[Moims-dai] FW: CDO text

Thu Apr 4 15:43:18 UTC 2019

John,

Please see my comments interspersed in your text.

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

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:34 AM <garrett at his.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I favor dropping that sentence.
>
>
>
> One of my objections is that it is that I  would prefer that we would
> define things by their information model not by how  the particular object
> is used.
>

- This would defeat the entire purpose of this document from an archival
perspective. A few of the key sentences expressing the intent of the
authors - going back to the first version of the OAIS - are: "For example,
archival science focuses on preservation of the ‘record’. This term is not
used in the OAIS Reference Model, but one mapping might approximately
equate it with ‘Content Information
within an Archival Information Package’ (see definitions below, as well as
2.2 and 4.2 for context)." The current proposed revision of OAIS changes
Content Information to Content Data Object, but as I noted previously no
archives I have personal experience with would consider a Content Data
Object without Representation Information a record.

It also directly contradicts Section 4.2.1.4 Taxonomy of Information Object
Classes Used by OAIS and its sub-sections. "This subsection builds on the
discussions in 2.2 about the types of supporting information needed to
enable Long Term Preservation and the discussion in the previous subsection
on the role of Representation Information. The information modeling in this
subsection discusses several types of Information Objects that are used in
the OAIS. The objects are categorized *by their content and function in the
operation of an OAIS* including Content Information objects, Preservation
Description Information objects, Packaging Information objects, and
Descriptive Information objects." Content Information has different *content
and function* in an OAIS than PDI, Packaging Information, Descriptive
Information, etc.

>    I would prefer to be able to call every combination of a Content Data
> Object and Representation  Information Content Information (even if that
> object wasn’t a target of preservation).
>

I assume you mean every combination of a Data Object and Representation
Information. Every *Content* Data Object and its Representation Information
is Content Information.  While you might prefer to treat all combinations
of a Data Object and its Representation Information as Content Information,
to do so contradicts many sections of the OAIS.

>
>

> Additionally to address the other issue from the last telecon, we should
> probably address the new wording for the Producer definition.
>
> “*Producer*: The role played by those persons or client systems that
> provide the information to be preserved. This can include internal or
> external OAIS persons or systems.”
>

>
> If people are now understanding that this indicates that the Producer can
> be inside an OAIS, then that contradicts all the diagrams we have that show
> the Producer as external to the OAIS.
>

I don't know who has this understanding. The proposed definition says, "The
role played by those persons or client systems that provide the information
to be preserved. This can include internal or external OAIS persons or
systems."  The 2002 definition was, "The role played by those persons, or
client systems, who provide the information
to be preserved. This can include other OAISs or internal OAIS persons or
systems."  The 2012 definition is the same as the 2002 definition. Both
these definitions say basically the same thing - an OAIS person or system
can take on the *role* of Producer. It *does not say* that because an OAIS
person or system takes on the role of Producer that the Producer is then
internal to the OAIS.

> To start with see Section 2.1 which starts with our simplest environment
> diagram and that includes the text,
>
> “Outside the OAIS are Producers, Consumers, and Management.”
>
>
>
> We have consistently said that anytime anything internal to an OAIS that
> takes on the role of Producer, then while it is executing that role, it is
> considered external to the OAIS.  That means it has to have Submissions
> Agreements, etc. and the data that it submits has to undergo checks.
>

I agree. I didn't hear anyone contradict these points.

>
>
>
>
> Peace and joy,
>
> -JOhn
>
>
>
> *From:* MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Downs
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:19 PM
> *To:* MOIMS-Data Archive Interoperability <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Moims-dai] FW: CDO text
>
>
>
> Please let me add my voice of agreement to Don's point and Mark's
> agreement that Content Information should be defined as "the original
> target of preservation".
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> Robert R. Downs, PhD
> Senior Digital Archivist and Senior Staff Associate Officer of Research
> Acting Head of Cyberinfrastructure and Informatics Research and Development
> Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN),
> The Earth Institute, Columbia University
> P.O. Box 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 USA
> Voice: 845-365-8985; fax: 845-365-8922
> E-mail: rdowns at ciesin.columbia.edu
> Columbia University CIESIN Web site: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu
> ORCID: 0000-0002-8595-5134
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM Mark Conrad <mark.conrad at nara.gov> wrote:
>
> Well said, Don. I have become the lone voice at our weekly meetings
> defending Content Information as the information originally provided by the
> Producer.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:47 PM D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org> wrote:
>
> 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> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org>
> *Sent:* 02 April 2019 13:12
> *To:* 'Mark Conrad' <mark.conrad at nara.gov>; 'John Garrett' <
> 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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOIMS-DAI mailing list
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org
> 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/20190404/efd74229/attachment-0001.html>