[Moims-dai] Notes of the meeting and actions
D or C Sawyer
Sawyer at acm.org
Thu May 5 17:26:35 UTC 2016
While I said ‘minimum’, I was really thinking of the categories I mentioned as examples for a generic project. I’d be satisfied to stop pretty much with the examples I gave so I don’t see any need for more. But again, if we don’t have any examples for the generic project, then I’m not sure what benefit there is to calling out the stages in this document. I don’t see any problem with focusing on the Additional Information (rep, provenance, etc.) as applicable to such examples and others the project chooses to recognizes as important - whatever they may be. I think this would actually improve the focus on Additional Information for each of the stages, and certainly not get anywhere close to addressing how to run projects - apart from the need to be cognizant of this Additional Information at each of the stages. My view, anyway, at this point.
On May 5, 2016, at 10:27 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
> Hi Don
> I get worried when you say " I believe we could identify some minimum
> categories of data to be retained " - that seems to me to open up a whole
> extra level of complexity. I would go so far as to say that we are experts
> in digital preservation and OAIS so we have the authority to talk about
> Additional Information - most of which is derived directly from OAIS. On the
> other hand to make general statements about data to be collected is rather
> outside my comfort zone. On the other hand we can give specific examples -
> which was the purpose of the Annexes.
> If we add those minimum categories about data in general then I'm not sure
> when the document would be finished, moreover the focus of the document
> should be shifted away from the very thing which is normally shortchanged.
> There are plenty of books on running projects.
> -----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: 05 May 2016 14:42
> To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Notes of the meeting and actions
> 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
>> (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.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
>> [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of D or C
>> 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
>> I've taken an initial stab at updating section 1 to reflect today's
>> discussion. I've done some re-organizing to better separate
>> 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.
>> Moims-dai mailing list
>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
More information about the MOIMS-DAI