<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I thought we had prepared some this before when the web site first went up, but I couldn’t find it. Maybe we just talked about responding. Anyway I’ve added a few more comments. I certainly support the response that has already been prepared.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I believe the author has been involved in some of the earlier OAIS meetings and discussions. As I recall, he was very oriented towards emulation as the way to go for preservation and was unhappy with the migration vs. emulation treatments in the current OAIS.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I certainly think there are some possibilities for us to update OAIS to cover additional archival aspects, but we certainly considered <a name="_MailEndCompose">dark Archives and Web harvesting types of Archives when we developed OAIS. It also seems like they were able to apply OAIS and the metrics to their Archives.<o:p></o:p></a></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Wishing you prosperity and peace,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>-JOhn<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Hughes, John S (398B)<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion <moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org>; David Giaretta <david@GIARETTA.ORG><br><b>Cc:</b> ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Moims-dai] Re: Comments of Rosenthal's "Case for a revision of OAIS"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I agree with the sentiments below. Rosenthal doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of a reference model or the metrics. He is arguing from implementation. For example, the PDS is a distributed system and we had no problem applying OAIS RM principles. A tough response is appropriate. Sorry this is so late.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Steve<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a> [<a href="mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>D or C Sawyer<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:46 PM<br><b>To:</b> David Giaretta <<a href="mailto:david@GIARETTA.ORG">david@GIARETTA.ORG</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>; MOIMS DAI List <<a href="mailto:moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [Moims-dai] Re: Comments of Rosenthal's "Case for a revision of OAIS"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Hi David,<br><br>I agree with your comments (but see my text) and Mark’s comments. I’ve added a few of my own. Perhaps my most important one is the first about how to judge the effectiveness of OAIS. Any revisions to OAIS, as happened with the one revision to date, needs to keep in mind the main purpose of the model which is to promote effective communication. This require widespread adoption. The model can not be too huge and complex, or it will become useless and fall out of usage. Certainly it can evolve, but I believe this should be limited to improving clarity, correcting errors, and only adding new concepts that seem really significant. I agree with Mark that such a case has not been made by the author. It would be more productive if the author would generate a mapping of how they related their CLOCKSS to OAIS terms and concepts, and put that out for discussion. A really informative discussion could result. Presumably some of that mapping is contained in some of the links, but I’m not going to dig thru to find it. Perhaps you would suggest this to Rosenthal.<br><br>Cheers-<br>Don<br><br>(PS I don’t know if I’m reaching people on ISO-PTAB. John has updated me on MOIMS-DAI by including my other address, and that is working)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br><br><br> <br>On Feb 17, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Giaretta <<a href="mailto:david@GIARETTA.ORG">david@GIARETTA.ORG</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Thanks Mark<br>> <br>> I’ll add some of your extra points. With your support I’ll harden the tone. Will also change or remove the last para as you suggest.<br>> <br>> ..David<br>> <br>> From: ISO Primary TDR Accreditation Board [<a href="mailto:ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">mailto:ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>] On Behalf Of Mark Conrad<br>> Sent: 17 February 2016 17:50<br>> To: <a href="mailto:ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">ISO-PTAB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a><br>> Subject: Re: Comments of Rosenthal's "Case for a revision of OAIS"<br>> <br>> David,<br>> <br>> If anything I believe you are too kind in your comments. I have put in comments throughout his text. I am not nearly as diplomatic as you are, so I offer them as possible additional fodder for your comments back to Rosenthal. I do think we need to push back hard. This guy wants to make a name for himself and he would not hesitate to trash perfectly good work that he does not appear to understand to do so.<br>> <br>> My two cents.<br>> <br>> Mark<br>> <br>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:09 AM, David Giaretta <<a href="mailto:david@giaretta.org">david@giaretta.org</a>> wrote:<br>> I prepared the attached document. Before lighting a firestorm I’d appreciate your comments.<br>> <br>> <br>> ..David<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>_______________________________________________<br>Moims-dai mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org">Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>