[Moims-dai] Notes of the meeting and actions

[D or C Sawyer]

Hi David,

My comments below.
On May 5, 2016, at 4:53 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:

> Hi Don
> 
> In section 1.1 you say "at each stage there is a minimum set of data that
> should be captured. There is Additional Information associated with this
> data" 
> Also in section 1.2 bullet one says "".. into 4 stages and identifies the
> data..."
> 
> This implies 
> (1) the Additional Information is only created when data is created - but at
> the Formulation stage the Additional Information is the best guess about the
> data to be created later 

As I understood the rest of the document, the Additional Information included Rep Info, Provenance,  etc. These are categories that are often left out or shortchanged. Therefore I was taking the view that ‘data’ in the Formulation or Proposal stage would include the proposal that should be retained.  There may well be other data that should be captured at this stage.  Then one should also include relevant Rep.,Provenance information, etc., i.e. Additional Information to go with this ‘data'.  I did not get the view that ‘Additional Information’ included everything EXCEPT the Primary Data. I have a problem understanding Primary Data when the project is the construction of a new airplane, for example. However I think it makes sense when the main output of the Operational Stage is the creation of data (e.g. typical space instrument), which could be understood as the Primary Data.

> (2) the Formulation stage creates data - which is not true unless you mean
> that the plan is itself data - which could be the case but would need to be
> explained

Yes

> (3) the implication seems to be that the document will define some minimum
> set of data - I don't see how we could do that.

At each of the stages, assuming a generic project, I believe we could identify some minimum categories of data to be retained.  As I suggested in my previous comments, besides the proposal there would be design and testing information associated with the ‘Implementation’ stage and the ‘operational’ stage would have data associated with monitoring the operation and possibly data generated by the operation (e.g. instrument output data).  If not, then what is the benefit of calling out the stages in the context of promoting better data capture for long term preservation?  I would think a major objective of the document is to get the project to think more about what types of data should be captured at each stage.  Of course more details could appear an annexes for specific types of projects.

> 
> Without wanting to defend the term too strongly, we introduced "Primary
> Data" in order to have some focus because a project may create many
> different types of data but it seems sensible to identify the data which
> will (as part of the Content Information) become what OAIS terms the "target
> of preservation”.

Yes, this is convenient when the project’s main focus is an instrument creating data.  I don’t see that it resonates very well with other types of projects.  I think we’re understanding the same things so it is just a matter of figuring out what we want to call things that will resonate well with projects and allow us to make our points.

cheers-
Don


> 
> ..David
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
> [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
> Sent: 04 May 2016 01:12
> To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Notes of the meeting and actions
> 
> All,
> 
> I've taken an initial stab at updating section 1 to reflect today's
> discussion.  I've done some re-organizing to better separate 'applicability'
> from 'purpose and scope'.  I've found that in most places it was appropriate
> to replace 'ICP' with 'project'.  I also found that I did not need to call
> out the individual stages by name, did not need to use the term ICP
> (Information Creation Process) nor did I need to mention Primary Data at the
> level of section 1.  Of course these terms and concepts could be introduced
> in this section if desired.  I also think that an update to the title of the
> document would be appropriate at some point to better draw in the interest
> of a project. (Like mentioning 'project' in the title.)  
> 
> Since project is a well defined concept and we know the difficulties in
> getting projects to adequately document their efforts for long term
> preservation, I believe it is most appropriate to limit the scope of this
> document similarly.  As Mark noted, it would be a major achievement if we
> could make progress in this area. 
> 
> Immediately below is a section 1 draft.
> 
> cheers-
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai