation and reprocessing, purge prevention) were applicable to<br>
this document so came up with a shorter list of activities.<br>
<br>
Another thing to mention, the topics/issues came from a list David<br>
provided from his work on the Active Data Management Plan, plus<br>
evaluation of all the LTDP Common Guidelines, plus evaluation of all<br>
the activities in the PAIMAS standard, plus looking at the ESDIS<br>
Earth Science Content Specification, plus other issues that group<br>
members raised.<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nov 20, 2014<br>
Hi Everyone<br>
<br>
I've gone through all the reference documents we have seen and the<br>
articles in our bibliography and tried to summarize the unique life<br>
cycles that are presented. Here are some summaries with more<br>
details below:<br>
<br>
David's: Planning and Creation Stage->Consolidation Stage->Long<br>
Term Preservation Stage->Adding Value, Re-Use and Sustainability<br>
<br>
LTDP: Consolidation->Implementation->Operations<br>
<br>
OAIS+: Planning->Collection->Analysis->Packaging->Ingest->Data<br>
Management->Archival Storage->Access->Preservation Planning<br>
<br>
DCC: Conceptualize->create or receive->appraise and<br>
select->ingest->preservation action-> store->access->use and<br>
reuse->transform<br>
<br>
USGS: Plan->Acquire->Process->Analyze->Preserve->Publish/Share<br>
<br>
SDMW: Plan->Collect->Integrate and transform->Publish->Discover and<br>
inform->Archive or discard<br>
<br>
DataOne;<br>
Collect->Assure->Describe->Deposit->Preserve->Discover->Integrate<br>
->Analyze<br>
<br>
DMF: Planning and Production->Data Management Activities<br>
->Dissemination->Usage Activities<br>
<br>
Can we come up with an optimal set of categories based on all these<br>
various views?<br>
<br>
Thanks, Mike<br>
<br>
More detail from the various documents:<br>
<br>
1. The LTDP preservation workflow includes:<br>
Initialization (appraisal, define designated community,<br>
specification of preservation/curation requirements, consolidation<br>
procedure, tailoring content, consult with community, cost and risk<br>
assessment),<br>
Consolidation (implement consolidation, gather missing content and<br>
update), Implementation (data ingestion and catalog generation,<br>
dissemination),<br>
Operations (operations and maintenance, curation and stewardship -<br>
adding value).<br>
<br>
2. The OAIS model includes Ingest, Data Management, Archival<br>
Storage, Access, Management and Preservation Planning. It is<br>
missing Planning (meaning enterprise planning), Collecting (Mission<br>
Operations, building and running the enterprise), Analyzing<br>
(producing knowledge) and maybe Packaging. All these occur prior to<br>
OAIS, but OAIS should be involved. Consolidation could be part of<br>
Ingest or possibly an separate activity outside the OAIS. Adding<br>
Value could be part of or a combination of Preservation Planning or<br>
Access. This model syncs up with RASIM which builds advanced<br>
information management objects in terms of five services which<br>
correlate with OAIS components, archive service (ingest), repository<br>
service (archival storage), registry service (data management),<br>
product service (access plus archival storage), and query service<br>
(access plus data management).<br>
<br>
3. The Data Curation Centre life cycle includes conceptualize,<br>
create or receive, appraise and select (with potential to dispose),<br>
ingest, preservation action (migrate or reappraise), store, access,<br>
use and reuse, transform (with potential to migrate).<br>
<br>
4. The NOAA Environmental Data Life Cycle Functions include<br>
planning new systems, then stewardship which includes observing<br>
operations, archive, access, use. Overarching themes are<br>
governance, requirements management, architecture management,<br>
security; developing rich metadata; and mechanisms for user and<br>
requirements and feedback. Each of the major categories has many<br>
sub-activities.<br>
<br>
5. The Global Change Science Requirements for Long-Term Archiving<br>
Workshop (USGCRP) identified the following components: User<br>
Involvement, Data Administration, Documentation, Data Ingest and<br>
Verification<br>
Data Preservation and Maintenance, Data Processing/Reprocessing,<br>
Data Access and User Support.<br>
<br>
6. The USGS Life Cycle includes Plan, Acquire, Process, Analyze,<br>
Preserve, Publish/Share with three activities running through all<br>
phases: Describe (Metadata and Documentation), Manage Quality,<br>
Backup and Secure.<br>
<br>
7. The ESA Heterogenous Missions Accessibility Report really<br>
focuses on data access and not the other phases.<br>
<br>
8. The Harnessing the Power of Digital Data: Taking the Next Step,<br>
Science Data Management Workshop report provides a number of models:<br>
<br>
FGDC life cycle: Define, Inventory/Evaluate, Obtain, Access,<br>
Maintain, Use/Evaluate, Archive.<br>
Linear data lifecycle: Plan, Collect, Integrate and Transform,<br>
Publish, Discovery with two activities running through all phases,<br>
Governance and Stewardship and Communications.<br>
Basic science model: plan, collect, integrate and transform,<br>
publish, discover and inform, archive or discard.<br>
<br>
The topics that are identified in the report include: data<br>
governance, stewardship, sharing, access, security, version control,<br>
metadata management, content and format, document and content<br>
management, preservation, transfer of responsibility, data<br>
architecture, database operations management, reference and master<br>
data management, data warehousing and business intelligence, data<br>
quality management, provenance, usability, value added services,<br>
workflow systems.<br>
<br>
9. The LPDAAC Lifecycle Plan identifies the phases: Inception,<br>
Active Archive, Long-Term Archive which each have four elements,<br>
characterization, critical data and information, applicable<br>
standards, transition.<br>
<br>
The WBS is broken into phases, inception-planning (embed in producer<br>
team, provide data management plan), inception-production (laison to<br>
science stakeholders, collection inception checklist, support<br>
production, repeat experiment, determine approach to tools/services,<br>
authorize to migrate, provide NASA data template), active archive<br>
transition from producer (obtain authorization to migrate, plan<br>
migration, install new product line, migrate, advertise new<br>
products, assume primary access and discovery role), active archive<br>
transition to long-term (obtain authorization to migrate, plan<br>
migration), long term archive transition to long-term (enable<br>
migration, execute migration, advertise new products, transfer<br>
primary access and discovery role, obtain authorization for<br>
certification, sunset products).<br>
<br>
10. DataOne includes Collect, Assure, Describe, Deposit, Preserve,<br>
Discover, Integrate, Analyze<br>
<br>
11. Jeff de La Beaujardičre's Data Management Framework<br>
Planning and Production (Requirements Definition, Planning,<br>
Development, Deployment, Operations);<br>
Data Management Activities (Collection, Processing, Quality Control,<br>
Documentation, Dissemination, Cataloging, Preservation, Stewardship,<br>
Usage Tracking, Final Disposition);<br>
Usage Activities (Discovery, Reception, Analysis, Product<br>
Generation, User Feedback, Citation, Tagging, Gap Analysis).<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Moims-dai mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Moims-dai mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Moims-dai mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>