[Moims-rac] Tomorrow's audit/certification meeting

Mon May 12 13:36:39 EDT 2008

Simon,

The text of today's chat is listed below. We were having trouble with
the audio so most of the meeting was conducted via chat.

During the meeting we:

1. Welcomed David back!
a. David gave us an update on the status of the working group.
b. All members of the group are to update their Available Effort ASAP.

2. Finished work on B.2.12. and B.2.13.  

3. Decided that we did not need any further work on B.2.4. 

4. Began a discussion about B.2.10.
a. Decided that B.2.10 should be modified to apply only at ingest (did
not complete this modification)
b. Discussed the need for another requirement similar to B.2.10. 
elsewhere in the document. (did not complete this discussion.)

Action Items:

Mark Conrad: 
Make edits based on today's discussions. (done)

All:

Update Available Effort section of the wiki in the next day or two.

By this weekend in preparation for next week's meeting:

Review Mark's edits to ensure they accurately reflect the discussions.
Review B.2.10. and provide suggested changes to the text so that it
applies only at ingest.
Provide comments on B.3.1 - 3.4.

Mark

Chat:

KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi Candida
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi Robert
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi Katia and Candida
BruceAmbacher >> (All): hello
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi Bruce
candida fenton >> (All): Hi
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Hi
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It is quite soggy here 7+ inches of rain in the
last several days
RobertDowns >> (All): That is a lot of rain, Bruce.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Are we starting in B2.10 or B2.11?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think b2.12
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce,
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes, Mark?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think we finished B.2.11 unless you had
additional comments.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): No, I saw some unmarked comments in B2.10. that
I guess we set aside for now.  Lets start with b2.12
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Candida can you hear the audio?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, do you have a suggestion for a word to use
in place of audit?
RobertDowns >> (All): How about inventory?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, would you accept a substitute sentence: 
The repository must provide a way to  independently demonstrate the
completeness and orrectness of its collections and their contents." 
candida fenton >> (All): I can hear now
BruceAmbacher >> (All): inventorying would be ok in Requirement.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): replace "audit  of" with inventorying
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok with me. 
RobertDowns >> (All): Ok with me, too.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objection to this change to the Requirement?
candida fenton >> (All): No
Mark Conrad >> (All): Any objections to Bruce's proporsed substitution
for the first sentence in the Supporting Text?
RobertDowns >> (All): No objection.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia? Candida?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no objection
candida fenton >> (All): No objection
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make those changes. What about Bruce's
proposed change for the second sentence in the Supporting Text?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is anyone there?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): many negative words made me confused
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with Bruce's proposed change: "This is
necessary to show that any incomplete data objects are not the results
of actions taken by the repository."
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with Katia that the use of so many
negative words makes it difficult to understand. Could this be
re-phrased as a positive statement?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good Morning, John
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Good Morning
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Should it stress that the repository has
ingested all SIP data that was available?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can anyone hear Bruce?
cclrc >> (All): Hi guys - David here
Mark Conrad >> (All): Welcome back!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I hear Mark but no one else.  Welcome back
Davis.
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi David, it is good to see that you are
participating again.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Its been so long I forgot how to spell David's
name
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is this better? "This is necessary to show that
the repository ingested everything that was in the relevant SIP(s)."
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi David. Nice to see you again
cclrc >> (All): I'm not quite up to speed but I wanted to pass on the
news that CCSDS voted to make the BoF and Work Group. The only thing
left is for me to submit a Concept Paper - which is either TRAC or else
a snapshot of the Wiki, and an updated Charter.
candida fenton >> (All): Good news
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Hi David!  Good to see you back!
RobertDowns >> (All): That is great news, David!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, can you submit both TRAC and the wiki
snapshot to show our progress?
cclrc >> (All): In terms of the Charter I need to update the effort
which people are committing - which for most people will be something
very small like 5%. 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Simon asked us to update that part of the wiki
last week. Several of us have already done so.
cclrc >> (All): Can people update
http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/EffortAvailable
please
cclrc >> (All): Great!
cclrc >> (All): Bruce - yes, I can submit both TRAC as well as a
snapshot of the Wiki.
cclrc >> (All): I'll submit things later this week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So anyone who has not updated their Effort
Available should do so ASAP?
cclrc >> (All): Yes please
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): will do after the webchat.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Great! Is there anything else that you need from
the group before you submit things to the CCSDS?
cclrc >> (All): No - I'll circulate the reviswed charter - it will just
be very minor changes for consistency with what we decided and the
effort update
RobertDowns >> (All): I just added my effort available.
cclrc >> (All): For the Wiki snapshot I'll put  in the CCSDS
boiler-plate
cclrc >> (All): OK - where are we now - I'll just lurk in the
background for now
Mark Conrad >> (All): We are on B.2.12. We are talking about a
replacement for the second sentence in the Supporting Text.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce,
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Comments on my suggested replacement for my
replacement?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am not sure it gets at what this requirement
intended.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): What if something like "This is necessary in
order to make sure any external action could damage the repository"?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What about: "This is necessary in order to
demonstrate which data losses resulted prior to ingest and which may
have occurred after ingest."
Mark Conrad >> (All): I changed my mind. I like your second proposal
better.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): This last suggestion works for me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I reread the original requirement in the TRAC
document and your second proposal seems to fit.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have one vote for proposal #2 and one for
proposal #3. What do the rest of you have to say?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): For clarity we are considering: "This is
necessary to show that the repository ingested everything that was in
the relevant SIP(s)."
RobertDowns >> (All): I believe that I also liked the second proposal.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, yes. That is proposal #2.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): That is also OK with me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok with me too
candida fenton >> (All): OK with me
cclrc >> (All): OK by me
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make that change.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The next comment is on the Examples section. This
is really a housekeeping comment.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I accept Mark's next comment to drop the
reference to B2.6
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I agree
RobertDowns >> (All): I also agree
candida fenton >> (All): I agree
Mark Conrad >> (All): So it would read B.2.1. through B.2.5.?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes
cclrc >> (All): OK
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make the change. On to B.2.13?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In B2.13 I accept Mark's comment to delete
reference to PREMIS
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I agree with removal of the PREMIS reference
Mark Conrad >> (All): This comment is consistent with what we have done
for previous references to Premis.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I also agree
cclrc >> (All): Yes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make the change. Do we want to go back
to look at B.2.4. now?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): The question here was whether or not we needed
another requirement on the basis of John's comment under the Discussion
session.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will a cross-reference to/from B2.12 that we
just modified suffice?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I don't think so. John is asking what happens if
the repository has not received all of the SIPs necessary to form an
AIP. Is that right, John?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I think its not necessary, because the AIP is not
created
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I'm not really sure why it was decided that this
is not part of this requirement.  I was talking about case where a SIP
makes up part of an AIP.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I imagine there would be a policy regarding
only get part of data 'needed' for an AIP.
cclrc >> (All): The example for B2.12 looks as if it is about that
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John,  you are talking about a situation such
as where a repository makes an annual AIP from 12 monthly SIPs?
cclrc >> (All): But I agree with John - looking at B2.4 it's not clear
to me why it does not cover John's case. If would just need a piece of
text to make it explicit
Mark Conrad >> (All): Actually, I think the last paragraph of the
Discussion for B.2.12. covers this case.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I think the example in 2.12 covers what I was
thinking
Mark Conrad >> (All): So can we strike the comment under B.2.4?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
cclrc >> (All): OK
JOhnGarrett >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. I will make the change. Shall we move to
B.2.10?
JOhnGarrett >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): There are several issues to be addressed. One of
them is whether or not this requirement should be moved to B.3.
cclrc >> (All): It does look odd in the Ingest section
Mark Conrad >> (All): B2.10. clearly extends beyond the ingest process.
It is related to B.2.3.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What would be lost if it is deleted?  What is
conveyed that is not in B3.2?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry B.3.2.
RobertDowns >> (All): Was there a reason why it was put in the Ingest
section. Was this intended as an ingest activity?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, B2.10 is about understandibility of the
content B3.2. is about the understandibility of the formats.
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps this was intended as part of the review
during Ingest
cclrc >> (All): I'd have to look back at the various versions but it
looks wrong now. I suspect that it was a metric which was edited and
transmogrified but then we forgot to move it.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I believe B2.4 was intended as a check on the
ingest process - that everything was ingested or otherwise accounted
for, that nothing just disappeared.
cclrc >> (All): Good point
JOhnGarrett >> (All): B3.2 doesn't talk about bringing content back up
to a level of understanding.  Perhaps it should.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The requirement in TRAC flows down a decision
table from B2.3
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, I think B3.2. and B2.10. need to be
separate requirements.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): I could see looking at B2.10 as a place to check
that content is understandable when it is first ingested and B3.2 is
monitoring of the situation.
cclrc >> (All): But it does look as if B2.10 was generalised to cover
more than just ingest
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, I believe that B.2.10 and B.3.2. are
monitoring two separate things.
JOhnGarrett >> (All): And as you have pointed out, B3.2 is only format
oriented and B2.10 is a more general understandability.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would suggest moving B.2.10 to a new
requirement in B.3.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i think "approaches obsolescence or is no longer
viable" is very different from "understandability"
JOhnGarrett >> (All): OK with me.
cclrc >> (All): Perhaps B2.10 should be moved to before B3.2 and a
cross reference is made to B2.3 (?) to say that the initial AIP has to
have adequate RepINfo
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.10 deals with initial understandability and
B3.2 deals with loss of understandability due to technology or other
changes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i agree with Mark
RobertDowns >> (All): If we look at the requirement only, it appears to
be relevant to the review that should take place during ingest to ensure
understandability
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We need to just read the requirements as they
flow within a section.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Robert is correct. and B3.2 deals with
technology and preservation issues.  I recommend they stay where they
are.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bob, The Supporting Text for B.2.10. says
"continue to be understandable" I.e., beyond ingest.
cclrc >> (All): Yes, clearly it applies beyond ingest
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I agree that it applies beyond ingest, but
it appears to describe the review to be done during ingest.
cclrc >> (All): We need to make it clear that the initial AIP is
understandable and that it continues into the future
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That continuing requirement was not in the
original text
Mark Conrad >> (All): How about this? Restate B.2.10 where it is so
that it applies at the time of ingest and have a new requirement in
section three for subsequent testing of understandibiliity of the
content in section B.3.?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi, back, just got dropped.  I think if we just
drop the word 'continue' there it helps
cclrc >> (All): Mark - sounds perfect
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I agree with Mark
BruceAmbacher >> (All): But B3 deals with preservation planning, not
object understandability directly.  I am hesitant about adding that
without looking at other requirements.
cclrc >> (All): The only thing is that we would then have 2 very
similar metrics about understandability
cclrc >> (All): Bruce - part of preservation planning must have to do
with continuing understandability
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but we must think if it's really necessary
checking understandability at the moment of the AIP creation
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, the continuing aspect is part of the
original TRAC requirement.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, that is covered in B5.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, Are you saying that B.3.2. should be
removed from B.3.?
cclrc >> (All): Bruce - no B5 has to do with discovery not
understandability
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think it is probably a worthwhile check at
ingest to test understandability.  
BruceAmbacher >> (All): No.  I am arguing against adding an equivalent
to B2.10
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, I do not see anything about continuing in
TRAC B2.10
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, B.3.2. and B.2.10 both have to do with
aspects of the continuing understandibility of the AIP.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, See the Evidence section of the TRAC
requirement.
cclrc >> (All): We need (1) understandability initially and (2)
understandability into the future
BruceAmbacher >> (All): B2.10 is in the Ingest section; B3.2 is in the
Preservation Planning section
KatiaThomaz >> (All): B3.2 more with obsolescence and B2.10 with
understandability
cclrc >> (All): ...the question is whether we can reduce the
duplication of text 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, does the evidence section apply to Ingest
or also to continuing understandability?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce,  It talks about "periodic assembly of
designated..."
JohnGarrett >> (All): Should we check understandability of content at
ingest?   If so, we should keep a B2.10 requirement and reword it to
ensure it is talking just about ingest time.  Decision about adding more
to B3 is another, but separate question.  So should we check
understandability at ingest?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, I think continuing understandability is
in B5
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, yes we check understandability at
Ingest.
RobertDowns >> (All): B2.10 is needed to ensure that we check for
understandability at ingest
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Bruce, i think B5 is anothet thing
cclrc >> (All): Perhaps we need to look at B3 - add our comments - for
the next meeting.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Ok, I propose then that we edit B2.10 to make it
apply to only ingest and that we make a note in B3 or B5 to ensure that
we check continued understanding.
cclrc >> (All): Katia I think B5 is about discovery rather than
understandability
KatiaThomaz >> (All): David, I agree with you
cclrc >> (All): John - I'm OK with that - put a placeholder in B3
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with John to reword B.2.10 to apply at
the time of ingest. I think we may need an additional requirement like
B.2.10 in B.3. 
RobertDowns >> (All): I also agree
cclrc >> (All): But I suspect that we will have some duplication of
wording and will need to review whether we might combine them!
cclrc >> (All): However right now I agree with going ahead with John's
proposal
JohnGarrett >> (All): Suggest we change requirement from "...
understandability of content information ..." to "understandabiliyt of
content information AT INGEST.."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
cclrc >> (All): OK
KatiaThomaz >> (All): checking understanbility at the moment you
receive something sounds strange to me... but i accept...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have to go to get ready for another meeting.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i must leave you now too
cclrc >> (All): Must go also. Bye all. Good to be back!
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, I think that it will take more than that to
correct B.2.10. I will propose changes for next week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Glad you are back. 
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bye. have a nice week!
JohnGarrett >> (All): For our case at NSSDC we check understandability
at ingest normally.  Scientists often send in dataset that 'everybody'
understands.  In reality only people on the project understand what they
are.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye see you all next week
Mark Conrad >> (All): Comments on B.3. for next time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): In supporting text, just drop the word continue
in the first paragraph.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, we'll talk more next time.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye
Mark Conrad >> (All): See you all next week. I will capture that chat
and send it to Simon for posting.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Thanks Mark
RobertDowns >> (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/

>>> S.C.Lambert at rl.ac.uk 5/11/2008 9:21 AM >>>

Please note that I will not be able to connect to tomorrow's
audit/certification MegaMeeting, but if someone can send me the chat
transcript and a short summary of progress I'll put them on the wiki as
usual.

    Simon

_______________________________________________
Moims-rac mailing list
Moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20080512/9b1ad53f/attachment-0001.html