[Moims-dai] Notes from Webex on 12 June 2018

[David Giaretta]

Actions from previous webex

1.	David to write an example of the application of OAIS preservation
concepts to components of PDI including illustration of Ingest and
recursion. DONE
2.	Matthias and Eld to coordinate on text for section 6.1.5(.*).
Matthias to initiate as soon as he is able. IN PROGRESS - see below

Matthias want to help to write text but probably not in 6.1.5 - maybe in
sections before this.

DG - maybe Archival Storage always needs some kind of Preservation Planning
but not clear that Access needs that.

3.	David to put Eld's PowerPoints of the OAIS diagrams on the review
site. DONE

 

Discussion for OAIS update: 

1.	SC88 - added comment to ask for clarification
2.	SC135 - Eld and Matthias/Felix need to co-operate to draft text
3.	Discussion about modelling - see emails from Don, John and I to the
list - I guess these are mostly come from
<http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=222>
http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=222 

 

During a discussion between Mark, John and David after the main Webex some
clarification of Mark's (and perhaps Don's) concerns about modelling became
clearer. There is clearly an important distinction that needs to be made
between the "primary" objects which are to be preserved (the "original
targets of preservation") e.g. images, scientific data etc., and the
"secondary" objects which David was concerned about such as Provenance.  For
example, "secondary" objects are largely created by the repository and may
be discarded if no longer needed e.g. specific RepInfo about formats may not
be needed if all objects in those formats have been transformed to other
formats. Hence Mark's (and Don's) insistence on reserving the term "Content
Information" for the "primary" objects. It was not proposed to use the terms
"primary" and "secondary" in OAIS, we merely used the words for clarity in
the discussion. 

 

It was agreed during this discussion that both Mark's and David's concerns
can be met by simply adding a sentence: 

"The procedures used for preserving RepInfo and PDI should be similar to
preserving the original targets of preservation." 

 

My personal additional thought after this discussion: it may still be useful
to have an annex discussing this in more detail, being careful in the use of
the term "Content Information". Presumably Data Management should also have
the functionality to distinguish the "original targets of preservation" from
the "secondary" objects.

 

I think I have summarized the discussions accurately, but all corrections
are welcome.

 

..David

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20180617/19079886/attachment.html>