[Moims-dai] RE: Last para of response to Rosenthal
david at giaretta.org
Tue Feb 23 18:28:23 UTC 2016
OK, good point.
From: ISO Primary TDR Accreditation Board [mailto:ISO-PTAB at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Mark Conrad
Sent: 23 February 2016 18:26
To: ISO-PTAB at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Last para of response to Rosenthal
I guess it is ok. I fear that giving this guy an opening will lead to more trouble down the road, but we don't want to shut the door on legitimate comments.
I would suggest changing, "This would not in itself imply changes to OAIS." to "This would not in itself imply changes to OAIS, ISO 16363, or ISO 16919." Rosenthal specifically says that changes would need to be made to these two standards as well once OAIS was modified to satisfy his comments.
My two cents,
NARA Information Services
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
Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:51 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org> > wrote:
Changes to the last paragraph of the draft response were suggested in the call and Mike Kearney emailed a suggestion to append some text to be a little more open.
I therefore propose the following change, replacing the last para with
Taking distributed archives as an example, which are mentioned in the original post as being beyond OAIS. We noted above that mapping PDS to OAIS indicates that this is not true and the core concepts of OAIS do apply. It may be sensible to create new standards for the implementation of distributed archives, for example to define new ways to implement federations or special storage systems. This would not in itself imply changes to OAIS.
As noted at the start, OAIS is scheduled for review/revision in 2017. It will be important to collect ideas/comments/corrections but it is essential to distinguish between changes in OAIS itself versus suggestions for new, separate, standards. Our comments indicate that the points made in the original post fall in the latter category. However, if there are other new considerations, or if you feel we didn’t understand your post, we would be happy to discuss this.
Please let me know what you think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MOIMS-DAI