[Moims-dai] Minutes of today telecon (30th January)
Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr
Sat Jan 31 00:09:46 UTC 2015
Please find below the minutes of today telecon. Feel free to correct or comment.
1 Friday 6th February, dedicated to ICP, before 10th International Digital Curation Conference the 9th (15h EU time, 9h US time-Washington)
2 Friday 20th February (15h EU time, 9h US time-Washington), to share screen use
Agenda for 20th February telecon (2 different parts with corresponding timing):
* Corot test case
* Core GB
* METS test case
If available, proposal to use Dave's new number for the sound:
+1-844-467-6272 USA Toll Free
30th January meeting minutes
DB: Daniele Boucon
DG: David Giaretta
DS: Don Sawyer
ES: Esther Conway
JG: John Garrett
MM: Mike Martin (NASA)
RD: Robert Downs
SM: Stephane Mbaye
SR: Stephane Reecht
BC: Bertrand Caron (BnF)
PT: Philippe Tramoni (BnF)
D=Decision, A=action (other = discussion)
1 Corot Test case
See email 01/16 from Daniele, 01/27 from John and 01/28 from Don:
Review of the last version of the document updated by Mike, John and Don. Agreement on the comments, with:
*"semantics" instead of "semantic" page 1 last bullet
*HK serie list: keep only 2 terms for legibility
*benefits: 1st, 2nd, 4th bullets not clear to Mike, 4th bullet not clear for everyone (to be deleted?): to be at least clarified.
General comment: avoid to introduce too many technical details that could puzzle the reader and make the document complicated to understand.
A=>(DB): update the Corot test case with the agreed comments, ask SM explanation for the 4th "benefits" bullet, initiate to give more detail section 220.127.116.11 (SIP steps).
A=>(SM): expand the "TOPIC" in the Corot test case when necessary, and say if the ANNEX conforms to the last Corot descriptors or not.
2 METS test case
Discussion on 1. the draft textual description, and 2. the EXCEL METS/PAIS mapping file.
The textual description: good beginning, should follow the same TOC as the other test cases.
The technical part:
*Location of TO groups, 2 solutions explained in the textual description:
1 Add technical metadata in file section in which PAIS metadata are included
2 Create different structure map
Put all metadata in the file section is not conceptually a good solution => 2nd solution
A=>(BnF): rewrite the textual description: selected solution, same TOC as other test cases, with a special section explaining the mapping between METS, XFDU and PAIS at a general level.
1. 3 Information Curation Process -ICP
see email from Daniele 01/28 (1st framework proposal), comments from Mike and John, and slides sent today for CCSDS feedback.
Discussion on the LTDP inputs: preservation workflow and terminology.
The next LTDP meeting is next week, 4th and 5th February.
Quality is an important topic. It could be associated to OAIS Provenance info.
DB will send beginning of next week: the LTDP terminology commented by DB, JG and MM, and the comments on the December version of the Preservation workflow. This workflow is EO specific.
MM: the key thing is that the beginning initiative is to make from the LTDP document a wider standard.
=>it is agreed among the group to avoid specific terminology.
RD: better not emphasize the particular implementation of the system, but the "what" to be done. The same issues have to be addressed whatever system implementation may be.
MM: stewardship -> Curation -> preservation: Ok with this.
Discussion on the scope: wider than OAIS, associated to the data design, production, archiving -> still to be consolidated.
Other comments from MM still to be discussed later.
A=>(DB+JG): update the framework to take into account the discussion -> production for next week telecon, in order than EC has a document for the Digital Curation Conference.
This standard should be of interest for a lot of communities.
Updated actions will be sent separately by JG.
End of 30th December meeting minutes
Part of historical minutes to be reminded
2. GREEN BOOK
2.2 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
« open » enumeration technique is cumbersome (TBC)
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
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.
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.
DB: LOTAR representative is ok with "preservation", but not with "curation" (this word is not used in the community).
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).
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.
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.
OAIS Magenta Book (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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MOIMS-DAI