[Moims-dai] Re: Preparation for tomorrow telecon (9th October )
Dave Williams
david.r.williams at nasa.gov
Thu Oct 9 02:42:58 UTC 2014
You are welcome to use the new number, it is available all day tomorrow.
Dave
On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Boucon Daniele <Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr> wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the proposed agenda for tomorrow telecon:
* PAIS PDS-NSSDC Wrapup Document (email from Mike, 27th August, comments from the group)
* ICP terminology and content: discussion on the document from the LTDP/CCSDS meeting (minutes sent today 8th October) with CCSDS action, and information from Mike (email sent the 7th October)
* ISEE test case
* ESA SAFE test cases (last version sent the 8th October by Daniele)
*METS test case: first comments, organization (email from Daniele 13th August)
2. * Next meeting preparation (topics, availability, constraints for agenda)
3. * Review of actions
If new information received from Stephane:
* Core of the PAIS tutorial
* COROT test case
New topic to be discussed:
*schedule of CWE projects
6.
Next telecons:
* Thursday 30 October (9h US time, 15h EU time)
* 10th to 14th November: CCSDS fall meeting
If available, I propose to use Dave's new number (be careful, new number):
Dave Williams
Telecon information
+1-844-467-6272 USA Toll Free
+1-720-259-6462 Others
Passcode: 841727
Dave's old number (available today):
Dave Williams
Telecon information
+1-877-954-3555 USA Toll free
+1-517-224-3191 Others
Passcode: 8506950
Best regards,
Daniele
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
23rd September minutes
DB: Daniele Boucon
DG: David Giaretta
DS: Don Sawyer
JG: John Garrett
MM: Mike Martin
SM: Stephane Mbaye
WG: all
D=Decision, A=action (other = discussion)
2. ISEE test case (see emails DS 22nd September, DB 23rd September).
DS: updated/final version, except the Manifest and the tabular form (indentation).
DB: sends SIP updated by hand:
1. The organization of data delivery (skip the undescribed directory, keep only the directory level "satellite name", "yearly name", "data files"
2. The content of the Manifest: change the order of groups and associated Data files to conform to Don's document (not yet complete).
DS: ok with these updates.
A=>-( DB): finalize the update on the ISEE Manifests (Data and Metadata), send to DS.
A=>-( DB): update the figure describing the Data by the Producer (move 1977 to 1978 to conform to the data set, etc).
Reminder: DS: proposes to have a separate section dealing with software: prototypes/software developed as a basis to support modeling and generation of SIPs for transfer.
1. Discussion on LTDP/CCSDS terminology (minutes from yesterday telecon will be sent within the week).
MM sent the 22nd September the Architecture for Space Data Systems standard, containing interesting elements on terminology.
Main decision : define the terms in a generic way, give explanation in the text (specialization by domain e.g).
Information on standards
RAC standard: accepted by ISO, on the way for ISO publication.
Next week: RAC training session.
PAIS and ISO (20104): no new information.
4. DAI registry http://www.sanaregistry.org/r/daixml/daixml.html (link towards CCSDS publication page): validated by the WG
Next meeting preparation
A=>(DB): initiates an agenda for the next CCSDS fall meeting.
A=> (JG): ask David for RAC sessions during next CCSDS meeting: 1 day (RAC, feedback on training sessions, certification status ...)
Review of actions
Not done.
End of 23rd September minutes
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part of historical minutes to be reminded (ISEE, SAFE and PDS section deleted 23rd September)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. GREEN BOOK
2.1 TOC for test cases
* on the content of the sections,
* on the title of the sections
* on the following question: is that better to describe the SIP constraints with the MOT (in section 6.1.3), or in a global section on SIPs (section 6.1.4)?
Discussion:
Brief introduction about the sub-TOC by Stephane.
John and Don: 6.1.4.1 SIP constraints, included in 6.1.3
Current Structure:
6... Use Cases. 6-1
6.1 NAME - TITLE.. 6-1
Description
6.1.1 TEST_CASE_NAME DATA SET
6.1.2 TEST_CASE_NAME MOT AND SIP CONSTRAINTS
6.1.4 TEST_CASE_NAME SIPS
Decision on the Structure:
6... Use Cases
6.1 NAME - TITLE.
6.1.1 Context And Benefits
Contains description + what this test case shows
give explanation at the beginning of each test case of the specificity of the test case, and how the method applies
6.1.2 Objects to be transferred
same as TEST_CASE_NAME DATA SET: contains the description of all the information (data, documents, ...) that have to be transferred, and how this information is organized on the producer side
6.1.3 Model OF OBJECTS For transfer and sip constraints
contains the description of the mot and the sip types and sequencing constraints
6.1.4 sips
Contains the description if SIP IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSFER
Contains an example of SIP manifest.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. GREEN BOOK
2.2 Test cases review
COROT test case
Daniele explains that CNES is pushing to get the CoRoT L0 data use case (from Daniele and Stephane) - for information this has to be finished by 13 May to get a chance to be used for L1 data.
METS test case
Daniele had a meeting (9 April) with BNF that could help building a METS implementation of SIPs (documents).
Daniele introduces the need from BnF of transferring references to objects instead of the target objects themselves.
Stephane: this is ok for XFDU
=> Action Stephane: Provide example of XFDU with referenced data objects (remote URL or URI)
Don finds a priori relevant
Decision: Nothing to do on that topic until further inputs from BnF
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. GREEN BOOK
The Green Book has been split into several files, one for the core, and one per test case.
=> Action Stephane: provide a description of the document breakdown and links to the shared repository
2.3 Core document
Section 4.1.1 reviewed (ok)
Tabular representation is welcome but question remains about their systematic use (need an XML version in annex ?)
CCSD0014: equivalent to TO Descriptor, and CCSD0015: equivalent to Collection Descriptor
==> Action Stephane from MM: explain more the CCSD0015: how it is registered and reference where more information could be found on that subject
Don: descriptorModelID has to be changed on any XSD change (specialization), the Archive has to maintain the versions
Section 4.6.1 about PAIS XSD description should remain here for the time being
John: The SANA registry is supposed to reference the (latest ?) PAIS XSD only (TBC). It is however sure that it should not contain any other resource e.g software, XML examples, etc.
« open » enumeration technique is cumbersome (TBC)
==> Action (All): table in section 4.6.4 should be reviewed for (during) next telecon
Comment from previous telecons on method
* (Daniele): there are steps that conform to the PAIMAS process (first model, SIP constraints, then transfer and validation).
* Link between the data base on the Archive side, and the PAIS XML elements: example on how to match both (core document, test case?).
The following paragraph will be suppressed if ok:
XML namespace for PAIS
John suggested that we pass the proposal on namespaces by SANA and Nestor and Peter as XML Co-chairs to make sure they agree.
==> action Stephane (20130821): send proposal on namespace to SANA, Nestor and Peter, and ask if they have any objection to our proposal.
Use previous email sent by John to introduce Stephane in the group.
It is agreed that not all positions where a pais :any element are possible have to be documented in the GB. Only a few example are necessary or even one.
More concrete example should be provided than the abstract « foo »/« bar » currently proposed. Typical example would be a Collection holding a pais :any with the author of the descriptor, the Collection name/ID in the Producer semantic, or anything else that could be specific to the Producer or the Archive side but not provided in the PAIS definitions.
For time constraints, the WG jumped to the section 4.6.4 of the draft GB.
SM: Reminded that « true » restrictions of XML Schema guarantees that the original PAIS XML Schema's rule are still applicable. Any instance following a restriction follows the original ones.
SM: The use of restrictions does not impose any system to use the derived PAIS schemas. Therefore, the restricted schemas have not to be shared with any user of the produced SIPs. The project specific schemas could even be discarded without losing control of the produced SIPs.
=> D - (DS) The rightmost column of the table in §4.6.4 shall be renamed « Restriction » instead of « Content »
MM: It is not clear that this table should be kept in that form or discarded at the end, but the target should not spend too much pages on that topic.
WG: restrictions may be interesting for implementers and as such should be documented, but it is not clear if this should be proposed as a recommendation or a best practice.
SM: reminded that restricting elements such as the maxOccurrence's should be a recommended practice since it can be very difficult to implement interoperable software exchanging elements of xs:nonNegativeInteger type.
SM: proposed to add prepared templates of restricting XML Schemas in annex. Something that could help implementers to quickly setup the restrictions of their needs.
WG: adding XML Schema's in annex may not be so helpful because cut and paste from PDF may be very cumbersome.
=> D - (JG) these XSD shall be placed side to the originals.
SM: The problem is similar to other GB resources as the use case descriptors or the software prototypes.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Preservation process
DB: LOTAR representative is ok with "preservation", but not with "curation" (this word is not used in the community).
MM: links should be made between MTDP and warehousing. Not clear with the structure of the process for the moment.
Discussion on terminology: preservation vs curation.
LTDP definitions:
* Preservation: aims at the generation of a single, consistent, consolidated and validated "EO Missions/Sensors Dataset" and at ensuring its long term integrity, discovery, accessibility and usability. It is focused on an individual Mission/Sensor or on a multi-mission Dataset (when one Master Dataset is made up of data coming from different missions/sensors) and tailored according to its specific preservation/curation requirements. It consists of all activities needed to ensure "EO Missions/Sensors Dataset" bit integrity over time and to optimize (in terms of format and coverage) its (re)use in the long term (e.g. through metadata and catalogue improvement, algorithms evolutions and related (re)processing, linking and improvement of context/provenance information).
* Curation: aims at establishing and increasing the value of "EO Missions/Sensors Datasets" over their lifecycle, at favouring their exploitation through the combination with other Datasets and at extending their user base. It includes the activities for the definition of the preservation objectives, for the coordination and management of Data Time Series and Collections (e.g. from similar sensor family) in support to specific applications. It includes international cooperation activities
OAIS definitions:
Long Term Preservation: The act of maintaining information, Independently Understandable by a Designated Community, and with evidence supporting its Authenticity,
over the Long Term.
Authenticity: The degree to which a person (or system) regards an object as what it is purported to be. Authenticity is judged on the basis of evidence.
Authenticity: in the sense of "original". This is not crucial in the domain of scientific data, but is an issue. Integrity could be a way to prove authenticity.
We note that the LTDP definitions are not clear nor completely coherent. There is a mixture of both preservation/curation concepts in both definitions.
Furthermore, the group thinks that the term "curation" used in the LTDP definition does not fit the usual usage, another term should be used. The sens is nearer of knowledge management.
Daniele will send tomorrow a summary of her comments.
=> Action Daniele: ask David for preservation/curation definition.
=> Action all: give comments and proposals as input for the LTDP terminology and steps of workflow. -> for Monday at the latest.
Previous discussion:
To be done: analyse and suggest, at different stages of the project (during data lifecycle), what should be done on an archiving point of view.
Example of main issue: keep documentation up to date (when changes in formats, processing, ... are made on the data).
The LTDP has written a document "PDSC" (Preservation Data Set Content), explaining what kind of information (data, software, documents, ...) should be collected and at what step of the project.
The subject is wide, Mike asks to focus on specific parts.
Daniele explains her point of view: develop a "model" (magenta book) gathering all the basic components of the preservation activity (selection and appraisal, data and metadata preparation, access, maintenance ...) that should cover all the data lifecycle (even when data don't exist), in order to be able to answer the following question: what should be done from the beginning till the end to be able to preserve data, and at what moment? This should be done in a generic way, making links on standards related to basic components when they exist.
Suggestion to ask Barbara Sierman of existing works concerning this topic. Mail sent the 7/02 by Daniele.
==> Action Daniele: write and send more precise elements on this process to the group.
==> Action all: send comments.
Nestor will send for the new project approval once the ¨PAIS BB has been published.
Daniele underlines the need for CNES and LTDP group. CCSDS expertise will be very important.
The PDS has its internal process ; for other agencies (particularly the LTDP member agencies) this process doesn't exist and is required.
Question on how to make the link between a global process and the PAIMAS phases.
20131030 Don's email and following discussions:
Don: The process could be focussed on the Archive point of view, and seen an internal OAIS issue for workflow, using then more OAIS concepts.
The "provenance" is practically a big issue, going back to the original information.
"Reprocessing, curation, stewardship" could be maped with OAIS migrations, new versions, ...
Update procedures exist at NSSDC.
Daniele: appraisal should be the starting point. Workflow, on the Archive side, could begin early in a space project, even when data don't yet exist ; link with the Archive side of the PAIMAS.
=> action all: exchange on high level process (3 main steps preparation/preservation/maintenance) and links with PAIMAS phases for return to the LTDP group.
==> action Daniele: follow the work of LTDP group on preservation process, and send all available information to the DAI group on this subject.
Need for return on the preservation process from all.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Other subjects
OAIS Magenta Book (French version)
Daniele has received the complete updated French version.
Complete validation to be performed now (text and figures)
This version will be also validated by the French National Archives.
Due to the amount of work on the PAIS, and priority to the PAIS green book, this will be treated after.
XML schema for DEDSL
Seems possible for CNES to write the document on the model on the existing other DEDSL standards. At CNES, XML schema for DEDSL is already created and implemented.
Prototypes: CNES has already tested it on operational tool. This could play the role of prototype, and this could be enough.
Nestor explained John that a 2nd prototype is required.
A possibility could be to produce not a blue book, but a document that won't required 2 prototypes (orange book). To be more discussed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dave Williams, Code 690.1
National Space Science Data Center
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
(301) 286-1258
dave.williams at nasa.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20141008/ddebd4d1/attachment.html>
More information about the MOIMS-DAI
mailing list