FW: [Moims-dai] Information or data lifecycle vs Project lifecycle - incomplete monograph

Tue Feb 23 23:54:58 UTC 2016

I am forwarding this to the list.

..David

From: Tibbo, Helen R [mailto:tibbo at ils.unc.edu] 
Sent: 23 February 2016 23:31
To: David Giaretta <david at GIARETTA.ORG>
Subject: FW: [Moims-dai] Information or data lifecycle vs Project lifecycle - incomplete monograph

Dear David,

  I sent this message to moims-dai this morning as I am getting messages (but I am not sure how). Apparently I am not on this list and I can’t see how to join. Sorry I didn’t do this sooner but somehow I missed what this was about – this is certainly beyond ingest. Thanks for the help.  

  See my message below. It may be that what would make this clearer is to have the word “data” in the title of the standard and not “information”, although I would love to see a broader standard. -Helen

Dr. Helen R. Tibbo, Alumni Distinguished Professor 

President, 2010-2011 & Fellow, Society of American Archivists

School of Information and Library Science 

201 Manning Hall, CB#3360

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360

Tel: 919-962-8063

Fax: 919-962-8071

 <mailto:tibbo at ils.unc.edu> tibbo at ils.unc.edu

From: Tibbo, Helen R 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Moims-dai] Information or data lifecycle vs Project lifecycle - incomplete monograph

Dear All,

  OK, I too, am late to the conversation and perhaps should not be commenting but I will. I agree with Terry, but it is not just the funders/contracting agencies vs the designated communities. My concerns lie in the fact that not all digital objects are from contracted/grant-funded projects nor are they all scientific data. It should be perfectly clear that the model is focusing on the care of the content. I would not restrict this content to just data – cultural heritage objects need preservation too and their lifecycles are not dissimilar to “data” if cast in terms of the content and not a project lifecycle.

I know data is in CCSDS but the wonder of OAIS is that it is applicable to ALL repositories. If this were not the case there would not have been, albeit slow, such uptake of the RM. The word “data” does not appear in the title of this new standard and it would be so much better in terms of uptake if it clearly related to all digital objects. This may not be such a matter of changing much beyond word choice and tone but I would really have to look closer. Remember,  MOST repositories in the world are not scientific data repositories. If this is to have broad impact it needs to speak to a wide audience. 

Dr. Helen R. Tibbo, Alumni Distinguished Professor 

President, 2010-2011 & Fellow, Society of American Archivists

School of Information and Library Science 

201 Manning Hall, CB#3360

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360

Tel: 919-962-8063

Fax: 919-962-8071

 <mailto:tibbo at ils.unc.edu> tibbo at ils.unc.edu

From: moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>  [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of terry.longstreth
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:06 AM
To: moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>  >> MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org> >
Subject: [Moims-dai] Information or data lifecycle vs Project lifecycle - incomplete monograph

I've been searching for a way to articulate my concerns with the Lifecycle document, and still haven't found it; the way to articulate it, I mean. 

So, I'll just charge ahead.  I don't think these ideas can be of much effect on the document itself, since I'm so late to the party, but perhaps by putting it in front of the group,  others can make better use of them than I. 

I'm concerned that we are serving two masters without recognizing the driving and not necessarily congruent interests of those two:

First, we've been told that the impetus for the 'lifecycle' document came from work items or expected tasking in contracts where the contracting agency wanted to ensure that they could, with confidence, be assured that all relevant data related to a funded activity would be available for them to review and reuse. 

Second, I've an internal (institutional) bias, which I believe I share with those on this list,  toward supporting the goal of meeting the needs of the Designated Community, which may be but probably isn't the same as the contracting agency. 

Now, the purpose and body of the Lifecycle document is clearly slanted toward the first constituency.   For example, the lifecycle elements are, as already noted by Don, John, and several others, more typical of a project lifecycle than a data or information lifecycle.   I had accepted an action to review and offer suggestions to improve Chapter 5 and it's associated table. I propose that the table should be recast to more properly reflect a Generic Data Lifecycle that accommodates longterm, potentially unending, data generation environments as well as situations where data lifecycle management is associated with and punctuated by short-term project level goals.   The generic data lifecycle emphasizes the data operations leading from initial or conceptual planning for data collection or generation, through to explicit freezing of a data package and final disposition. 

Generic Data Lifecycle

Conceptualization->Origination->Availment->Processing->Packaging->Curation and Disposition

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20160223/40bb5657/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15052 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20160223/40bb5657/attachment.jpg>