[Moims-dai] RE: LTDP document

John Garrett garrett at his.com
Tue Jan 19 05:05:36 UTC 2016


In response to item 2, my interpretation of OAIS is that Packaging Information provides information needed to identify and access the components of an Information Package.

Wishing you Prosperity and Peace,

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Martin [mailto:tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:48 AM
To: David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org>
Cc: 'John Garrett' <garrett at his.com>; 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>; 'Boucon Daniele' <Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr>; 'D or C Sawyer' <Sawyer at acm.org>; 'Mark Conrad' <mark.conrad at NARA.GOV>; 'Robert Downs' <rdowns at ciesin.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: LTDP document

Hi David

1.  You mention circulating a new document but I didn't get a copy?

2.  Regarding package descriptive information.  You are right that OAIS focuses on this as a way of identifying packages, but doesn't deal with the issue of descriptive information needed to search for components of the package.  I think that is an oversight in OAIS, so tried to generalize the topic in my paper.

3.  I will likely not be able to participate in a telecon today.

Thanks, Mike

On 1/12/2016 12:54 AM, David Giaretta wrote:
> Hi John
> I tried to put the project (i.e. large project) oriented material 
> (mostly Mike’s text) in separate blocks under the heading “Example”. 
> The thought was that we could then either add other examples or else 
> move such text to an Annex.
> I also tried to:
> 1)Make it clear that the terminology comes from OAIS – many of 
> Rosemarie’s comments were about the distinction between data and 
> information and I believe that OAIS provides that distinction
> 2)Add explanations/rationale for the way we split the stages etc
> 3)Align the terminology with OAIS e.g. change Mike’s “Descriptive 
> Information” to “Package Description Information”
> 4)Make a clear distinction between Designated Community and other 
> users – exploitation of the data could involve those other users
> I know the document I circulated is not “final” but I hoped that t 
> least the use of terminology was clearer and the “large project” text 
> was sufficiently separate.
> What I did not do was to address the Annex of mapping LTDP to this 
> document, but John has pointed out that there was some earlier work 
> done on that. As I indicated above, one option for the “large project” 
> text would be to put it in another annex.
> Regards
> ..David
> *From:*John Garrett [mailto:garrett at his.com]
> *Sent:* 12 January 2016 05:09
> *To:* 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>; 
> 'David Giaretta' <david at giaretta.org>; 'Boucon Daniele'
> <Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr>; 'Mike Martin' <tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net>; 'D 
> or C Sawyer' <Sawyer at acm.org>; 'Mark Conrad' <mark.conrad at NARA.GOV>; 
> 'Robert Downs' <rdowns at ciesin.columbia.edu>
> *Subject:* LTDP document
> Hi,
> Yes, I think the current version is still very project oriented.   The
> intention of at least some of the participants was to make it more 
> general, but the source document was from EU Earth Observation 
> projects.  I’ll send what I think is the most current version of their 
> document (Rosemarie can let us know if there is a more recent 
> document).  I believe this version was also adopted by one of the 
> working groups from the international Committee on Earth Observation (CEOS).
> The approved CCSDS Project was standardize that document (see project 
> description below).
> The purpose of this recommendation is to provide a standard method 
> structured as a complete process to formally define the steps and 
> associated activities required to preserve digital information objects.
> The process thus defined along with the activities, is linked with the 
> data lifecycle. This activity will work to standardize materials fed 
> into the process by the EU Project - Long Term Digital Preservation 
> (for Earth Science Data). It is likely that participants in EU Project 
> will also participate in the CCSDS efforts on behalf of their Agencies.
> But as you’ve seen our current document has changed quite a bit.  We 
> need to decide where we are going with the document going forward.
> Wishing you Prosperity and Peace,
> -JOhn
> *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 *Mark 
> Conrad
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 7, 2016 5:02 PM
> *To:* MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org 
> <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>>; David Giaretta 
> <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Moims-dai] NASA Guidance (Records Schedule) for 
> Project/Program Files
> Hi Mike,
> I think it would actually be more useful (and a whole lot easier) to 
> simply make it clear that the information lifecycle described in the 
> document is for a specific context (i.e., project/experiment). If you 
> try to re-write the document for a more generic lifecycle it would be 
> very difficult. The current document is far too prescriptive in terms 
> of workflow/responsibilities for all of the different contexts that 
> records/information/data are created under.
> As I said before, I think the document would be very useful for the 
> specific context. I just think the document scope should be qualified 
> to indicate the context in which it can be applied.
> Mark
> Mark Conrad
> NARA Information Services/Applied Research
> 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
> Phone: 304-726-7820
> Fax: 304-726-7802
> Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov> 
> http://www.facebook.com/NARACAST
> http://www.archives.gov/applied-research/
> Twitter: @lmc1990
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Mike Martin <tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net 
> <mailto:tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>     Hi Mark
>     Thanks for your comments.  In the "much more generic lifecycle
>     framework" would all the topics still apply?  If so, then maybe the
>     paper can be worded to be more inclusive and to make sure that an
>     individual could see that he/she was the "project", and that
>     sometimes the "sponsor" would be one's boss or oneself.
>     Thanks, Mike
>     On 1/7/2016 9:58 AM, Mark Conrad wrote:
>         Hi Mike,
>         I am also the one responsible for generating the action item
>         from the
>         December 22nd meeting as well. As an archivist I am used to a
>         much more
>         generic information lifecycle framework. Archivists and records
>         managers
>         use more generic frameworks because we have to deal with
>         records/information/data that are created in many different
>         contexts.
>         For example, records/information/data are created in many
>         organizations
>         on a daily basis in contexts that don't have someone in a formal
>         role of
>         sponsor. Records/information/data are also generated outside the
>         context
>         of a particular project.
>         I guess my main objection was that the title of Information
>         Lifecycle
>         Framework was not sufficiently qualified to distinguish it from more
>         generic frameworks like those used by archivists and records
>         managers.
>         The document as it currently exists could be entitled something
>         like,
>         Information Lifecycle Framework for Major Projects/Experiments.
>         I think the document would be very useful in this qualified context.
>         Many archivist or records managers can tell you horror stories about
>         receiving calls like, "We have shut down this
>         experiment/project/system,
>         do you want any of the information." The archivist ends up doing
>         "data
>         archaeology" trying to see what can be salvaged. Having information
>         reuse considered from the initiation of a project would make our
>         lives
>         so much easier - not to mention making the results of the work
>         accessible and usable to a much wider audience.
>         Hope this helps explain where my comments come from.
>         Mark
>         Mark Conrad
>         NARA Information Services/Applied Research
>         IXA
>         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
>         Phone: 304-726-7820 <tel:304-726-7820>
>         Fax: 304-726-7802 <tel:304-726-7802>
>         Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>
>         <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>>
>         http://www.facebook.com/NARACAST
>         http://www.archives.gov/applied-research/<http://www.archives.gov/ncast/>
>         Twitter: @lmc1990
>         On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Mike Martin
>         <tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net <mailto:tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net>
>         <mailto:tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net
>         <mailto:tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net>>> wrote:
>              Hi Mark and others
>              On 1/5/2016 11:52 AM, Mark Conrad wrote:
>                  Second, the schedule identifies 8 stages of a project -
>         Formulation,
>                  Approval, Design Development, Manufacture, Fabrication and
>                  Assembly, Pre-launch System Integration and Verification,
>                  Implementation
>                  and Operations, Observational Data, and Evaluation and
>         Termination.
>              Related to this, there was an action item from the meeting
>         on the
>              22nd of Dec:
>              Action: clarify why we need another lifecycle
>              I spent many hours going through all the lifecycles in:
> http://www.pnamp.org/sites/default/files/data_life_cycle_models_and_co
> ncepts.pdf
>              and looking at other archiving documents provided a summary
>         in late
>              2014 for the DAI group which is included below.
>              Most lifecycles don't really consider the interactions of
>         the three
>              participants (sponsor/project/archive).  I wanted our
>         lifecycle to
>              point out the importance of the sponsor and archive being
>         involved
>              in the initiation of the project and then to point out the
>         need for
>              bringing in requirements and tools to the specify and design
>              stages.  The Exploitation activities aren't covered in most
>              lifecycles.  I didn't think that all the themes in the LTDP
>         (PDSC
>              definition and appraisal, archive operation and organization,
>              security, ingestion, maintenance, access and interoperability,
>              exploitation and reprocessing, purge prevention) were
>         applicable to
>              this document so came up with a shorter list of activities.
>              Another thing to mention, the topics/issues came from a
>         list David
>              provided from his work on the Active Data Management Plan, plus
>              evaluation of all the LTDP Common Guidelines, plus
>         evaluation of all
>              the activities in the PAIMAS standard, plus looking at the
>         ESDIS
>              Earth Science Content Specification, plus other issues that
>         group
>              members raised.
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Nov 20, 2014
>              Hi Everyone
>              I've gone through all the reference documents we have seen
>         and the
>              articles in our bibliography and tried to summarize the
>         unique life
>              cycles that are presented.  Here are some summaries with more
>              details below:
>              David's:  Planning and Creation Stage->Consolidation
>         Stage->Long
>              Term Preservation Stage->Adding Value, Re-Use and
>         Sustainability
>              LTDP:    Consolidation->Implementation->Operations
>              OAIS+:  Planning->Collection->Analysis->Packaging->Ingest->Data
>              Management->Archival Storage->Access->Preservation 
> Planning
>              DCC:     Conceptualize->create or receive->appraise and
>              select->ingest->preservation action-> store->access->use and
>              reuse->transform
>              USGS:
>           Plan->Acquire->Process->Analyze->Preserve->Publish/Share
>              SDMW:  Plan->Collect->Integrate and
>         transform->Publish->Discover and
>              inform->Archive or discard
>              DataOne;
>         Collect->Assure->Describe->Deposit->Preserve->Discover->Integrate
>              ->Analyze
>              DMF:     Planning and Production->Data Management Activities
>              ->Dissemination->Usage Activities
>              Can we come up with an optimal set of categories based on
>         all these
>              various views?
>              Thanks, Mike
>              More detail from the various documents:
>              1.  The LTDP preservation workflow includes:
>              Initialization (appraisal, define designated community,
>              specification of preservation/curation requirements,
>         consolidation
>              procedure, tailoring content, consult with community, cost
>         and risk
>              assessment),
>              Consolidation (implement consolidation, gather missing
>         content and
>              update), Implementation (data ingestion and catalog generation,
>              dissemination),
>              Operations (operations and maintenance,  curation and
>         stewardship -
>              adding value).
>              2.  The OAIS model includes Ingest, Data Management, Archival
>              Storage, Access, Management and Preservation Planning.   It is
>              missing Planning (meaning enterprise planning), Collecting
>         (Mission
>              Operations, building and running the enterprise), Analyzing
>              (producing knowledge) and maybe Packaging.  All these occur
>         prior to
>              OAIS, but OAIS should be involved.  Consolidation could be
>         part of
>              Ingest or possibly an separate activity outside the OAIS.
>         Adding
>              Value could be part of or a combination of Preservation
>         Planning or
>              Access.   This model syncs up with RASIM which builds advanced
>              information management objects in terms of five services which
>              correlate with OAIS components, archive service (ingest),
>         repository
>              service (archival storage), registry service (data management),
>              product service (access plus archival storage), and query
>         service
>              (access plus data management).
>              3.  The Data Curation Centre life cycle includes conceptualize,
>              create or receive, appraise and select (with potential to
>         dispose),
>              ingest, preservation action (migrate or reappraise), store,
>         access,
>              use and reuse, transform (with potential to migrate).
>              4.  The NOAA Environmental Data Life Cycle Functions include
>              planning new systems, then stewardship which includes observing
>              operations, archive,  access, use.   Overarching themes are
>              governance, requirements management, architecture management,
>              security; developing rich metadata; and mechanisms for user and
>              requirements and feedback.   Each of the major categories
>         has many
>              sub-activities.
>              5.  The Global Change Science Requirements for Long-Term
>         Archiving
>              Workshop (USGCRP) identified the following components:  User
>              Involvement, Data Administration, Documentation, Data
>         Ingest and
>              Verification
>              Data Preservation and Maintenance, Data
>         Processing/Reprocessing,
>              Data Access and User Support.
>              6.  The USGS Life Cycle includes Plan, Acquire, Process,
>         Analyze,
>              Preserve, Publish/Share with three activities running
>         through all
>              phases: Describe (Metadata and Documentation), Manage Quality,
>              Backup and Secure.
>              7.  The ESA Heterogenous Missions Accessibility Report really
>              focuses on data access and not the other phases.
>              8.  The Harnessing the Power of Digital Data: Taking the
>         Next Step,
>              Science Data Management Workshop report provides a number
>         of models:
>              FGDC life cycle:  Define, Inventory/Evaluate, Obtain, Access,
>              Maintain, Use/Evaluate, Archive.
>              Linear data lifecycle: Plan, Collect, Integrate and Transform,
>              Publish, Discovery with two activities running through all
>         phases,
>              Governance and Stewardship and Communications.
>              Basic science model: plan, collect, integrate and transform,
>              publish, discover and inform, archive or discard.
>              The topics that are identified in the report include:  data
>              governance, stewardship, sharing, access, security, version
>         control,
>              metadata management, content and format, document and content
>              management, preservation, transfer of responsibility, data
>              architecture, database operations management, reference and
>         master
>              data management, data warehousing and business
>         intelligence, data
>              quality management, provenance, usability, value added
>         services,
>              workflow systems.
>              9.  The LPDAAC Lifecycle Plan identifies the phases:
>         Inception,
>              Active Archive, Long-Term Archive which each have four
>         elements,
>              characterization, critical data and information, applicable
>              standards, transition.
>              The WBS is broken into phases, inception-planning (embed in
>         producer
>              team, provide data management plan), inception-production
>         (laison to
>              science stakeholders, collection inception checklist, support
>              production, repeat experiment, determine approach to
>         tools/services,
>              authorize to migrate, provide NASA data template), active
>         archive
>              transition from producer (obtain authorization to migrate, plan
>              migration, install new product line, migrate, advertise new
>              products, assume primary access and discovery role), active
>         archive
>              transition to long-term (obtain authorization to migrate, plan
>              migration), long term archive transition to long-term (enable
>              migration, execute migration, advertise new products, transfer
>              primary access and discovery role, obtain authorization for
>              certification, sunset products).
>              10.  DataOne includes Collect, Assure, Describe, Deposit,
>         Preserve,
>              Discover, Integrate, Analyze
>              11. Jeff de La Beaujardičre's Data Management Framework
>              Planning and Production (Requirements Definition, Planning,
>              Development, Deployment, Operations);
>              Data Management Activities (Collection, Processing, Quality
>         Control,
>              Documentation, Dissemination, Cataloging, Preservation,
>         Stewardship,
>              Usage Tracking, Final Disposition);
>              Usage Activities (Discovery, Reception, Analysis, Product
>              Generation, User Feedback, Citation, Tagging, Gap Analysis).
>              _______________________________________________
>              Moims-dai mailing list
>         Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
>         <mailto:Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
>         <mailto:Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>>
>         http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>     _______________________________________________
>     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

More information about the MOIMS-DAI mailing list