<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">I believe Don is correct about the applicability of PDI only to the Content Information (or the Content Data Object per SC 222). If you look at the current definitions for the PDI components, they apply to the Content Information <span style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">(or the Content Data Object per SC 222).</span><div><span style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Preservation Description Information (PDI</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">):<span> </span>The<b> </b>information which is necessary for
adequate preservation of the <a>Content Data Obect (sic) </a></span><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" name="_msoanchor_1">[JG1]</a><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">and which can be categorized as <a>Provenance
Information, Context Information, Reference Information, Fixity Information,
and Access Rights Information.</a></span><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_2" href="#_msocom_2" name="_msoanchor_2">[JG2]</a></span></span></span></div><div><span style="text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b>Provenance Information</b>:<b><span> </span></b>The
information that documents the history of the <a>Content Data Object.<span> </span>This information tells the origin or source
of the Content Data Object,</a><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" name="_msoanchor_1">[JG1]</a><span> </span></span></span>
any changes that may have taken place since it was originated, and who has had
custody of it since it was originated.<span>
</span>The Archive is responsible for creating and preserving Provenance
Information from the point of Ingest; however, earlier Provenance Information
should be provided by the Producer. Provenance Information adds to the evidence
to support Authenticity.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Context Information</span></b><span>:<b><span> </span></b>The information that documents the
relationships of the <a>Content Data Object to its environment.<span> </span>This includes why the Content Data Object was
created and how it relates to other Content Data Objects</a></span><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" name="_msoanchor_1">[JG1]</a><span> </span></span></span></p>
<div>
<div><div id="gmail-_com_1" class="gmail-msocomtxt"><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="font-size:10pt;margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:14pt;font-size:12pt"><b>Reference Information</b>:<b><span> </span></b>The
information that is used as an identifier for the <a>Content Data Object. It also includes
identifiers that allow outside systems to refer unambiguously to particular
Content Data Object.</a><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" name="_msoanchor_1">[JG1]</a><span> </span></span></span></p><a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">NOTE: An </span></a><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_2" href="#_msocom_2" name="_msoanchor_2">[JG2]</a><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt">example of Reference Information is an ISBN.</span><p></p><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="font-size:10pt;margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Fixity Information</span></b><span>:<b><span> </span></b>The information which documents the
mechanisms that ensure that the <a>Content Data Object </a></span><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" name="_msoanchor_1">[JG1]</a><span> </span></span></span><span>has not been altered in an undocumented manner.</span></span></p><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Access Rights Information:</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt"> The information that identifies the access
restrictions pertaining to the <a>Content Data Object, </a></span><span class="gmail-MsoCommentReference"><span lang="X-NONE" style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a class="gmail-msocomanchor" id="gmail-_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" name="_msoanchor_1">[JG1]</a><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt">including the legal framework, licensing terms,
and access control. It contains the access and distribution conditions stated
within the Submission Agreement, related to both preservation (by the OAIS) and
final usage (by the Consumer). It also includes the specifications for the application
of rights enforcement measures.</span></span></p><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br></span></span></p><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt">Note that in each case the PDI and its components pertain to the </span></span><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">Content Information (or the Content Data Object per SC 222). It does not apply to all Information Objects held by the OAIS. David, I believe that you submitted a Suggested Change, or maybe it was just an email thread, to apply the same preservation protocols to all information objects - not just Content Information. This suggestion was rejected by the group if I remember correctly.</span></font></p><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt">Given the above, I am inclined to agree with Don to reverse SC 222.</p><p class="gmail-MsoCommentText" style="margin:12pt 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt">Mark</p></div></div></div></span></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Mark Conrad<br>NARA Information Services</div>
<div>Systems Engineering Division (IT)<br>The National Archives and Records Administration<br>Erma Ora Byrd
Conference and Learning Center<br>Building 494, Room 225<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><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 8:37 PM, D or C Sawyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Sawyer@acm.org" target="_blank">Sawyer@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">Dear All,<div><br></div><div>This is a brief response to the thread of messages precipitated by my response to the decision to retain SC222.</div><div><br></div><div>Despite David’s belief that there is something that I’m missing, I believe the situation is just the opposite. In fact his response, and then Bruce’s response to David, have highlighted where the major disconnect lies. In short, I believe that David has a picture for the application of Provenance (and PDI more generally), that is at variance to the actual text and modeling contained in OAIS RM 2012. Therefore I find his view of the impact of SC222 is also at variance to the OAIS RM with SC222 incorporated. I’m providing a short description of the issue in the following text and 2 accompanying diagrams.</div><div><br></div><div>Bruce has made a valuable contribution pointing out the long standing use of Provenance in the Cultural Heritage community. Bruce was a valuable contributor to the development of the initial OAIS RM and therefore it is not surprising that we deliberately associated Provenance Information with the Content Information. The Content Information is the original target of preservation and it is this information, whether physically or digitally based, whose Provenance is of particular interest. This Content Information is the particular information that the OAIS is most concerned with preserving.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is the key point: there is all kinds of other information that an Archive will need to maintain, and much of it will likely be digital. We did NOT define Provenance to be associated with any of this other information. Specifically it is NOT defined with respect to a general Information Object, and appropriately so. (A proposal to define Content Information as any Information Object within the Archive was firmly rejected.) Real archives need to distinguish that information that is the original target of preservation from all other information because that information is treated differently in terms of the human effort and other resources applied. Thus Provenance is properly focused on the Content Information, and because Content Information is defined as a Content Data Object plus its Representation, Provenance can be applied to distinguish the possible different histories of these two components as appropriate. David’s statement that the OAIS is about the preservation of Information Objects, in general, is simply not true. This is clear from the Terminology section, the information modeling, and its associated text even with the incorporation of SC222 which focuses on the Content Data Object and NOT a general Data Object. There is no room for debate on this point.</div><div><br></div><div>David has pointed out, and appropriately so, that information other than Content Information needs to be maintained by the Archive. He prefers to use the term ‘preserved’, which is not incorrect, but this does not mean that it should get the same attention as the Content Information. It has been noted that Provenance Information will have some history and therefore its provenance may be of interest. This provenance is NOT our defined Provenance, even though the underlying concept for its usage is the same. The interest of an Archive in providing provenance on its Provenance, for example, is going to be much less than that on the original Provenance and it is very useful to have Provenance defined as it has been while requiring communicators to distinguish when they might mean provenance associated with other than Content Information or its components. </div><div><br></div><div>I’m attaching 2 figures that summarize the PDI association reality. The first, consistent with OAIS RM 2012, gives an example Content Information object and its associated Provenance Information object. The various additional ways the Provenance Information might be associated are labeled A through F.</div><div><br></div><div>In the second figure, the result of incorporating SC222 is shown. It restricts the association to only the Content Data Object as given by the new definition of Provenance Information (and PDI generally). This may or may not be the intent of those supporting SC222, but it is the result. My critique below stands.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers-</div><div>Don</div><div><br></div><div><img id="m_-21056646669882864908CAE3377-6FEA-4500-8704-C61A0FF8A0DD" src="cid:EC331146-74E7-4B38-8F65-DF222EB27991"><img id="m_-2105664666988286490AB287A64-FA3B-4222-B6BD-5BF019D61415" src="cid:096480BB-8DEE-4F20-9FC7-839B0F81DFAD"></div><div>= = = = = </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 27, 2018, at 12:14 PM, David Giaretta <<a href="mailto:david@giaretta.org" target="_blank">david@giaretta.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div class="m_-2105664666988286490WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Hi Bruce<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I think we are talking at cross-purposes – see the bold, red text below at your penultimate point, which goes to the heart of the confusion.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>..David<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>MOIMS-DAI <<a href="mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">moims-dai-bounces@mailman.<wbr>ccsds.org</a>><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Bruce Ambacher<br><b>Sent:</b><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>27 August 2018 16:35<br><b>To:</b><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.<wbr>org</a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Moims-dai] Response to rejection of SC234<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">David,<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></span></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">My concern is with your labeling Provenance as 1) an object <b><i>and </i></b>2)<b><i> </i></b> <wbr>Representation Information.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I am not doing that. What I said was that the way OAIS models things is that a Provenance Information object is made up of a Data Object plus Representation Information.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">As I noted there may be, and in most cases there will be, <b>no</b> data object that is Provenance, that comes to the archives. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Surely there must be _<i>some</i>_ Data Object – either a simple text file or a hand-written note, both of which would count as Data Objects. If no Provenance Information comes from the Producer to accompany some Content Information then at the very least the OAIS will add some Provenance Information in the form of something noting where Content Information comes from.<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">There more likely will be Representation Information including Provenance information to accompany a data object but no separate object that is Provenance or a larger Representation Information.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I don’t understand what you mean. I think it would help if you used “Provenance Information” and stuck to OAIS terminology, one purpose of which was to avoid misunderstanding – as long as the terms are used consistently.<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">As I noted Provenance is an accumulation of information that validates the object to be what it purports to be. <u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Sure – if I translate that into OAIS terms.<u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I think in terms of cultural objects whose Provenance is documented by a chain of custody, a deed of purchase or gift, authenticated handwriting, etc.; you think in terms of collected instrument readings or results from a series of experiments whose Provenance is documented by appropriated funds to support the information collection, information about the purpose and results of a mission or experiment, etc. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I understand both and OAIS concepts cover both.<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The Provenance of an object can stand without, and be understood without, the object itself. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:red">Ah, maybe here is the root of the misunderstanding.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></span></b></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:red">When I say Provenance Information consists of a Data Object plus its Representation Information, the Data Object I mean here is what encodes (in a general sense) the Provenance Information, for example,<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red">a deed of purchase or gift, authenticated handwriting, a digital signature etc, and the Representation Information is whatever is needed for a member of the Designated Community to understand those things.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></span></b></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red">I do not mean the Data Object whose Provenance we are talking about.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><b><span style="color:red"><u></u><u></u></span></b></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Conversely, I do not think it is possible to understand an object without its Representation Information.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Sure – understanding object as Data Object. Sorry to be picky but if we do not stick to agreed terminology then we will get lost.<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">..David<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">-----Original Message-----<br>From: David Giaretta <<a href="mailto:david@giaretta.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">david@giaretta.org</a>><br>To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Interoperability' <<a href="mailto:moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>Sent: Mon, Aug 27, 2018 11:09 am<br>Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Response to rejection of SC234<u></u><u></u></span></p><div id="m_-2105664666988286490AOLMsgPart_1.2_b9d3ff5c-bc41-4547-ad0c-b24530b7e975"><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Hi Bruce</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I wrote “Provenance Information is made up of a Data Object and its Representation Information, and, since it is being preserved, has PDI associated with the Data Object.”<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Apologies if “Information” was inadvertently dropped at some point further down.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>OAIS defines Data Object and Digital Object in a way which means that, for example, a collection of digital files can be referred to as a single Digital Object (“an object composed of a set of bit sequences”) – we did this to simplify the terminology later on.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>So I agree with what you wrote about Provenance and I believe that the way I used the term is consistent with that and with the rest of OAIS.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Regards</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>..David</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-<a href="mailto:bounces@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">bounces@mailman.<wbr>ccsds.org</a>><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Bruce Ambacher<br><b>Sent:</b><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>27 August 2018 15:17<br><b>To:</b><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>moims-<a href="mailto:dai@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">dai@mailman.ccsds.<wbr>org</a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Moims-dai] Response to rejection of SC234</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">David,<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I do not accept your view that Provenance is a data object coupled with Representation Information. Provenance is the accumulated knowledge, possibly codified in Representation Information, that provides the reasons for a data object's existence, who created it, who has been responsible for its longevity, the chain of custody, what preservation actions have been taken prior to its ingest into the long term preservation system, and possibly any special actions taken on the object.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div style="margin-bottom:12pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">We must remember Provenance is a term from the cultural heritage world and is especially important in the art world and in cultural heritage collections to verify the authenticity of the object, be it a painting or a collection of personal papers, and to establish its chain of custody from origin to current "ownership." We certainly can adapt a term and even trim it around the edges to fit OAIS but we must remain true to the origins and meaning of its original use.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="margin-bottom:12pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">-----Original Message-----<br>From: David Giaretta <<a href="mailto:david@giaretta.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">david@giaretta.org</a>><br>To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Interoperability' <<a href="mailto:moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>Sent: Mon, Aug 27, 2018 7:03 am<br>Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Response to rejection of SC234</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div id="m_-2105664666988286490aolmail_AOLMsgPart_1.2_ed0dc942-504a-4ed0-ad15-3d0ec28ae171"><div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Hi Don</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>You keep missing the main point, which is that OAIS talks about Information Objects (PDI, each of its components and Representation Information are all Information Objects – see Figure 4-12 in OAIS).</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Each Information Object is made up of a Data Object and Representation Information.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span>Any</span></u></b><span><span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span>Information Object being preserved by the OAIS also needs PDI – change #222 says this PDI is associated with the Data Object. Perhaps we should clarify the text to make this clearer if it is causing confusion.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>This means, for example, that Provenance Information is made up of a Data Object and its Representation Information, and, since it is being preserved, has PDI associated with the Data Object.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Representation Information is made up of a Data Object and its own Representation Information, and, if it is being preserved, has PDI associated with the Data Object.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Fixity Information is made up of a Data Object and its own Representation Information, and, if it is being preserved, has PDI associated with the Data Object.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>OAIS was always meant to be testable – that is why we introduced the Designated Community concept early on. That is why we defined conformance in the way we did. The audit standard was in the OAIS roadmap from the start. OAIS is the keystone to a whole set of standards.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Change #222 simply means that it the model is easier to test by clarifying the concepts, which I think is a good objective, and is clearer as long as one only remembers that we are referring to Information Objects which have Data Objects and Representation Information.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I’ve put some additional comments below, just to make it clear.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Regards</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>..David</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">-----Original Message-----<br>From: MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-<a href="mailto:bounces@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">bounces@mailman.<wbr>ccsds.org</a></span><span>> On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer<br>Sent: 27 August 2018 01:29<br>To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-<a href="mailto:dai@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">dai@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>Subject: [Moims-dai] Response to rejection of SC234<u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Dear All,</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>As I was not able to participate in last Tuesday’s teleconference where my proposal to eliminate SC222 was addressed, and given their conclusion that SC222 should be retained, I’m using this note to summarize my response. I believe this decision is short sighted and I hope that upon further reflection this decision will be reversed. However I will not submit another SC on this topic.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I believe that you are misunderstanding the change proposed.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>My response is divided into 3 categories:</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>- Problems with arguments for SC222</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>- Implications for the evolution of the OAIS RM</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>- Some problems with the current incorporation of SC222</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>A. Problems with arguments for SC222</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>The OAIS RM 2012 identifies an information grouping called PDI ( categories of Provenance, Context, Reference, Rights, and Fixity) as being important to the preservation of the associated Content Information. These categories support preservation by documenting authenticity (Provenance, Fixity), identifying how the associated information is related to other information (Context) and thus improving understanding, identifying restrictions on usage (Rights) that may be in effect, and how information may be uniquely identified (Reference) in support of requests by Consumers. Content Information itself is composed of the Content Data Object (CDO) and its associated Representation Information (Rep.Info.). This high level PDI association concept says nothing about how PDI is to be associated with the Content Information components CDO and Rep.Info. It also says nothing about how this association might be implemented. The various PDI categories could be applied separately to the CDO and to the Rep. Info, as well as to the combination, as makes sense based on the nature of the CDO and the Rep.Info. In contrast, SC222 now restricts the PDI to only be associated with the CDO.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I’ve seen only two arguments put forward in support of this major change.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>1.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>It is argued that it is virtually impossible to apply PDI to Rep. Info. and therefore it makes sense to limit its application in the Information Package to the CDO and thus exclude the Rep. Info. or the Content Information as a whole. However in one of my email exchanges on this topic I outlined how databases and pointers could be used to track updates to Provenance, Context, and Rights Information for a Representation Network, and they also provide a degree of Fixity. So clearly PDI application to a Rep.Info. network is implementable. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>In the very very long email chain, and I think also on the review site, I proposed changes to the wording of OAIS which would show how Fixity could apply to the Content Information as a whole. The particular issue was to apply Fixity Information to a Representation Information Network, which may be distributed. It is not impossible but certainly difficult and would be hard to keep up to date. However that suggestion was rejected. Hence the proposal in #222.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Also there can be no argument that the preservation of Representation Information, which varies greatly in complexity at the structural and semantic levels, and comes from a wide variety of sources, and often evolves, doesn’t benefit from an appropriate level of PDI application. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I can only speculate that the view that PDI for Representation Information is not implementable is based on a view that such implementations are not sufficiently close to the concept. However actual implementations must, by definition, be practical. Any valid concept, and certainly the application of PDI to Representation Information is a valid preservation concept, will have some type of practical implementation. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>As noted at the start of this email – Representation INFORMATION which is being preserved must have PDI – see above.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>2.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>It was also argued that the auditors have not seen PDI being applied to Representation Information, so it is o’k to now take away that concept. <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Assuming this is true, and most certainly it is not wholly true for all the PDI components, it must surely be strange to suggest that the practices of a few archives should now be taken to be the basis for what is conceptually significant for preservation. A major, and so far successful, goal of the OAIS RM has been to encourage thought about what is involved in good preservation practices. The OAIS RM has attempted to be the ‘Gold Standard’ context for the discussion of preservation issues both at its founding and in the previous updates.This has led to the recognition of the need for improvements in implementation practices and subsequently to the ISO auditing effort. Thus this second argument is, at best, counter to the history of OAIS RM development to this point.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>It is not a matter of whether applying SC222 is correct or not. It is a matter of whether this application is an improvement for the original objectives set out for the OAIS RM, or for some new objectives. The line of thinking that suggests the ease or difficulty of some aspect of implementation, rightly or wrongly perceived, should impact the evolution of the OAIS RM is totally new. Following this line of thinking moves one from consideration of the OAIS RM as the conceptual ‘Gold Standard’ for preservation to something less.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>It seems clear, at least to this author, that the use of the OAIS RM as the framework for ISO 16363 auditing, which in this context necessarily puts much of the OAIS RM into an implementation perspective, has resulted in some individuals active in the auditing to push an implementability perspective, rightly or wrongly conceived, back into the OAIS RM itself. As previously noted, this was never a consideration in its original development or the previous updates. What might this mean for the evolution of the OAIS RM?</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>My view is that we are clarifying the model, just as we did when we introduced Transformational Information Properties.<span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>B. Implications for the evolution of the OAIS RM</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>It is understandable that the ISO auditing process wants to have as much specificity as possible to aid both the auditors and the Archives. If the OAIS RM is now going to be evolved to be more closely aligned with the detailed experience of auditors, it will logically take a narrower view of what is supported and not supported through its concepts. This will evolve with auditor experience and with technology changes and implementation practices. This OAIS RM could no longer be considered the conceptual ‘Gold Standard’ for the discussion of preservation issues. For example, the adoption SC222 has just removed a very valid preservation concept, the use of PDI in helping preserve Rep.Info., from the OAIS conceptual model. My view is that the preservation community needs to have a ‘Gold Standard’ reference model and PDI for Rep.Info. needs to be in it.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I believe that, lacking such a reference model, there may very well be competing models put forward, particularly in various disciplines, such as the library community, where there is already some concern that the OAIS RM is not always a good fit. One approach to this possibility is to clone an auditing version of OAIS that can evolve to better support the auditing while keeping a ‘Gold Standard’ OAIS that evolves more generally. Of course this would take resource that may not be available. Another approach is to take a rigorous approach to the separation of a ‘Gold Standard’ from the needs of auditing. If others have concerns along these lines, now would be a good time to speak up. However in the grand scheme of important issues, the future of the OAIS RM is not significant.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>C. Some problems with the current incorporation of SC222</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>If SC222 were not a major change to fundamental OAIS concepts, this could pretty well be ignored. However as John has pointed out, this has resulted in over 200 changes from ‘Content Information’ to ‘Content Data Object’. If I’ve counted correctly, through section 4.2 there were 33 reference to the CDO and now there are about 3 times as many (97). There were about 200 references to the Content Information and now there are about 138. This has put a greatly increased focus on the preservation of the Content Data Object, which for a digital archive is mostly a matter of preserving the bits. This is totally contrary to our past, successful, efforts to get the importance of the Representation Information more fully recognized. This has to be considered, at a minimum, ‘not helpful’ in this regard.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>In addition, this change has complicated some relationships that show up in the new Terminology section.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>1. AIC definition: The addition of the view that an AIC must include PDI describing the collection criteria and process, along with the view that all OAISs have at least one AIC which is the collection of all its AIPs, together with the new view that PDI only applies to the CDO and NOT the Rep Info, does not form a consistent picture. PDI describing the collection criteria and process for a collection of AIPs is not PDI applied to the CDO.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above – PDI is needed for any Information Object that is being preserved.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Note also that this proposal, that an AIC must have this type of PDI, overlaps with the existing Collection Description that is supposed to provide this type of information.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>2. Context definition: This is supposed to apply only to the CDO and not the Content information. But what is really going to be be documented, in many if not most cases, is the context for the Information, not just the CDO. Generally people are not going to single out the CDO (when digital) versus the CDO + Rep when writing this information. For example, a music performance has a relationship to other performances and this may well be documented Context. To say this is about the CDO is not believable. This attempt to focus on CDO instead of the Information has introduced this contrived awkwardness and is totally unnecessary. This results from trying to use the CDO as a handle to refer to the Content Information without actually saying so.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>This point deserved further consideration.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>3.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>Fixity Information: The new definition only applies to the CDO. Apparently it is not needed for Rep Info., but of course it I must be relevant to Rep. Info. preservation. Any reasonable Archive will take some steps to preserve its Rep. Info. from undocumented alteration.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above – PDI is needed for any Information Object that is being preserved.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>4.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>Preservation Description Information (PDI). As now proposed, it is only necessary for the preservation of the CDO. However it clearly is needed for many types of Rep Info. as well.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above – PDI is needed for any Information Object that is being preserved.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>5.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>Provenance Information: The new definition ignores that the history of Rep. Info. can be very important to its perceived authenticity.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above – PDI is needed for any Information Object that is being preserved.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>6. Reference Information: The new definition, applying only to the CDO, rules out its use for external references to the Rep. Info. and to the Content Information as a whole. The example of ISBN clearly applies to the Content Information, not just to the CDO.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above – PDI is needed for any Information Object that is being preserved. By the way I believe that the ISBN points to the book, not its Representation Information.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:54pt"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>6.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="m_-2105664666988286490Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>Transformation: There is a new Note added that is incorrect. The Content Information can be changed by updating of the associated Rep. Info. without requiring a change to the CDO. For example, a new, broader, version of a standard format may be linked to the CDO that does not alter those aspects of the CDO that are present. Another example is a new set of Semantic Information that does not alter the CDO. According to the new definition of PDI, there is no need to track these changes because the PDI only applies to the CDO. This seems clearly deficient.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Your understanding of what is being proposed is entirely wrong – see above – PDI of the Data Object is needed for any Information Object that is being preserved.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Cheers-</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Don</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>MOIMS-DAI mailing list</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><a href="mailto:MOIMS-DAI@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">MOIMS-</span></a><a href="mailto:DAI@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">DAI@mailman.ccsds.org</a></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div></div></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">______________________________<wbr>_________________ MOIMS-DAI mailing list MOIMS-<a href="mailto:DAI@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">DAI@mailman.ccsds.org</a><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">htt<wbr>ps://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">______________________________<wbr>_________________ MOIMS-DAI mailing list MOIMS-<a href="mailto:DAI@mailman.ccsds.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">DAI@mailman.ccsds.org</a><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">htt<wbr>ps://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a><u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline!important">______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline!important">MOIMS-DAI mailing list</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline!important"><a href="mailto:MOIMS-DAI@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">MOIMS-DAI@mailman.ccsds.org</a></span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline!important"><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" target="_blank">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
MOIMS-DAI mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MOIMS-DAI@mailman.ccsds.org">MOIMS-DAI@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>