[Moims-dai] Draft responses to MOSSG

Wed Sep 14 19:16:52 UTC 2016

Three hours! Wow. Thanks, David, for carrying the DAI flag over such an
extended session!

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:23 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:

> We just finished a 3 hour webex with Mario and others. We should see the
> combined comments later. I think Mario has included at least some of our
> points.
>
>
>
> ..David
>
>
>
> *From:* MOIMS-DAI [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Mike Kearney
> *Sent:* 14 September 2016 18:59
> *To:* 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Moims-dai] Draft responses to MOSSG
>
>
>
> I think this is moot, since the MOIMS telecon is over, and David has
> turned in whatever he decided on.
>
>
>
> But to close the loop…  I wanted those guys to **acknowledge** a
> post-mission requirement, because I’m sure they’re not even thinking of
> such a thing right now.  Also, the Shuttle program was 30 years, and they
> used one format/access method (ODRC) throughout the whole program, I’m
> pretty sure.  Actually, I think ISS is still using it.  That’s why it’s
> hard to get some (high-visibility) programs to address digital
> preservation.  They’ve kept the constraints of historic access as
> requirements on new software development, hence they mistakenly think
> “we’re doing long-term preservation already”.
>
>
>
> Again, I’m just the messenger, explaining what they’re thinking “on the
> other side”.
>
>
>
>    -=- Mike
>
>
>
> Mike Kearney
>
> Huntsville, Alabama, USA
>
>
>
> *From:* MOIMS-DAI [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
> <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mark Conrad
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:55 AM
> *To:* MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Moims-dai] Draft responses to MOSSG
>
>
>
> "* both during the mission lifetime, and in long-term archives
> post-mission.* "
>
>
>
> If the mission is more than a few years long, they will probably need
> long-term archives during the mission.
>
>
> Mark Conrad
> NARA Information Services
>
> IAS
> The National Archives and Records Administration
> Erma Ora Byrd Conference and Learning Center
> Building 494, Room 225
> 610 State Route 956
> Rocket Center, WV  26726
>
> Phone: 304-726-7820
> Fax: 304-726-7802
> Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Mike Kearney <kearneysolutions at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It would probably be good to tell them a from/to statement… you have
> explained the background, but you don’t quite tell them what you want the
> document to say.  Something like this?
>
>
>
>
>
> *Integration levels*
>
> *Archiving*
>
> *Degree*
>
> *of Interoperability*
>
> Ops, engineering *and science* teams from various space agencies  need
> to  integrate their data in a*n* common archive *or set of archives,* and
> update/retrieve from *them, both during the mission lifetime, and in
> long-term archives post-mission.*
>
> Agreed common data formats (data standard), agreements on metadata
> content, central archive server and clients. *compliance with long-term
> digital preservation practices, such as CCSDS standards for OAIS, PAIS and
> future protocol-level standards yet to be developed by CCSDS.  *
>
>
>
> I think they might contest the need to share long-term archives of
> engineering and ops data post-mission, so I added Science teams to their
> list… that’s clearly not contestable.
>
>
>
> Also, I don’t know why they said they had to agree on a central archive
> server and clients.  Distributed archives would work also.  Don’t think
> that should be necessary for archive interoperability.  So I scratched it
> out.  Am I missing something?  Also scratched out “common” archive in the
> left box and suggested “an archive or set of archives”.  Seems like a
> “common, central” archive is old-school and constraining.
>
>
>
>    -=- Mike
>
>
>
> Mike Kearney
>
> Huntsville, Alabama, USA
>
>
>
> *From:* MOIMS-DAI [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Giaretta
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:31 PM
> *To:* 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> *Subject:* [Moims-dai] Draft responses to MOSSG
>
>
>
> As discussed at the DAI webex today, here is a collection of comments on
> the MOSSG paper. Any last updates?
>
>
>
> ..David
>
>
>
> 1)      Although the paper states “Archive ingestion is not considered
> part of the IOAG interoperability goals.”, nevertheless as is recognised in
> “However, the assumption is that there are mechanisms for archive ingestion
> implemented”, it will not be possible to get data out of an archive unless
> data is ingested into it. MOIMS-DAI covers data ingest and should be
> mentioned in the document, for example CCSDS 651.1-B-1, Producer-Archive
> Interface Specification (PAIS). Blue Book. Issue 1. February 2014.
>
> 2)      The use of the word archive is misleading. What is discussed in
> most of the document is what might be termed “short-term storage”. For
> example, the Service Description of the kind “Archive of Agency Y is
> accessed by Agency X to…”, which implies simple access to the bits which
> have been stored. Interoperability normally means being able to use the
> bits.
>
> The MOIMS-DAI work on archives is about maintaining the usability of the
> bits.
>
> If agencies X and Y use the same format and semantics for the bits then
> there is no problem. If one the other hand they do not then agency X will
> need additional information. This may be relevant if there is a long time
> between the creation of the data by Agency Y and the use by Agency X. It
> may also be relevant if there is very little time between creation and use,
> for example if the agencies use different systems.
>
> This is recognised in slide 29 in the PowerPoint presentation which has,
> at the top level:
>
>
>
> *Integration levels*
>
> *Archiving*
>
> *Degree*
>
> *of Interoperability*
>
> Ops and engineering teams from various space agencies  need to  integrate
> their data in a common archive and update/retrieve from it
>
> Agreed common data formats (data standard), agreements on metadata
> content, central archive server and clients
>
>
>
> There are several problems with the right hand side:
>
> a)      Agreeing formats is not adequate. For example the agencies could
> agree to use CSV – but what do the elements mean? what are the units? Is
> agency X going to combine something measured in meters with something
> measured in feet? In other words what metadata content is needed? This is
> what DAI is concerned with.
>
> b)      If Agency X wants the data from Agency Y after Y’s project has
> ended, can one be sure that the right metadata has been collected?
> MOIMS-DAI is working on “INFORMATION PREPARATION TO ENABLE LONG TERM USE”
> to create a checklist to help ensure that enough of the right kinds of
> metadata is collected. Of course ensuring the data continues to be usable
> despite the inevitable changes over time in software, systems, semantics
> etc., is covered by CCSDS 650.0-M-2, Reference Model for an Open Archival
> Information System (OAIS). Magenta Book. Issue 2. June 2012.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOIMS-DAI mailing list
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org
> https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOIMS-DAI mailing list
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org
> https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20160914/3fbcdd64/attachment.html>