[Moims-dai] FW: CDO text
D or C Sawyer
Sawyer at acm.org
Wed Apr 3 04:37:46 UTC 2019
David,
I certainly understand your view, but you are ignoring the understanding that OAIS provides when it assigns Content Information to be the Information that is provided by the Producer who wants it to be available to others over the Long Term and thus submits it to an Archive. Instead you have adopted the view that all information within the Archive that is associated with a Producer provided Content Information should get the same treatment as that provided for the Content Information, which leads to your recursive view. Your semantic approach is to refer to this as ‘preserve’, by which you mean ‘treat it as though it were Content Information’. Then you say the Archive needs to ‘preserve’ Provenance, or Context, Rep Info, etc. and thus it should ‘get the full treatment’. But we have not said that this is the definition of ‘preserve’, nor have we said that all the information types need to have the same level of effort and thus have all the associated information objects. They clearly don’t get the same level of effort as a practical matter in any Archive. So I find your approach fails on two levels: 1) it would make Content Information ambiguous in any discussion, and 2) it implies all the information objects should get the same level of effort which is impossible.
For months I have tried to make the above points clear in different ways, both privately and publicly. I’d rather not discuss this any further but your proposed last minute change prompted my response.
Cheers-
Don
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:58 PM, david <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
>
> As soon as one remembers that, if one is preserving the RepInfo, then it can be viewed as an example of Content Info, and all the concepts apply. In particular the CDO, in this case the DO of the RepInfo, should have PDI.
>
> ..David
>
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Mark Conrad <mark.conrad at nara.gov>
> Date: 02/04/2019 22:35 (GMT+00:00)
> To: MOIMS-Data Archive Interoperability <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] FW: CDO text
>
> Before the change you had to provide PDI for the Content Data Object and the Representation Information. Now you only have to provide PDI for the CDO. How is that better? more complete?
>
> Mark Conrad
> NARA Information Services
> Systems Engineering Division (IT)
> 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 <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:22 PM david <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org>> wrote:
> Not the way I, and others, read the changes.
> David
>
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Mark Conrad <mark.conrad at nara.gov <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>>
> Date: 02/04/2019 22:17 (GMT+00:00)
> To: MOIMS-Data Archive Interoperability <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] FW: CDO text
>
> " 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."
> -Agree
>
> " Without the change it is possible to think that OAIS has nothing clear to say about preserving such things."
>
> -Disagree. The suggested change to have PDI (including Fixity) apply only to the CDO rather than all of the Content Information actually makes it less clear about what PDI (including Fixity) should be preserved. The change requires less PDI rather than more to be preserved.
>
>
> Mark Conrad
> NARA Information Services
> Systems Engineering Division (IT)
> 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 <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:57 PM David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org>>
> Sent: 02 April 2019 13:12
> To: 'Mark Conrad' <mark.conrad at nara.gov <mailto:mark.conrad at nara.gov>>; 'John Garrett' <garrett at his.com <mailto: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
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto: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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOIMS-DAI mailing list
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto: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>
> _______________________________________________
> MOIMS-DAI mailing list
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto: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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190403/0131b965/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the MOIMS-DAI
mailing list