[Moims-rac] Thoughts on RAC and Provenance

[Don Sawyer]

Hi Mark,

I only have time to respond in writing to your first two items.  I  
expect to be at the megameeting, but may be late.

cheers-
don


On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Mark Conrad wrote:

> 1. I strongly agree that , "...we need to discuss and agree on a  
> more definitive working scope statement."

So, do you think that if an repository can not obtain what I've  
called 'pre-ingest' provenance, it should be declared to have failed  
a mandatory requirement?


>
>
> 2. I am troubled by these statements:
>
> "It then follows that the objective is to identify a core set of  
> requirements that all repositories should be able to meet.  However  
> this is putting things a little too strongly.  It may be possible  
> to have some requirements that either are not relevant to some  
> repositories, or are sufficiently general that the actual evidence  
> of meeting them very much depends on the type of, or particular,  
> repository.  TRAC has a small number of these types of  
> requirements.  Having such requirements makes it more difficult to  
> devise a scoring system that is both fair and understandable.   
> Therefore it appears desirable to avoid too many of such  
> requirements.  Note that TRAC does not define a scoring system."
>
> I think that it will be extremely difficult to come up with a scope  
> statement based on the above and have it be meaningful/useful to a  
> broad set of repositories. I believe that we should either have a  
> document that contains only core requirements that all repositories  
> should meet, or have a document that makes explicit which  
> requirements are core/mandatory for all repositories and which are  
> not mandatory and subject to local interpretation. I would prefer  
> the former. I believe this will result in a more useful document.
>

As I understand your paragraph, you prefer a standard that sets out a  
core set of mandatory requirements that all repositories should  
meet.  If that is the case, then that is the same as the first of the  
two options I gave above.  You seem to be restating my options in  
your response.  My statement about what TRAC says is NOT the same as  
my view of what we SHOULD put in RAC.  Am I missing something here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20071029/94fdda77/attachment.htm