[Moims-dai] FW: CDO text

Tue Apr 2 20:57:34 UTC 2019

Hi Don

Without wanting to open up the extremely voluminous email exchange that we had last year off-list, I cannot resist responding to your last paragraph, which you write as if the aim is bad!

I, and others, want to make the change so that it becomes extremely clear how an Archive should preserve, for example, Fixity Information, if the Archive chooses to preserve it. As I pointed out in the Skype call, surely the Archive does indeed need to preserve things like Fixity Information, otherwise how could the Archive provide evidence that the CDO has not changed from what the Producer provided or to what the CDO may be Transformed into at some point. Without the change it is possible to think that OAIS has nothing clear to say about preserving such things.  All pretty useful things.

Regards

..David

From: MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
Sent: 02 April 2019 19:47
To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] FW: CDO text

Hi David,

There is no valid reason to change the Content Information definition from ‘the original target of preservation’ to ‘a target of preservation’.  This has been there from the beginning to make clear it is referring to the original information provided by the Producer and not just any information within the Archive.  This is important to ensure that when people are discussing preservation within an OAIS context, everyone understands this is the information originally provided by the Producer.  

Of course we understand why you want to make this change because you still want to move Content Information to being ANY information in the Archive so you can claim the whole process is recursive by definition ‘and been there from the beginning'.  This would be a radical, ambiguity enhancing,  change to the long standing common understanding of the OAIS information and functional modeling.  For these reasons this proposed change should be thoroughly rejected by the group.

Cheers-

Don

On Apr 2, 2019, at 10:06 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org> > wrote:

From: David Giaretta < <mailto:david at giaretta.org> david at giaretta.org> 
Sent: 02 April 2019 13:12
To: 'Mark Conrad' < <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov> mark.conrad at nara.gov>; 'John Garrett' < <mailto:garrett at his.com> garrett at his.com>
Subject: CDO text

My suggestions for the additional text:

Change in current draft from:

Preservation Description Information (PDI): The information, which along with Representation Information, is necessary for adequate preservation of the Content Data Object and which can be categorized as Provenance Information, Context Information, Reference Information, Fixity Information, and Access Rights Information.

Note: Defining PDI (as well as its components - Provenance Information, Context Information, Reference Information, Fixity Information, and Access Rights Information) as relevant to the Content Data Object does not mean that those concerns are any less important for other data objects or at other levels, for example, it is important to apply reference, fixity, provenance, context and access rights to Representation Information, or to any other information the Archive is preserving. Definition of these terms as relevant to the Content Data Object is simply to ease discussion of these concepts at the Content Data Object level.

To:

Preservation Description Information (PDI): The information, which along with Representation Information, is necessary for adequate preservation of the Content Data Object and which can be categorized as Provenance Information, Context Information, Reference Information, Fixity Information, and Access Rights Information.

Note: Defining PDI (as well as its components - Provenance Information, Context Information, Reference Information, Fixity Information, and Access Rights Information) as relevant to the Content Data Object does not mean that those concerns are any less important for other data objects or at other levels, for example, it is important to apply reference, fixity, provenance, context and access rights to Representation Information, or to any other information the Archive is preserving. Definition of these terms as relevant to the Content Data Object is simply to ease discussion of these concepts at the Content Data Object level.

I suggest deleting the last sentence because it does not make sense to me.

Change

Content Information: A set of information that is the original target of preservation. It is an Information Object composed of its Content Data Object and its Representation Information.

To

Content Information: A set of information that is a the original target of preservation. It is an Information Object composed of its Content Data Object and its Representation Information.

There are a few other places the change “the original” to “a” would also be needed.

Add to the end of section 4.2.1.4 Taxonomy of Information Object Classes Used by OAIS

Content Information is any Information Object which is being preserved by the Archive. 

I don’t know an easy way to put this into the UML diagram.

Also add the end of section 4.2.1.4.1 Content Information: 

Any Information Object being preserved by the Archive, such as Representation Information, PDI etc., may also be considered to be Content Information.

..David

_______________________________________________
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/20190402/4edd7ca5/attachment.html>