From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Sun May 3 15:12:41 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Sun May 3 14:41:17 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Message-ID: Dear all apologies for the delay. I received information about updates for some but not all the sections. I hope I have included everything I was sent. In going through the document it seemed sensible to reduce the introductory material somewhat and also gather some of the conventions we are using into a separate Conventions sub-section (as allowed by the Publications Manual). This includes an explanation of the metrics/sub-metrics organisation - comments/improvements welcome! I've tries to go through and make all the metrics fairly uniform in style - we had a number of different styles previously - please check. The new version is available at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090430.doc There are still some editorial corrections to be made in the body of the text but I hope the metrics are pretty well final. Regards ..David -- Scanned by iCritical. From claude.huc at free.fr Mon May 4 02:59:51 2009 From: claude.huc at free.fr (claude Huc) Date: Mon May 4 02:28:21 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49FE9267.8000402@free.fr> Giaretta, DL (David) a ?crit : > Dear all > > apologies for the delay. I received information about updates for some but not all the sections. I hope I have included everything I was sent. > > In going through the document it seemed sensible to reduce the introductory material somewhat and also gather some of the conventions we are using into a separate Conventions sub-section (as allowed by the Publications Manual). This includes an explanation of the metrics/sub-metrics organisation - comments/improvements welcome! > > I've tries to go through and make all the metrics fairly uniform in style - we had a number of different styles previously - please check. > > The new version is available at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090430.doc > > There are still some editorial corrections to be made in the body of the text but I hope the metrics are pretty well final. > > Regards > > ..David > Thanks David We will take this version into account for the CNES study. It remains some form inconsistencies : Generally, the text of the criteria starts with the phrase : The repository..... In section C, the text starts with : Repository.... Cheers Claude From DALIT at il.ibm.com Mon May 4 03:12:13 2009 From: DALIT at il.ibm.com (Dalit Naor) Date: Mon May 4 02:40:43 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Dalit Naor is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 03/05/2009 and will not return until 05/05/2009. During this time I will have limited access to email. From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Mon May 4 03:38:27 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Mon May 4 03:10:42 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics References: <49FE9267.8000402@free.fr> Message-ID: Thanks for pointing this out Claude - I'll add the "The" in - it looks as if that is the only change needed. These are the sub-sub-sub metrics. ..David ________________________________ From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org on behalf of claude Huc Sent: Mon 04/05/2009 07:59 To: MOIMS-Repository Audit and Certification Working Group Subject: Re: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Giaretta, DL (David) a ?crit : > Dear all > > apologies for the delay. I received information about updates for some but not all the sections. I hope I have included everything I was sent. > > In going through the document it seemed sensible to reduce the introductory material somewhat and also gather some of the conventions we are using into a separate Conventions sub-section (as allowed by the Publications Manual). This includes an explanation of the metrics/sub-metrics organisation - comments/improvements welcome! > > I've tries to go through and make all the metrics fairly uniform in style - we had a number of different styles previously - please check. > > The new version is available at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090430.doc > > There are still some editorial corrections to be made in the body of the text but I hope the metrics are pretty well final. > > Regards > > ..David > Thanks David We will take this version into account for the CNES study. It remains some form inconsistencies : Generally, the text of the criteria starts with the phrase : The repository..... In section C, the text starts with : Repository.... Cheers Claude _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac -- Scanned by iCritical. From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Tue May 5 06:43:19 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Tue May 5 06:11:57 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] FW: OAIS - new version for public examination Message-ID: From: OAIS Support [mailto:oais-support@oais.info] Sent: 05 May 2009 11:42 To: Giaretta, DL (David) Subject: OAIS - new version for public examination OAIS version for public examination Many comments and ideas for clarifications and improvements for OAIS were received as part of its 5 year review process. These suggestions were reviewed and the proposed dispositions sent to their originators for further comment. This draft version of OAIS contains these and many other improvements and is the candidate for submission to ISO for review. At this stage we are seeking primarily to identify errors rather than further ideas. The PDF file is available at http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-DAI/Draft%20Documents/OAIS-candidate-V2-markup.pdf Please send corrections to oais-support@oais.info by 15 June 2009 (NB there are some cross-reference errors which will be corrected in the final version) Shortly after this date the corrected OAIS update will be sent to ISO and in due course this will be released for international review at which point further comments may be submitted. John Garrett (chair) David Giaretta (deputy-chair) DAI-WG CCSDS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090505/de48eb81/attachment.html From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Wed May 6 14:04:21 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Wed May 6 13:35:40 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Test Audit page and questionnaire available Message-ID: I've added in all the metrics to the questionnaire - see http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/Tes tAuditDetails One can use this page to record information about the test audits unless very confidential. A PDF version is also available so one can see everything together. The Supporting Text was rather long to I have not added that in yet. ..David -- Scanned by iCritical. From mark.conrad at nara.gov Wed May 6 15:33:14 2009 From: mark.conrad at nara.gov (Mark Conrad) Date: Wed May 6 15:02:11 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Message-ID: Finally completed my review of the first three sections of the document. See the attached. Mark Mark Conrad Electronic Records Archives (ERA) NHER The National Archives and Records Administration Erma Ora Byrd Conference and Learning Center Building 494 Second Floor 610 State Route 956 Rocket Center, WV 26726 Phone: 304-726-7820 Fax: 304-726-7815 Email: mark.conrad@nara.gov ERA Website: http://www.archives.gov/era/ >>> david.giaretta@stfc.ac.uk 05/04/09 3:38 AM >>> Thanks for pointing this out Claude - I'll add the "The" in - it looks as if that is the only change needed. These are the sub-sub-sub metrics. ..David ________________________________ From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org on behalf of claude Huc Sent: Mon 04/05/2009 07:59 To: MOIMS-Repository Audit and Certification Working Group Subject: Re: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Giaretta, DL (David) a ?crit : > Dear all > > apologies for the delay. I received information about updates for some but not all the sections. I hope I have included everything I was sent. > > In going through the document it seemed sensible to reduce the introductory material somewhat and also gather some of the conventions we are using into a separate Conventions sub-section (as allowed by the Publications Manual). This includes an explanation of the metrics/sub-metrics organisation - comments/improvements welcome! > > I've tries to go through and make all the metrics fairly uniform in style - we had a number of different styles previously - please check. > > The new version is available at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090430.doc > > There are still some editorial corrections to be made in the body of the text but I hope the metrics are pretty well final. > > Regards > > ..David > Thanks David We will take this version into account for the CNES study. It remains some form inconsistencies : Generally, the text of the criteria starts with the phrase : The repository..... In section C, the text starts with : Repository.... Cheers Claude _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DraftMetricsMB-20090430mc1.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 325120 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090506/f4017136/DraftMetricsMB-20090430mc1-0001.obj From Barbara.Sierman at KB.nl Fri May 8 07:09:25 2009 From: Barbara.Sierman at KB.nl (Barbara Sierman) Date: Fri May 8 06:38:07 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics References: Message-ID: <68C22185DB90CA41A5ACBD8E834C5ECD05690024@goofy.wpakb.kb.nl> Dear all, Unfortunately I will be in a meeting in Cologne next Monday and not able to attend our weekly call. I looked at the chapters B1,B4, C1, C2 and restricted myself to the metrics (so not the informative texts) and have some small remarks: - the use of the word Administration (which is not defined and the OAIS terminology is deleted) might be a bit confusing: B4.2., B1.8, B2.10 uses Administration processes, there are Administration procedures (C2.1) and in C1.1.1.3 "its administration" is introduced. may be we could streamline this and explain better in the supporting text - the expression used in C1.1.2 "tracking repository functions"is not clear to me - in C1.1.6 I would suggest its "mandatory preservation responsibilities" - B3.2 leave out the sentence "Repository has mechanisms in place for monitoring and notification when Representation Information (including formats) approaches obsolescence or is no longer viable" (the supporting text describes a broader scope, which I would prefer) All the best! Kind regards, Barbara Sierman Digital Preservation Research Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the Netherlands Postbus 90407 2509 LK Den Haag Tel: +31 70 31 40 10 9 Barbara.Sierman@kb.nl www.kb.nl -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org namens Mark Conrad Verzonden: wo 6-5-2009 21:33 Aan: moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org; david.giaretta@stfc.ac.uk Onderwerp: RE: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Finally completed my review of the first three sections of the document. See the attached. Mark Mark Conrad Electronic Records Archives (ERA) NHER The National Archives and Records Administration Erma Ora Byrd Conference and Learning Center Building 494 Second Floor 610 State Route 956 Rocket Center, WV 26726 Phone: 304-726-7820 Fax: 304-726-7815 Email: mark.conrad@nara.gov ERA Website: http://www.archives.gov/era/ >>> david.giaretta@stfc.ac.uk 05/04/09 3:38 AM >>> Thanks for pointing this out Claude - I'll add the "The" in - it looks as if that is the only change needed. These are the sub-sub-sub metrics. ..David ________________________________ From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org on behalf of claude Huc Sent: Mon 04/05/2009 07:59 To: MOIMS-Repository Audit and Certification Working Group Subject: Re: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Giaretta, DL (David) a ?crit : > Dear all > > apologies for the delay. I received information about updates for some but not all the sections. I hope I have included everything I was sent. > > In going through the document it seemed sensible to reduce the introductory material somewhat and also gather some of the conventions we are using into a separate Conventions sub-section (as allowed by the Publications Manual). This includes an explanation of the metrics/sub-metrics organisation - comments/improvements welcome! > > I've tries to go through and make all the metrics fairly uniform in style - we had a number of different styles previously - please check. > > The new version is available at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090430.doc > > There are still some editorial corrections to be made in the body of the text but I hope the metrics are pretty well final. > > Regards > > ..David > Thanks David We will take this version into account for the CNES study. It remains some form inconsistencies : Generally, the text of the criteria starts with the phrase : The repository..... In section C, the text starts with : Repository.... Cheers Claude _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@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/20090508/4b26058c/attachment.html From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Mon May 11 04:07:55 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Mon May 11 03:38:09 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mark You raise several important issues, in particular some of the metrics/submetrics relationships which need to be examined - perhaps Marie has a view of the A metrics. The issue of Supporting text has come up several times. I'm not sure whether you say these are mandatory _because_ they contain the word "shall" or because you think that the metrics are incomplete. I think we adopted that form of wording before we adopted the ISO "shall/must" wording - largely to clarify things to ourselves. But I thought that the metrics themselves were supposed to be the actual mandatory text. We could include the metrics plus the first sentence of the Supporting Text as all mandatory but in many cases the latter essentially duplicates the former and so it would be a little strange. The rest of the Supporting Text is explanatory and therefore not mandatory. The "Conventions" section now says that the Supporting Text is Informative - this was agreed with the CCSDS editor so that we did not have to offset all that text with "NOTE" as described in the CCSDS Publications Manual. One solution would be to (1) make sure that the essence of the first sentence of the Supporting Text is reflected in the metric - this should have been done already but we should check. Then (2) we get rid of the "shall" in the Supporting Text by removing the first sentence so that most would begin "This is necessary ..." Would that make sense? I may be a little late for the MegaMeeting today if my seminar goes on too long. Regards ..David -----Original Message----- From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Mark Conrad Sent: 06 May 2009 20:33 To: moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org; Giaretta, DL (David) Subject: RE: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Finally completed my review of the first three sections of the document. See the attached. Mark Mark Conrad Electronic Records Archives (ERA) NHER The National Archives and Records Administration Erma Ora Byrd Conference and Learning Center Building 494 Second Floor 610 State Route 956 Rocket Center, WV 26726 Phone: 304-726-7820 Fax: 304-726-7815 Email: mark.conrad@nara.gov ERA Website: http://www.archives.gov/era/ >>> david.giaretta@stfc.ac.uk 05/04/09 3:38 AM >>> Thanks for pointing this out Claude - I'll add the "The" in - it looks as if that is the only change needed. These are the sub-sub-sub metrics. ..David ________________________________ From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org on behalf of claude Huc Sent: Mon 04/05/2009 07:59 To: MOIMS-Repository Audit and Certification Working Group Subject: Re: [Moims-rac] Updated version of the metrics Giaretta, DL (David) a ?crit : > Dear all > > apologies for the delay. I received information about updates for some but not all the sections. I hope I have included everything I was sent. > > In going through the document it seemed sensible to reduce the introductory material somewhat and also gather some of the conventions we are using into a separate Conventions sub-section (as allowed by the Publications Manual). This includes an explanation of the metrics/sub-metrics organisation - comments/improvements welcome! > > I've tries to go through and make all the metrics fairly uniform in style - we had a number of different styles previously - please check. > > The new version is available at > http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/Metric > sWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090430.doc > > There are still some editorial corrections to be made in the body of the text but I hope the metrics are pretty well final. > > Regards > > ..David > Thanks David We will take this version into account for the CNES study. It remains some form inconsistencies : Generally, the text of the criteria starts with the phrase : The repository..... In section C, the text starts with : Repository.... Cheers Claude _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac -- Scanned by iCritical. From bambacher at verizon.net Tue May 12 12:36:44 2009 From: bambacher at verizon.net (bambacher@verizon.net) Date: Tue May 12 12:05:36 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics Message-ID: <482793398.776370.1242146204159.JavaMail.root@vms184.mailsrvcs.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090512/570988c0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: B2 Ingest Metrics12May2009.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 17172 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090512/570988c0/B2IngestMetrics12May2009.obj From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Mon May 18 09:49:54 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Mon May 18 09:18:56 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics In-Reply-To: <482793398.776370.1242146204159.JavaMail.root@vms184.mailsrvcs.net> References: <482793398.776370.1242146204159.JavaMail.root@vms184.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: Hi Bruce Firstly apologies - I?m afraid that I have not completed my action from last week. This is partly because of network and travel issues but also because I was not sure that I understood what we had agreed. Your revision seems to have moved most of the first two sentences of the Supporting Text into the metrics. However I understood that the ?To ensure that..? was not normative ? it seems to me to be explanatory. In fact looking back at the previous draft I see that in many of the metrics in B2 you had already absorbed the ?shall? part of the Support Text into the metrics so that the actual Supporting Text began with ?This is necessary in order...? ? explanatory text which is exactly what I thought we needed. If we can clarify this at the MegaMeeting ? and I don?t think this is a big deal - I?ll then be able to complete my action and produce a clean version. Regards ..David From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of bambacher@verizon.net Sent: 12 May 2009 17:37 To: moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org Subject: [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics All, As promised during the May 11th webchat I have created a document for the metrics for B2 for your review. I have combined the metric and the relevant portion of the Supporting Text. Please provide feedback on the clarity and effectiveness of this. I am especially interested in your reactions to the "nested" metrics - do they continue to make sense? Is the flow between the "parent" metric and the nested "children" metrics sensible and apparent? Could you prepare for an audit using just these extracted metrics? Would you understand what is being asked of you? If not, is it necessary to make the entire text mandatory? I look forward to discussing this next Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090518/cd98ed26/attachment.htm From waltz at crl.edu Tue May 19 18:05:11 2009 From: waltz at crl.edu (Marie Waltz) Date: Tue May 19 17:36:36 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] A Metrics In-Reply-To: References: <482793398.776370.1242146204159.JavaMail.root@vms184.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <9E612AEEF6ADB74A8690EC3F91B79C840167A381@crlexchange.LAN_DOMAIN.EDU> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DraftMetricsMB-20090430mew_changes_May_19_2009.doc Type: application/msword Size: 331264 bytes Desc: DraftMetricsMB-20090430mew_changes_May_19_2009.doc Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090519/e08222d5/DraftMetricsMB-20090430mew_changes_May_19_2009-0001.doc From John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov Wed May 20 12:56:11 2009 From: John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov (John Garrett) Date: Wed May 20 12:25:11 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] A Metrics In-Reply-To: <9E612AEEF6ADB74A8690EC3F91B79C840167A381@crlexchange.LAN_DOMAIN.EDU> References: <482793398.776370.1242146204159.JavaMail.root@vms184.mailsrvcs.net> <9E612AEEF6ADB74A8690EC3F91B79C840167A381@crlexchange.LAN_DOMAIN.EDU> Message-ID: <4A14362B.9080807@nasa.gov> Hi Marie, I missed the end of the last megameeting, so I may be confused about what was decided and what our actions were. I thought we were going to remove all the "The repository must ..." sentences from the Supporting Text and leave only the "This is necessary ..." sentences. We were doing this because * Supporting Text has been decided to be explanatory and not mandatory. - So all the 'must' statements were supposed to have been moved into the Metrics and therefore this is just repeating what was just stated in the metric - Having the 'must' statements in a non-normative section will be confusing to readers since 'must' statements indicate mandatory requirements. So this update is confusing to me, since it still has 'must' statements in the Supporting Text. And I was starting to look over B4 and now I'm not sure if what I intended to do (i.e. eliminate the 'must' statements from Supporting Text and add any missing requirements from them into the metric.) is what I have an action to do. Cheers, -JOhn Marie Waltz wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Attached are the changes to section A. I?ve included most of Bruce?s > and Mark?s suggestions, though some I thought might need further > discussion. The supporting text is now in the sanctioned format. > > > > Marie > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org > [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf Of *Giaretta, > DL (David) > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2009 8:50 AM > *To:* moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org > *Subject:* RE: [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics > > > > Hi Bruce > > > > Firstly apologies - I?m afraid that I have not completed my action > from last week. This is partly because of network and travel issues > but also because I was not sure that I understood what we had agreed. > > > > Your revision seems to have moved most of the first two sentences of > the Supporting Text into the metrics. However I understood that the > ?To ensure that..? was not normative ? it seems to me to be explanatory. > > > > In fact looking back at the previous draft I see that in many of the > metrics in B2 you had already absorbed the ?shall? part of the Support > Text into the metrics so that the actual Supporting Text began with > ?This is necessary in order...? ? explanatory text which is exactly > what I thought we needed. > > > > If we can clarify this at the MegaMeeting ? and I don?t think this is > a big deal - I?ll then be able to complete my action and produce a > clean version. > > > > Regards > > > > ..David > > > > *From:* moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org > [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf Of > *bambacher@verizon.net > *Sent:* 12 May 2009 17:37 > *To:* moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org > *Subject:* [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics > > > > All, > > As promised during the May 11th webchat I have created a document for > the metrics for B2 for your review. I have combined the metric and > the relevant portion of the Supporting Text. Please provide feedback > on the clarity and effectiveness of this. I am especially interested > in your reactions to the "nested" metrics - do they continue to make > sense? Is the flow between the "parent" metric and the nested > "children" metrics sensible and apparent? Could you prepare for an > audit using just these extracted metrics? Would you understand what > is being asked of you? If not, is it necessary to make the entire > text mandatory? > > > > I look forward to discussing this next Monday. > From waltz at crl.edu Wed May 20 13:03:13 2009 From: waltz at crl.edu (Marie Waltz) Date: Wed May 20 12:34:31 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] A Metrics In-Reply-To: <4A14362B.9080807@nasa.gov> References: <482793398.776370.1242146204159.JavaMail.root@vms184.mailsrvcs.net> <9E612AEEF6ADB74A8690EC3F91B79C840167A381@crlexchange.LAN_DOMAIN.EDU> <4A14362B.9080807@nasa.gov> Message-ID: <9E612AEEF6ADB74A8690EC3F91B79C840167A3FE@crlexchange.LAN_DOMAIN.EDU> Thanks John, I thought David was going to redistribute a clean copy before we did anything on last week's meeting. I was behind on the suggested edits and wanted to get them to David before he redid the whole thing. I can go back and do this though if this helps. Please let me know. Thanks. Marie -----Original Message----- From: moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of John Garrett Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:56 AM To: MOIMS-Repository Audit and Certification Working Group Subject: Re: [Moims-rac] A Metrics Hi Marie, I missed the end of the last megameeting, so I may be confused about what was decided and what our actions were. I thought we were going to remove all the "The repository must ..." sentences from the Supporting Text and leave only the "This is necessary ..." sentences. We were doing this because * Supporting Text has been decided to be explanatory and not mandatory. - So all the 'must' statements were supposed to have been moved into the Metrics and therefore this is just repeating what was just stated in the metric - Having the 'must' statements in a non-normative section will be confusing to readers since 'must' statements indicate mandatory requirements. So this update is confusing to me, since it still has 'must' statements in the Supporting Text. And I was starting to look over B4 and now I'm not sure if what I intended to do (i.e. eliminate the 'must' statements from Supporting Text and add any missing requirements from them into the metric.) is what I have an action to do. Cheers, -JOhn Marie Waltz wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Attached are the changes to section A. I've included most of Bruce's > and Mark's suggestions, though some I thought might need further > discussion. The supporting text is now in the sanctioned format. > > > > Marie > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org > [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf Of *Giaretta, > DL (David) > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2009 8:50 AM > *To:* moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org > *Subject:* RE: [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics > > > > Hi Bruce > > > > Firstly apologies - I'm afraid that I have not completed my action > from last week. This is partly because of network and travel issues > but also because I was not sure that I understood what we had agreed. > > > > Your revision seems to have moved most of the first two sentences of > the Supporting Text into the metrics. However I understood that the > "To ensure that.." was not normative - it seems to me to be explanatory. > > > > In fact looking back at the previous draft I see that in many of the > metrics in B2 you had already absorbed the "shall" part of the Support > Text into the metrics so that the actual Supporting Text began with > "This is necessary in order..." - explanatory text which is exactly > what I thought we needed. > > > > If we can clarify this at the MegaMeeting - and I don't think this is > a big deal - I'll then be able to complete my action and produce a > clean version. > > > > Regards > > > > ..David > > > > *From:* moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org > [mailto:moims-rac-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf Of > *bambacher@verizon.net > *Sent:* 12 May 2009 17:37 > *To:* moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org > *Subject:* [Moims-rac] B2 Metrics > > > > All, > > As promised during the May 11th webchat I have created a document for > the metrics for B2 for your review. I have combined the metric and > the relevant portion of the Supporting Text. Please provide feedback > on the clarity and effectiveness of this. I am especially interested > in your reactions to the "nested" metrics - do they continue to make > sense? Is the flow between the "parent" metric and the nested > "children" metrics sensible and apparent? Could you prepare for an > audit using just these extracted metrics? Would you understand what > is being asked of you? If not, is it necessary to make the entire > text mandatory? > > > > I look forward to discussing this next Monday. > _______________________________________________ Moims-rac mailing list Moims-rac@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Thu May 21 08:00:47 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Thu May 21 07:29:48 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Apologies for delay in document Message-ID: Dear all Apologies for the delay in sending out the clean version of the metrics document. It was, as expected, mostly straightforward but there were a few points that needed some careful thought and so I wanted time to print it out and read it carefully through before I send it out. I hope that does not cause problems. It will go out Friday morning at the latest. Regards ..David -- Scanned by iCritical. From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Fri May 22 07:56:55 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Fri May 22 07:25:59 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Cleaned up version of the metrics document Message-ID: I have put a cleaned up version of the metrics document at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsW orkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/DraftMetricsMB-20090522.doc As discussed I have tried to ensure that mandatory text is in the metrics and the supporting text etc is informative. For the most part this was easy since the supporting text simply re-phrased the metric. However in a few cases the support text included something not in the metric and so I added that idea to the metric. Some of the supporting text was moved into the discussion. I also removed the tracked changes and the comments so it should be easy to read. I'll upload a difference between this and the previous version for easy comparison. Also removed the old metric numbers (A1 etc). There should be no confusion since A->3 etc. There were some obvious cut and paste errors etc which I also tidied up. I hope I have not garbled what was meant in any of the text - let me know what you think. Regards ..David -- Scanned by iCritical. From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Mon May 25 05:56:04 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Mon May 25 05:24:39 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Reminder - megameeting moved to Tuesday this week Message-ID: Dear all A reminder that we decided to move the megameeting to the same time tomorrow (Tuesday 26th) this week. I put a cleaned up version of the metrics document on the Wiki - removing the mark-up and correcting various things. It seems consistent to me but please check to make sure I have not gone too far! Now I believe that all the "shall"s are in the metrics, the supporting text explains why the metric is included and the discussion adds some explanation for those applying the metrics. The document showing the differences between this and the previous version 20090430 is also there. In most cases I moved text around but in some cases I changed the metrics slightly since what had been in the supporting text seemed to be pointing out something which needed to be included. There were also a number of corrections of one kind or another - they were easier to see after getting rid of the mark-up. Regards ..David -- Scanned by iCritical. From david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk Tue May 26 10:24:31 2009 From: david.giaretta at stfc.ac.uk (Giaretta, DL (David)) Date: Tue May 26 09:52:37 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Few minutes late Message-ID: <0e4601c9de0d$9e4064c3$2f8510ac@fed.cclrc.ac.uk> I may be a little late joining David -- Scanned by iCritical. From John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov Wed May 27 15:41:33 2009 From: John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov (John Garrett) Date: Wed May 27 15:10:07 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] Message-ID: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> Hi All, We've been asked to reconfirm the PAIMAS standard. Please let me know if you think it should be reconfirmed. I think it should be and I intend to submit the paperwork to reconfirm it next week unless I hear objections. Normally we would discuss this at the International Workshop, but this just came in. I don't understand why reconfirmation is necessary since it should be every 5 years and it has only been 3 as the ISO date indicates. (ISO 20652:2006). I've asked CCSDS Secretariat to check why we are getting these on 3 year cycle, but we may not get any explanation back before the due date. Cheers, -JOhn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:26 -0500 From: Craig Day To: Garrett, John G. (GSFC-690.1)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] CC: Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL] John, The subject ISO document based on the CCSDS book is up for its periodic review. You are listed as the NASA Rappoteur for the responsible working group, is that correct? If so, can you please help us to prepare the U.S. position on this review so that we can submit a vote. This action is due back to ANSI by 15 June. Can you please review the attached ballot form and let me know if you are the right person to complete it? Thanks, Craig -- Craig Day U.S. TAG Administrator, ISO TC20/SC13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20191-4344 703-264-3849 craigd@aiaa.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: US Ballot for Systematic Review.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61440 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090527/95ef5bed/USBallotforSystematicReview-0001.doc From claude.huc at free.fr Wed May 27 16:08:22 2009 From: claude.huc at free.fr (claude Huc) Date: Wed May 27 15:36:56 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Re: [Moims-dai] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] In-Reply-To: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> References: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> Message-ID: <4A1D9DB6.5040904@free.fr> John Garrett a ?crit : > Hi All, > > We've been asked to reconfirm the PAIMAS standard. > Please let me know if you think it should be reconfirmed. > I think it should be and I intend to submit the paperwork to reconfirm > it next week unless I hear objections. > Normally we would discuss this at the International Workshop, but this > just came in. I don't understand why reconfirmation is necessary since > it should be every 5 years and it has only been 3 as the ISO date > indicates. (ISO 20652:2006). > I've asked CCSDS Secretariat to check why we are getting these on 3 > year cycle, but we may not get any explanation back before the due date. > > Cheers, > -JOhn > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO > 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard) > Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:26 -0500 > From: Craig Day > To: Garrett, John G. (GSFC-690.1)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] > > CC: Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL] > > > > John, > > > > The subject ISO document based on the CCSDS book is up for its > periodic review. You are listed as the NASA Rappoteur for the > responsible working group, is that correct? If so, can you please help > us to prepare the U.S. position on this review so that we can submit a > vote. This action is due back to ANSI by 15 June. Can you please > review the attached ballot form and let me know if you are the right > person to complete it? > > > > Thanks, > > Craig > > > > -- > > Craig Day > U.S. TAG Administrator, ISO TC20/SC13 > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics > 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 > Reston, VA 20191-4344 > 703-264-3849 > craigd@aiaa.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moims-dai mailing list > Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org > http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai > Dear all I think it should be reconfirmed. This ISO standard is applicable and applied in various domains. It is for instance applicable for the digital repository of the french national library. There is an internal CNES standard which define the "rules and recommendations applicable for long term archives". The first rule in the section that deals with the interface between the Producers (space projects) and the archive is : "Le Projet et l?Archive suivront les recommandations de la norme? Producer-Archive Interface Methodology Abstract Standard ? (PAIMAS) pour l?archivage des donn?es. That means : The project and the Archive shall follow the recommendations of the standard PAIMAS for the archiving of the data. Sincerely Claude From peter.allan at stfc.ac.uk Thu May 28 06:34:59 2009 From: peter.allan at stfc.ac.uk (Allan, PM (Peter)) Date: Thu May 28 06:04:47 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] RE: [Moims-dai] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] In-Reply-To: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> References: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> Message-ID: John, ISO changed its procedures so that the first review happens after 3 years, followed by 5 yearly reviews. The CCSDS management council agreed to go along with this as to do otherwise would be incredibly messy. It seems that this change has not been fully passed on to those who need to know. Peter Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Peter M. Allan Head, Space Data Division Space Science and Technology Department Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX England e-mail: peter.allan@stfc.ac.uk Tel: +44 (1235) 445723 fax: +44 (1235) 446667 -----Original Message----- From: moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of John Garrett Sent: 27 May 2009 20:42 To: MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion; MOIMS-Information Packaging &Registries; MOIMS Repository Audit &Certification Subject: [Moims-dai] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] Hi All, We've been asked to reconfirm the PAIMAS standard. Please let me know if you think it should be reconfirmed. I think it should be and I intend to submit the paperwork to reconfirm it next week unless I hear objections. Normally we would discuss this at the International Workshop, but this just came in. I don't understand why reconfirmation is necessary since it should be every 5 years and it has only been 3 as the ISO date indicates. (ISO 20652:2006). I've asked CCSDS Secretariat to check why we are getting these on 3 year cycle, but we may not get any explanation back before the due date. Cheers, -JOhn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:26 -0500 From: Craig Day To: Garrett, John G. (GSFC-690.1)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] CC: Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL] John, The subject ISO document based on the CCSDS book is up for its periodic review. You are listed as the NASA Rappoteur for the responsible working group, is that correct? If so, can you please help us to prepare the U.S. position on this review so that we can submit a vote. This action is due back to ANSI by 15 June. Can you please review the attached ballot form and let me know if you are the right person to complete it? Thanks, Craig -- Craig Day U.S. TAG Administrator, ISO TC20/SC13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20191-4344 703-264-3849 craigd@aiaa.org -- Scanned by iCritical. From GianMaria.Pinna at esa.int Thu May 28 07:27:44 2009 From: GianMaria.Pinna at esa.int (GianMaria.Pinna@esa.int) Date: Thu May 28 06:55:22 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Re: [Moims-dai] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] In-Reply-To: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> Message-ID: Hi John, although we haven't fully applied it yet in ESA, we intend to support PAIMAS (and PAIS, which today somewhat "requires" PAIMAS) in the future. So, we vote for PAIMAS reconfirmation. Best Regards, Gian Maria John Garrett To Sent by: MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion moims-dai-bounces@ , mailman.ccsds.org "MOIMS-Information Packaging & Registries" , 27/05/2009 21:41 "MOIMS Repository Audit & Certification" Please respond to cc MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion Subject Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] Hi All, We've been asked to reconfirm the PAIMAS standard. Please let me know if you think it should be reconfirmed. I think it should be and I intend to submit the paperwork to reconfirm it next week unless I hear objections. Normally we would discuss this at the International Workshop, but this just came in. I don't understand why reconfirmation is necessary since it should be every 5 years and it has only been 3 as the ISO date indicates. (ISO 20652:2006). I've asked CCSDS Secretariat to check why we are getting these on 3 year cycle, but we may not get any explanation back before the due date. Cheers, -JOhn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:26 -0500 From: Craig Day To: Garrett, John G. (GSFC-690.1)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] CC: Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL] John, The subject ISO document based on the CCSDS book is up for its periodic review. You are listed as the NASA Rappoteur for the responsible working group, is that correct? If so, can you please help us to prepare the U.S. position on this review so that we can submit a vote. This action is due back to ANSI by 15 June. Can you please review the attached ballot form and let me know if you are the right person to complete it? Thanks, Craig -- Craig Day U.S. TAG Administrator, ISO TC20/SC13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20191-4344 703-264-3849 craigd@aiaa.org [attachment "US Ballot for Systematic Review.doc" deleted by Gian Maria Pinna/esrin/ESA] _______________________________________________ Moims-dai mailing list Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai From John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov Thu May 28 12:39:28 2009 From: John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov (John Garrett) Date: Thu May 28 12:08:14 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Re: [Moims-dai] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard)] In-Reply-To: References: <4A1D976D.7020106@nasa.gov> Message-ID: <4A1EBE40.7060308@nasa.gov> Hi Peter, Thanks for the information. I think it is reasonable to follow the ISO procedures. We just didn't know about the change so we didn't have a chance to discuss it when we were all together at the International Workshop Cheers, -JOhn Allan, PM (Peter) wrote: > John, > > ISO changed its procedures so that the first review happens after 3 > years, followed by 5 yearly reviews. The CCSDS management council agreed > to go along with this as to do otherwise would be incredibly messy. > > It seems that this change has not been fully passed on to those who need > to know. > > Peter Allan > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Peter M. Allan > Head, Space Data Division > Space Science and Technology Department > Science and Technology Facilities Council > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > Harwell Science and Innovation Campus > Didcot > Oxfordshire OX11 0QX > England > e-mail: peter.allan@stfc.ac.uk > Tel: +44 (1235) 445723 fax: +44 (1235) 446667 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org > [mailto:moims-dai-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of John Garrett > Sent: 27 May 2009 20:42 > To: MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion; MOIMS-Information Packaging > &Registries; MOIMS Repository Audit &Certification > Subject: [Moims-dai] [Fwd: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document > 651.0-B-1 (ISO 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology > abstract standard)] > > Hi All, > > We've been asked to reconfirm the PAIMAS standard. > Please let me know if you think it should be reconfirmed. > I think it should be and I intend to submit the paperwork to reconfirm > it next week unless I hear objections. > Normally we would discuss this at the International Workshop, but this > just came in. I don't understand why reconfirmation is necessary since > it should be every 5 years and it has only been 3 as the ISO date > indicates. (ISO 20652:2006). > I've asked CCSDS Secretariat to check why we are getting these on 3 year > cycle, but we may not get any explanation back before the due date. > > Cheers, > -JOhn > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: ISO Systematic Review of CCSDS Document 651.0-B-1 (ISO > 20652:2006 - Producer-archive interface - Methodology abstract standard) > Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:26 -0500 > From: Craig Day > To: Garrett, John G. (GSFC-690.1)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] > > CC: Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL] > > > > John, > > > > The subject ISO document based on the CCSDS book is up for its periodic > review. You are listed as the NASA Rappoteur for the responsible working > group, is that correct? If so, can you please help us to prepare the > U.S. position on this review so that we can submit a vote. This action > is due back to ANSI by 15 June. Can you please review the attached > ballot form and let me know if you are the right person to complete it? > > > > Thanks, > > Craig > > > > -- > > Craig Day > U.S. TAG Administrator, ISO TC20/SC13 > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics > 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 > Reston, VA 20191-4344 > 703-264-3849 > craigd@aiaa.org > > > > From bambacher at verizon.net Thu May 28 16:10:49 2009 From: bambacher at verizon.net (bambacher@verizon.net) Date: Fri May 29 02:40:44 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] My edits of Draft Message-ID: <1142189385.639971.1243541449400.JavaMail.root@vms231.mailsrvcs.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090528/9338e9f7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 27 May 2009.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 12135 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090528/9338e9f7/27May2009.obj From bambacher at verizon.net Sun May 31 22:00:11 2009 From: bambacher at verizon.net (bambacher@verizon.net) Date: Sun May 31 22:01:46 2009 Subject: [Moims-rac] Abse Message-ID: <1025147313.1879506.1243821611702.JavaMail.root@vms170009.mailsrvcs.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20090531/b319ef33/attachment.htm