[Moims-dai] FW: Updated document for discussion on Tuesday

Tue Jan 19 15:15:32 UTC 2016

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Sawyer [mailto:topcottageguys at gmail.com] On Behalf Of D or C
Sawyer
Sent: 18 January 2016 16:23
To: David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org>
Cc: John Garrett <garrett at his.com>; Mark Conrad <mark.conrad at nara.gov>;
Daniele Boucon <daniele.boucon at cnes.fr>; Mike Martin
<tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net>; MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: Updated document for discussion on Tuesday

Hi David, et al.,

I have a few additional and/or revised comments as a new reader of the
Purpose/Scope, Context, and Applicability of the subject document.

The phrase 'Information Lifecycle' is used in the first sentence of the
Purpose and Scope, but it is not clearly defined. The phrase itself suggests
to me the idea that some information is born, it lives, and it dies.
However this does not seem to be the focus.  The 'life cycle' is said to
span from "the proposal stage to the long-term re-use of the resulting
information" and then it goes on to say that it "will help to ensure that
the data can be optimally exploited over the long term."  What data is this
talking about?  

In the 5th paragraph of the Purpose and Scope, there is mention of an
'information production project'.  Is the life-cycle all about an
information production project?  Or can it include other types of projects,
such as a project to build a new aircraft for which associated information
needs to be obtained and preserved for the long term?  Section 1.2 on
applicability would certainly allow this case, but this does not seem to be
the actual focus.

In the first paragraph of the Purpose and Scope I would like to understand
what is the problem that is being addressed by the document. I would like
this to be addressed in terms that are likely already widely understood, but
if special terms or phrases are used, they need to be clearly defined or
explained.  In section 2.1 the first life cycle stage is stated to be the
'formulation stage' that solicits and funds 'information gathering
projects.'  So it appears that this document is addressing projects that are
either an 'information production project' or an 'information gathering
project'.  It would seem that a project to build a new airplane is not
within the scope, but if the 'information part' is within scope, that should
be made clear.  I think some examples of such projects are needed to clarify
what is meant by these phrases.  I'm most familiar with projects that
involve building hardware and software to gather information about the
environment.  There can also be projects to do data mining for new
information, which may include the need for new hardware and software. How
about a psychology investigation project involving how young children use
play to inform their behavior for interacting with others?  All of these can
have supporting information systems that are not the same as the primary
project implementation.  

What is the problem with these projects that this document is addressing?  I
assume that the execution of a project will result in the generation one or
more categories of information that is, or is closely related, to the
primary objective of the project.  We know that there are other categories
of information associated with many projects that are also important, but
that are often not sufficiently captured to enable long-term use of the
primary categories.  Presumably this document is addressing this problem. If
so, it would be good to get this view early in the Purpose and Scope.  This
also suggests a finer granularity of 'information' early on to clarify what
is intended.

Again, this is my reaction as a new reader.

cheers-
Don

On Jan 12, 2016, at 3:07 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:

> Hi Don
> 
> A new set of eyes is just what is needed. You suggestion makes sense 
> but you are right - we all need to read the whole doc.
> 
> ..David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Sawyer [mailto:topcottageguys at gmail.com] On Behalf Of D or C 
> Sawyer
> Sent: 12 January 2016 16:41
> To: David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org>
> Cc: John Garrett <garrett at his.com>; Mark Conrad 
> <mark.conrad at nara.gov>; Daniele Boucon <daniele.boucon at cnes.fr>; Mike 
> Martin <tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net>; MOIMS DAI List 
> <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: Re: Updated document for discussion on Tuesday
> 
> Hi David, et al.,
> 
> I began reading this document, and the previous version, as one who 
> has not been following this effort at all closely. I was immediately 
> struck by some uncertainty as to what was intended in the Purpose and 
> Scope.  For a new reader, trying to understand if this was of 
> interest, I found a lack of clear context.  An Information Life-cycle 
> needs to have some context as to what the life-cycle is about. It 
> appears to be about a project as this word appeared in the first or 
> second paragraphs of the 2 documents.  However it was not clear that 
> was meant by a project at this point, although a 'proposal' was mentioned.
> 
> I think it would be useful to say something along the following lines:
> 
> 'The purpose of this Recommended Practice is to provide guidance, 
> building on OAIS concepts and terminology, for gathering information 
> throughout the information lifecycle of a Project.  A Project is 
> considered to have most, if not all, of the following activities: a 
> proposal, funding, implementation, operations, and results. During all 
> project activities information is generated and much of it needs to be 
> captured for long-term preservation.  This should be applicable to 
> virtually any size project, whether it involves only a few people or 
> an activity involving multiple institutions.'
> 
> I'm suggesting a clear distinction between the activities of a project 
> and the life-cycle of the information (stages?).  Mind you, I haven't 
> read the full document so I may be off base, but I do know there has 
> been a lot of discussion about the scope so I hope the above is useful.
> 
> Cheers-
> don
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:05 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: David Giaretta [mailto:david at giaretta.org]
>> Sent: 11 January 2016 22:15
>> To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>;
> MOIMS-Repository Audit and Certification Working Group 
> <moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org>
>> Subject: Updated document for discussion on Tuesday
>> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> Somewhat late but the updated document is available:
>> -
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/goj1ckk68y2vce1/6NNxN-M-0x6-ILF-20160110-wit
> h-mark
> up.docx?dl=0 - the all the changes marked from the version distributed 
> by John and commented on by Mark and Rosemarie
>> -
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ea3dv9duun3rzu/6NNxN-M-0x6-ILF-20160110-no-
> markup
> .docx?dl=0 - with all changes accepted
>> 
>> Details of the call are as follows:
>> 
>> At the time of the call - 3pm UK time - please call
>> 
>> UK:        +44 (0) 330 606 0182
>> USA:      (641) 715-3810
>> France +33 (0) 7 55 50 04 14
>> 
>> For other numbers see
> https://www.freeconferencecall.com/free-international-conference-call/
> intern
> ationalphonenumbers.aspx
>> 
>> Participant Access Code:        396476#
>> 
>> I hope we will be able to begin the discussion of the document.
>> You will see that I have tried to integrate quite a lot of Mike's 
>> text,
> but I've marked quite a lot as "Example".
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> ..David
> 
> 