[Moims-dai] Todays Telecon: PDI on PDI

Tue Jun 5 18:10:52 UTC 2018

Just a few corrections where Don has slightly mistaken what I said.

" David raises the issue that, well, the high level model view of figure 2-3 doesn’t say how the PDI is preserved"

No I did not say that; I simply asked how PDI is preserved - not referencing any particular figure. It is a general question that we need to ask.

"David mentioned that he finds most archives are not applying PDI to Representation Information, but from a conceptual model perspective this is no justification as I, for one, have given several examples where it is relevant"

It is true that I said that. The reason for my saying it was to point out that making the change proposed in http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=222 would not cause any problems for existing archives, because it describes what they currently do while at the same time would allow a cleaner and more consistent model where OAIS concepts apply to any and all information which an OAIS requires to preserve.

@Mark – how does NARA do, say, Fixity of a Content Information Object, in particular how does it deal with the Representation Information?

@Bob – ditto

@Steve - ditto

One thought - many things have multiple roles or labels. My dog Monty is at the same time a dog, a mammal, a friend and a living thing; in different contexts I know that any living thing needs food to continue, so the same applies to him. We use the same idea in OAIS where the OAIS can also be a Producer, and a member of a Designated Community can also be a Producer. The crux of my argument is that by simply re-using the term Content Information one can immediately re-use all the OAIS concepts. 

Don says

" They are clearly distinct categories of information with likely different sources and with the PDI being subservient to the Content Information."

That is true. But the same can be said of many pieces of information, even that supplied by external Producers, for example a CAD design for an aircraft and the test results for various of its components; the latter would probably not exist without the former. Should we make a distinction about difference sources and subservience i.e. one would not exist without the other and so they have to be dealt with (in this case preserved) differently, or should we just say that the reference model is good for everything?

Also

" In fact, we should always try to avoid reusing the same terminology in different contexts where the meaning is different to some degree "

Surely not true!  One of the key ideas of the OAIS Information Model was to identify the commonalities between different concepts, in particular identifying Fixity, Reference, Provenance etc all as Information objects - so that we did not need to invent a plethora of nearly identical terms such as " secondary PDI" and why we did not introduce the term “secondary Representation Information”.

He also says

" This would be shown as a recursive relationship, but all still within the same AIP.  We could include a diagram showing this recursion of PDI on PDI."

Why show an incomplete view? Should we show all the individual components of PDI? Why not simply re-use the existing concepts cleanly?

Regards

..David

-----Original Message-----
From: MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
Sent: 05 June 2018 18:14
To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Moims-dai] Todays Telecon: PDI on PDI

Dear All,

This is my third attempt to try to make my points clear and I think I’m improving.  You will be the judge.

——

OAIS provides the view, clearly shown in Figure 2-3, of the Producer role submitting SIPs to the Archive.  In figure 2-4 the SIPs are used to create the Content Information, and as Mark notes, then the PDI for that Content Information can be obtained/created and associated.  In this sense, the PDI is supplementary to the Content Information and would not exist but for the Content Information.  The result is an AIP for storage in the Archive. In the above scenario, which is at the heart of OAIS, there is no implication that the PDI described above would be taken to be Content Information.  They are clearly distinct categories of information with likely different sources and with the PDI being subservient to the Content Information.  This is the top level view that sets the context for understanding the role played by the Producer and the relationships among the types of information objects.

David raises the issue that, well, the high level model view of figure 2-3 doesn’t say how the PDI is preserved and this is a concern.  But note that it doesn’t say how the Content Information is preserved either.  It simply says they are preserved as part (contained) of the AIP.  So at this high level, they are all understood to be preserved as part of a specific AIP.  I think this is a fair understanding that most people will agree with.

Expanding the model of an AIP, we get figure 4-10 which defines an Information Object.  This applies to the Content Information because it is defined to be an Information Object.  We see that it consists of a Data Object and its Representation Information. 

Further expanding inside the AIP with figure 4-11 we see the Representation Information detailed as being composed of three types of Representation Information and with a recursion relation that ends at some point (not germane for this discussion). 

Still inside the AIP, and further clarifying the nature of PDI and Representation Information, we have figure 4-12 that describes both of them as Information Objects, which means they also have Data Objects and Representation Information.   The result at this point is a set of data objects, all logically inside a single AIP, whose number is limited because the Representation Information recursion is limited. They are preserved by virtue of their logical inclusion inside the AIP.

Now the question is asked, since we thought that PDI was important in the preservation of the Content Information, which is the Content Data Object and its Representation Information, why isn’t it also important to associate secondary PDI with the original PDI?  Well the answer is, it might or might not be depending on the Archive and the specific original PDI.  If it is important, how should that be conceived and shown?  Original PDI was associated with the Content Information.  By analogy, secondary PDI would be associated with original PDI.  This would be shown as a recursive relationship, but all still within the same AIP.  We could include a diagram showing this recursion of PDI on PDI.  This recursion ends when the Archive decides that it no longer makes sense to continue it.  It may be different for the different components of PDI, which are shown in table 4-1 and listed in the text.  The PDI diagram could be broken out further with these components, but I’m not sure it is worth it.  Since they are classed as Information Objects, they could also be broken out in the Representation Information dimension but I see no need and this recursion is limited anyway.

The point that I hope is becoming clear is that there is no need to reuse Content Information with all its implications from the high level model of an Information Package and apply it to PDI.  This only promotes communication difficulties as the past two telcons and intervening messages have demonstrated.  In fact, we should always try to avoid reusing the same terminology in different contexts where the meaning is different to some degree. That is certainly the case when wanting to apply Content Information to PDI.  In short, there is no need.  

I recommend we put a simple diagram of PDI recursion into Section 4.2 and briefly talk about limiting the recursion by what the Archive finds is practical in each case.

As a corollary, there is no need to remove PDI from being applied to Representation Information as is currently being proposed.  David mentioned that he finds most archives are not applying PDI to Representation Information, but from a conceptual model perspective this is no justification as I, for one, have given several examples where it is relevant.  If one want to see PDI on PDI made more explicit, then at least the possibility of PDI on Representation Information needs to be retained.  There is absolutely no good reason to remove it from the conceptual model now that (I Hope!) were not trying to apply the AIP to PDI.  There are instead very relevant reasons to keep it.

Cheers-

Don

_______________________________________________

MOIMS-DAI mailing list

 <mailto:MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org

 <https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai> 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/20180605/48769a7f/attachment.html>