[Moims-rac] Today's Meeting

[Mark Conrad]

Simon,
 
The chat from today's meeting is listed below. John, Marie and I ended
up using a little bit of audio at the end. We decided to drop any
reference to change logs in the Examples section of B.3.4.  We completed
B.3.3 and B.3.4. For next time, we should have a discussion of my
proposed changes to B.2. and David's analysis of Appendix 5 vs the B.3.
requirements.
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello
SimonLambert >> (All): Hi Mark
candida fenton >> (All): Hi
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello, Katia
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi, I am on vacation and using a different
machine and will try to get audio, if possible.
Mark Conrad >> (All): You're a dedicated man calling in on your
vacation!
Mark Conrad >> (All): Shall we start?
SimonLambert >> (All): OK.  I think David is on vacation this week.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We are at B.3.3. and we have a comment from
Barbara.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I disagree with her comment. I think the sentence
is ok as written. What do you think?
SimonLambert >> (All): I think the original text is more vivid.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Anyone else?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok as it is
Marie Waltz >> (All): It seems fine to me. 
RobertDowns >> (All): fine with me
candida fenton >> (All): fine
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK. I will strike her comment. The next comment
is from John.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would suggest adding John's text to the 
section, but leaving the other text in the section where it is.
Comments?
SimonLambert >> (All): I agree with that.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I agree too
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree, but we need to turn it into a sentence
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok for me
Mark Conrad >> (All): It doesn't need to be a sentence. The other items
in this section are just phrases. 
RobertDowns >> (All): ok, that's fine, too.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The next comment is from Barbara. I am not sure
if she is suggesting that we add text or if she is just making a
comment.
RobertDowns >> (All): Registries might be one of many ways to do this.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think it is only a comment
Mark Conrad >> (All): Registries of preservation plans? Do any of these
exist?
RobertDowns >> (All): I suspect that the comment was referring to
format registries.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with Katia. I would propose striking
Barbara's comment.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm guessiung, but  I think she just wants to add
additional types of examples, such as registries as they become general
practice when auditing
Marie Waltz >> (All): guessing!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but this is nost an example here...
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone object to striking Barbara's
comment?
Marie Waltz >> (All): No
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no
RobertDowns >> (All): no
candida fenton >> (All): no
SimonLambert >> (All): No
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. The next comment is from John. Does the 1st
sentence of the Discussion section need additional amplification or
clarification?
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with John's comment about the first
sentence under Discussion.
RobertDowns >> (All): Is the sentence saying that plans for converting
between formats are not sufficient.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What if we added a 2nd sentence like, The
repository must periodically review it's policies and the technology
environment to make sure it's policies continue to be viable.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I like that sentence.
RobertDowns >> (All): That would be an improvement
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think the 1st sentence is saying that  Y may
become a bad choice as time goes by.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but B3.3 is about changes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): and the discussion is about the plan itself
Marie Waltz >> (All): Is it saying it is not sufficient to switch to y
but y must be the best choice?
RobertDowns >> (All): So, it appears to be saying that static plans are
not sufficient, alluding to the need for flexible plans
Mark Conrad >> (All): How about, The repository must periodically
review it's preservation plans and the technology environment and, if
necessary, makes changes to those plans to ensure their continued
effectiveness..
Marie Waltz >> (All):  Yes, that captures it.
RobertDowns >> (All): That seems clear to me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok for me
candida fenton >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Ok for me too 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Shall we move on to B3.4.?
Marie Waltz >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Is "holdings" the right term?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Should not it be "digital objects"?
Mark Conrad >> (All): We could substitute digital objects for holdings.
Does anyone object to that?
Marie Waltz >> (All): No objections
RobertDowns >> (All): no
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i didnt understand the question...
Mark Conrad >> (All): In the first sentence of the Supporting text
section, Barbara has suggested that we substitute "digital objects" for
"holdings."
candida fenton >> (All): Is the term 'holdings' used elsewhere? I am
wondering about consistency.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i see holdings not digital objects...
Marie Waltz >> (All): Holdings is used in B4.3, B6, B6.4 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Holdings is used elsewhere in the document.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So what should it be digital objects or
holdings?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): I suggested the change because digital object
is more neutral a term than holdings (used in library world)
Mark Conrad >> (All): Holdings is also used in the archival world.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): If nobody sees any use in the change, then I
would suggest to leave it as it is.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B2.9, B2.10, B3.1, B3.2, B3.4, B4.3 and B6.4 use
holdings
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections to leaving the sentence as
written?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no objections
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
SimonLambert >> (All): No
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. the next comment is mine. Does anyone have
any insight as to what the original intent of the TRAC authors was in
this case?
RobertDowns >> (All): I am not sure of the original intent, but the why
could be to provide evidence of the effectiveness of its capabilities.
RobertDowns >> (All): or potential effectiveness
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is the sentence that is there sufficient for that
purpose?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): frequently simulations?
Marie Waltz >> (All): I think the sentence is too generic, maybe
somethign more like this? This is necessary as repositories must be able
to show that policies are being adhered to and preservation is being
actively practiced.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Where are you suggesting that text be
added?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i am thinking about the requirement. what is
behind it...
Mark Conrad >> (All): I believe the first sentence of the Supporting
Text section explains what is behind the requirement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie, I am not sure your sentence addresses the
effectiveness of those activities.
Marie Waltz >> (All): OK
Mark Conrad >> (All): Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): what about the examples. are they ok?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am not sure about the first exampl, but the
other two make sense to me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we leave the sentence as it is?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): what is "demonstrable track record for retaining
usable digital objects over time"?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, This means that the repository has a
sustained history of providing access to usable digital objects over the
lifetime of the repository.
Marie Waltz >> (All): is track record understandable Katia?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): if is not possible imagining good examples, it
will be difficult to understand the requirement...
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can we finish with the sentence in the Supporting
Text before we move to the Examples?
JohnGarrett >> (All): How can a newly formed archive meet this
criteria
Mark Conrad >> (All): John,
JohnGarrett >> (All): Certainly can't show that it has done so over
time, but should be able to show use of accepted practice
Mark Conrad >> (All): The first sentence of the Supporting Text
specifically says, "given the age of the repository and its holdings."
JohnGarrett >> (All): You wouldn't trust the new archive as much as the
old, but could still have some level of trust.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you have a suggested chnage, John?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry, change.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Not at this time. And if this is OK for others as
it is I can accept that for now.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Sorry need to catch my train!
Mark Conrad >> (All): Does anyone object to leaving the second sentence
of the Supporting Text as written?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I'm OK with it.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): im ok too.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Me too
Mark Conrad >> (All): Candida? Robert? Simon?
SimonLambert >> (All): It's good for me
RobertDowns >> (All): ok for me
candida fenton >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will strike my comment. Katia, did you have
some suggested changes for the Examples section?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Designated Community polls?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): is my English correct?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Yes. I believe that it is a good suggestion as
well.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree
RobertDowns >> (All): me too
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will add that. Any other suggested changes
for the Examples section?
Mark Conrad >> (All): If not, shall we move onto John's comment?
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, do you have a suggested change for this
section?
Marie Waltz >> (All): Change logs?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would suggest just dropping that sentence,
unless someone can tell me what was really intended.  As it stands, that
sentence could be added for each criteria.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Anyone object to dropping the last sentence in
the Discussion section?
RobertDowns >> (All): no
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no objections
SimonLambert >> (All): No
Marie Waltz >> (All): no
Mark Conrad >> (All): Candida? Katia?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok as i answered...
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): never mind
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. shall we move on to Barbara's
Mark Conrad >> (All): comment?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): I disagree with her comment. I do not believe the
requirement as written limits evaluation of the effectiveness of the
preservation plans to the Designated community.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think the archive is making its findings based
on who the Designated Community is.  The Designated Community itself
isn't making the determination (except perhaps as input to Archives'
decision based on a Designated Community poll)
Mark Conrad >> (All): Anyone object to striking her comment?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree with Mark
RobertDowns >> (All): me too
SimonLambert >> (All): OK
candida fenton >> (All): ok
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
Marie Waltz >> (All): fine
KatiaThomaz >> (All): flks, i must leave you now. thanks and have a
good week. bye.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie, You said, change logs. Was that for the
Examples section? What did you mean by a change log?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bye, Katia. Thanks!
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes, it was for the examples sections. Logs of
when changes are made to the system (new piece of software is
introduced)
JohnGarrett >> (All): So we're talking about change logs to show
changes have been made to keep data accessible
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think that change logs is too generic to be
meaningful.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes, just more documentation to show the auditors
that you're keepign up.
candida fenton >> (All): I have to go too, bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bye, Candida
Marie Waltz >> (All): Well, some organization keep them, others don't.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I agree with Mark that change logs alone is too
generic, but if we indicate what aspects of change are monitored it
might be OK
Mark Conrad >> (All): Are you talking about a change log for policies?
Marie Waltz >> (All): No, for actual actions that are taken
SimonLambert >> (All): I have to go now.  Can someone email me the chat
transcript?
JohnGarrett >> (All): For example, might be a log of conversions of one
image format that is going out of use in your Designated Communities and
replacement by a more modern image format.
Marie Waltz >> (All): organizations keep all kinds of logs, some for a
specific piece of software, some for their entire system. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): So which types of logs are you suggesting would
be useful for showing the effectiveness of  the preservation plans?
Marie Waltz >> (All): Those which show changes in the system, maybe
system log would be better?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which system?
Mark Conrad >> (All): What is the link between the "system" and the
preservation plans?
Marie Waltz >> (All): The repository system?
Marie Waltz >> (All): A change log records actions taken, these actions
show they are engaging in effective preservation activities
Marie Waltz >> (All): Is this worth pursing?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am still not clear as to what specifically you
would be monitoring in the system logs that would shed light on the
effectiveness of the preservation plans.
Marie Waltz >> (All): It would demonstrate the preservation plan was
being followed
Mark Conrad >> (All): This requirement is about the effectiveness of
the preservation planns.
JohnGarrett >> (All): So something like "change logs showing changes
required by preservation plan were made"
Marie Waltz >> (All): It is also about demonstrating the
effectiveness.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Your suggestion is more along the lines of
B.3.3.
JohnGarrett >> (All): But change logs shows that changes were made, not
that they were effective in making the data understandable, usable,
etc.
Mark Conrad >> (All): If we can't  understand what is meant by change
logs, how are users of the standard going to understand?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, but the changes in 3.3 are only changes to
the preservation plan itself, these changes would be for the actual data
holdings.
RobertDowns >> (All): evidence of some recent use could demonstrate
that they are usable, as planned
RobertDowns >> (All): Of cours, there also has to be interest in order
to get use
Mark Conrad >> (All): Evidence of recent use of what?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Recent use would be demonstrated by use logs not
change logs
Mark Conrad >> (All): Recent use of what?
RobertDowns >> (All): use of digital objects that have been preserved
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok, but that has nothing to do with change logs.
Mark Conrad >> (All): That's more along the lines of the Designated
Community polls.
RobertDowns >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie, Can you give a specific example of what
you mean? specific type of log? specific preservation plan?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie?
Marie Waltz >> (All): I have to think and write. Say a repository is
keeping their data in SPSS format. Say their version is out of date so,
they decide to switch a newer version. So they record put this in a log.
Their preservation policy states that they must keep their data in a
version that is usable by their community. So the log demonstrates
this.
RobertDowns >> (All): A search for all data is spss format also would
demonstrate compliance with that plan
JohnGarrett >> (All): How about, "Change logs indicating changes to
data or systems required by preservation plans have been made"
Mark Conrad >> (All): What you are describing is a change to the
preservation plan. Are you suggesting a change log of preservation
plans? Presumably these would be maintained outside the system.
JohnGarrett >> (All): No I think the change is a change to the data in
SPSS format, not a change in the preservation plan.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I like the idea of a change log of preservation
plans, but that was not really what I meant. 
RobertDowns >> (All): We should also allow for other evidence instead
of change logs if a repository does not have them
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, The decision to switch to a new ere version
of SPSS is a change to the preservation plan.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry, newer.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree
RobertDowns >> (All): Sorry, but I need to go right now. Bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): A change log of preservation plans would actually
be better under 3.3.
JohnGarrett >> (All): No, the preservation play says "you must keep the
data in a version of SPSS that is usable to the community".  That
statement in the preservation plan does not change.  However you do make
changes to the data to change the format from V1.5 to V2.0 for example.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie, Can you hear audio?
Marie Waltz >> (All): YEs I can, but I can't talk
Marie Waltz >> (All): its hard to listen like this! I wasnt' making
that distinction either
Marie Waltz >> (All): I think we can abandon it
Marie Waltz >> (All): I appreciate the extra time, and I'm sorry to
cause so much confusion
Marie Waltz >> (All): bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bye!
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye

 
Mark Conrad
Electronic Records Archives (ERA)
NHER 
The National Archives and Records Administration
Building 494 Second Floor
310 State Route 956
Rocket Center, WV  26726
 
Phone: 304-726-7820
Fax: 304-726-7815
Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov 
ERA Website: http://www.archives.gov/era/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20080609/a9c903d7/attachment-0001.html