[Moims-dai] Re: Comments of Rosenthal's "Case for a revision of OAIS"

[Hughes, John S (398B)]

Hi all,

I agree with the sentiments below. Rosenthal doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of a reference model or the metrics. He is arguing from implementation. For example, the PDS is a distributed system and we had no problem applying OAIS RM principles. A tough response is appropriate. Sorry this is so late.

Steve

From: moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:46 PM
To: David Giaretta <david at GIARETTA.ORG>
Cc: ISO-PTAB at JISCMAIL.AC.UK; MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Moims-dai] Re: Comments of Rosenthal's "Case for a revision of OAIS"

Hi David,

I agree with your comments (but see my text) and Mark’s comments.  I’ve added a few of my own.  Perhaps my most important one is the first about how to judge the effectiveness of OAIS.  Any revisions to OAIS, as happened with the one revision to date, needs to keep in mind the main purpose of the model which is to promote effective communication.  This require widespread adoption.  The model can not be too huge and complex, or it will become useless and fall out of usage. Certainly it can evolve, but I believe this should be limited to improving clarity, correcting errors, and only adding new concepts that seem really significant.  I agree with Mark that such a case has not been made by the author.  It would be more productive if the author would generate a mapping of how they related their CLOCKSS to OAIS terms and concepts, and put that out for discussion.  A really informative discussion could result. Presumably some of that mapping is contained in some of the links, but I’m not going to dig thru to find it.  Perhaps you would suggest this to Rosenthal.

Cheers-
Don

(PS I don’t know if I’m reaching people on ISO-PTAB.  John has updated me on MOIMS-DAI by including my other address, and that is working)




On Feb 17, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Giaretta <david at GIARETTA.ORG<mailto:david at GIARETTA.ORG>> wrote:

> Thanks Mark
>
> I’ll add some of your extra points. With your support I’ll harden the tone. Will also change or remove the last para as you suggest.
>
> ..David
>
> From: ISO Primary TDR Accreditation Board [mailto:ISO-PTAB at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Mark Conrad
> Sent: 17 February 2016 17:50
> To: ISO-PTAB at JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:ISO-PTAB at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Subject: Re: Comments of Rosenthal's "Case for a revision of OAIS"
>
> David,
>
> If anything I believe you are too kind in your comments. I have put in comments throughout his text. I am not nearly as diplomatic as you are, so I offer them as possible additional fodder for your comments back to Rosenthal. I do think we need to push back hard. This guy wants to make a name for himself and he would not hesitate to trash perfectly good work that he does not appear to understand to do so.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Mark
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:09 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org<mailto:david at giaretta.org>> wrote:
> I prepared the attached document. Before lighting a firestorm I’d appreciate your comments.
>
>
> ..David
_______________________________________________
Moims-dai mailing list
Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20160219/11524b4d/attachment.html>