[Moims-dai] Notes from telecon 20160426

Tue May 3 11:55:32 UTC 2016

All,

As I reflect further, I see the situation as follows:  The actual project can be viewed as a generic project consisting of 4 stages. The 4 stages are proposal, implementation, operation, and something I might call the ‘data focus’ stage.  At each stage there is data and additional information that needs to be captured and/or created and retained in anticipation of long term preservation.  At the proposal stage there is, minimally, the proposal itself.  At the implementation stage there is, minimally, the design and testing data.  At the operation stage there is data about the operation and data generated by the operation.  At the data focus stage, there is data organization, data analysis, and data preparation of a subset intended for long term preservation. At the proposal stage, I believe the proposal should include a preliminary view on the various categories of data and additional information to be retained at each of the stages in anticipation of long term preservation and reuse.  

My sense is the above is pretty much what is intended by the document but it does not across to me in a clear manner.  I believe the above can fit well with a project that is about building a new commercial airplane or designing an instrument for scientific research or even for creating and performing an artistic work.

I hope this is helpful.  

Cheers-
Don

On May 2, 2016, at 3:29 PM, D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org> wrote:

> All,
> 
> As one begins to read the document, clearly the Information Creation Project is not the same as the actual project.  It is about the need to create and capture information in association with some other project.  If my project is a proposal to fly an instrument on a spacecraft to address some science question, I’m not going to think about it as an “information Creation Project”. I could be convinced that in association with my project, I need to envision an ‘Information Creation" parallel activity. However when the stages of the ICP are called out, it appears they are now the same as the actual project.  I find this very confusing. I think the document needs to clearly identify the actual stages of a real project, and then to discuss the information creation aspects of each stage.  I think this is what is intended, but it is not how it currently reads, in my opinion.
> 
> cheers-
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 7:05 PM, D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I’ve reviewed the latest draft through section 2 and have inserted a few edits that I think make it more understandable.  See what you think.  However my main comment, which I’ve inserted into this version (see below), is about the relationship of an actual project to an ICP.  The inserted comment is as follows:
>> 
>> I belive it is not clear as to the relationahip between the ICP and the actual project. They may be almost the same entity when the objecitve of the project is to generate information, but otherwise I believe the relationship of the ICP stages to the actual project needs to be discussed. In fact, most projects in which new information is the primary objective would most likely refer to their project in terms of the questions they want to answer or some results to be achieved and not in terms of the information to be preserved. I believe clarifying this, for the stages, is critical to (wide) adoption and understanding. For example, is the flying of an instrument on a spacecraft the same as the Operation stage?  The spacecraft operation has a lot more going on than just the gathering of information, processing, and analysis.
>> 
>> I’m not sure how I would try to address this. I need to think about it some more, but perhaps others will have some ideas unless you think my concerns is not warranted.
>> 
>> cheers-
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>> <6NNxN-M-0x6-ILF-20160423DMS.docx>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:05 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Notes of CCSDS DAI telecon 20160426
>>> 
>>> Present
>>> ·       David Giaretta
>>> ·       Mike Kearney
>>> ·       Claire Caillet
>>> ·       Terry Longstreth
>>> ·       John Garrett
>>> ·       Bob Downs (for a few minutes at the start of the meeting)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ACTIONS
>>> ACTION JGG will set up Webex for next week - DONE - JGG has sent out an email about this
>>> 
>>> ACTION DG to report to Mario about wiki - say we use system used before rather than CCSDS wiki
>>> 
>>> ACTION DG: Thank Vint Cerf    
>>> 
>>> ACTION: ALL: for next meeting: Review current draft and suggest specific wording, both in the normative parts and also the non-normative annexes.
>>> 
>>> ACTION: ALL: figure 1-1 - is the update helpful?
>>> 
>>> ACTION: ALL: Think about a diagram which might illustrate a "Vision for the Future" (see notes from last week) and suggest further areas of work.
>>> 
>>> ACTION : Claire: send pointer to DEDSL software
>>> 
>>> ACTION: JGG and CNES: to provide completion dates for various stages of DEDSL XML Schema book so far
>>> 
>>> ACTION: DG to ask Mario/Nestor about Green Book
>>> 
>>> ACTION DG send info on DMP workshop - DONE - details and registration at -https://indico.cern.ch/event/520120/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moims-dai mailing list
>>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
>>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
>> 
> 