[Moims-dai] OAIS and the OAIS Architecture

[Bruce Ambacher]

Mike,
I have not been a part of the DAI weekly meetings as I am no longer directly involved in digital preservation systems.  But as an original OAIS team member, a retired digital preservation system manager, NARA's representative to several federal data communities, a team member on the development of NARA's Electronic records Archives, and an information studies visiting professor, I think i can make an overall comment.


Since its initial development, beginning in 1995, through adoption, and a ten year review, all involved were quite vocal in insisting that OAIS was NOT an architecture.  To turn a position held for nearly a quarter century 180 degrees is unwise and endangers its credibility.  The greatest value of OAIS was its simplicity, its plain text, its ability to be understood at every level of digital preservation, and its use of high level components to allow individual communities to be compliant and to utilize their own architecture below that framework.


I also believe that effort will diminish the OAIS. Beneath it is a forest of "architectures" developed by different communities to meet their community needs.  Too be successful you would have to eliminate/incorporate every such architecture into an over riding super architecture.  The end result would be an architecture that communities might pay lip service to but it would be an architecture so complex that most such communities would reject it and continue doing what they were doing.


I believe the proper place for such an architecture is in annexes to the standard or in a separate standard.  I also should point out that OAISIS is already in use in the cultural heritage digital preservation community and to utilize that would create both confusion and resentment - just one example of how changing something has unexpected consequences.


You note:  "The use of the term “OAIS Architecture” should not be considered intended to change anything about the OAIS Reference Model or certification thereof" If that is true why do it, especially when the consequences could be different than expected?  You also note: "  If use of the term “OAIS Architecture” make people think it will change OAIS, then maybe we need a new term."  I believe the answer is more than a "Maybe."  It is a definite.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Kearney <kearneysolutions at gmail.com>
To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 10:29 pm
Subject: [Moims-dai] OAIS and the OAIS Architecture



DAI WG members:  After last Tuesday’s discussion, I realized that we have an issue at least with terminology for the new architecture effort.  So I’m attaching a short writeup for your reading pleasure and discussion during the next telecon.  
 
The main points you should take away from this discussion are:  
·         The use of the term “OAIS Architecture” should not be considered intended to change anything about the OAIS Reference Model or certification thereof, and;
·         If use of the term “OAIS Architecture” make people think it will change OAIS, then maybe we need a new term.  
 
I would prefer to stick with “OAIS Architecture,” but we can discuss other options.  
 
   -=- Mike
 
Mike Kearney
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
 

_______________________________________________MOIMS-DAI mailing listMOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.orghttps://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/20180311/813bac39/attachment.html>