[Moims-dai] [EXTERNAL] Reminder of Skype call today

Hughes, John S (US 398B) john.s.hughes at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Aug 13 13:45:34 UTC 2019 

Hi all,
I am at a PDS Management Council meeting and so will not be able to attend today.
Thanks,
Steve


From: MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of David Giaretta
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:27 AM
To: MOIMS-DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Moims-dai] Reminder of Skype call today


Meeting: 10:00 Tuesday (EST), 1500 UK time, 1600 European time



Join it by clicking the link:

https://join.skype.com/ykyu5SIPhSnD



*Don't have Skype yet? Download it before you join https://www.skype.com



General schedule:

Tuesday of the month

Activity

Technical Editor(s)


1st

ISO 16363    Audit and Certification Metrics

John Garrett, David Giaretta


2nd


IPELTU Info Preservation Enabling Long-Term Usage


David Giaretta


3rd


OAIS-IF DAADD    OAIS Interoperability Framework – Digital Archive Architecture Design Doc


Steve Hughes


4th


OAIS update finalization, Group administration, Planning, new projects, or special issues identified other weeks





5th


OAIS update finalization, Group administration, Planning, new projects, or special issues identified other weeks







Draft agenda this week (2nd Tuesday of the month):

  1.  Notes and Actions from last week for ISO 16363 update:
     *   DG preparing list of changes wrt OAIS v3 which affect ISO 16363
     *   SH and BobD will suggest specific text changes for SC#48 and SC#49
     *   EZ will put in new SC about Persistent Identifiers (may be covered in 4.2.4.2)

                                                               i.      Note that PIs may be relevant for section 5 of OAIS wrt handover of AIPs, especially references to data in publications

     *   ALL to review the list of ISO 16363 changes (see table in item 3 in this agenda) and if possible suggest specific text changes
     *   Note that SC#251 was resolved in the meeting.
     *   Agreed that notes should be kept of the meeting (apologies for not sending the above out earlier)
  1.  No developments on IPELTU ready for this meeting
  2.  ISO 16363 – see http://review.oais.info for list of suggested changes

Note ID 49 refers to http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=49  etc
ID

Product

Summary

Explanation of the reason for the suggested change

48

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Align the ISO 16363 metrics more closely with the Mandatory Responsibilities

The second mandatory responsibility, “Obtain sufficient control of the information”, is mentioned twice in the metrics, as the focus of metric 4.1.6 and as supporting text for metric 3.5.1.1. However an assessment of the metrics found that this responsibility had the second highest number of supporting metrics. Is there some way to make this fact more clear and to align the ISO 16363 metrics more closely with the Mandatory Responsibilities described on the OAIS Framework? [1]

[1] Hughes, JS, Downs RR. 2016. Criteria for Assessing Repository Trustworthiness: An Assessment. SciataCon 2016, Denver, CO 11-13 September 2016.  http://www.scidatacon.org/2016/sessions/100/paper/36/

49

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Revise or update language in metrics  to reflect current capabilities and recent improvements

Generally, revise or update language in metrics, including explanation, discussion, and examples for selected metrics to reflect current capabilities and recent improvements in data management practices, including any revisions that will be made to the Mandatory Responsibilities and other areas described within the CCSDS OAIS Framework, the CCSDS DAI draft on Information Preparation for Long-Term Use, practices recommended in the Group on Earth Observations’ Data Management Principles and Implementation Guidelines, recommendations in the Research Data Alliance’s Data Management Trends, Principles and Components – What Needs to be Done Next?, the Global Climate Observing System’s current revisions to the Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC, Common Framework for Earth Observation Data, DSA–WDS Core Certification and its Catalogue of Common Requirements, FAIR Principles, and the Belmont Forum E­Infrastructure and Data Management: Implementation Plan. [1]

[1] Hughes, JS, Downs RR. 2016. Criteria for Assessing Repository Trustworthiness: An Assessment. SciataCon 2016, Denver, CO 11-13 September 2016.  http://www.scidatacon.org/2016/sessions/100/paper/36/

44

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Identifiers - Submetrics (4.2.4.1.x) – Can the five metrics be combined?

These submetrics seem to be much more detailed than most submetrics.

45

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Identifying and managing risks - Submetrics (5.1.1.1.x) - Can the eight metrics be reduced to two?

These submetrics seem to be much more detailed than most submetrics.

119

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Changes to ensure updated ISO 16363 is consistent with updated OAIS

This is a catch-all comment to ensure that this standard is consistent with OAIS (ISO 14721).

258

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Restate 4.2.1 criteria

Simplifies criteria.

By definition all AIPs are to be preserved by the repository, so we don't need to include that in the criteria.

260

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Switch 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2

Makes more sense to talk about the AIP description before saying that an AIP needs to be linked to that description

259

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

4.2.1 Definition of AIP does not help to find the AIP

Definition of AIP does not help to find the AIP

262

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

4.2.1.2 Rewrite Supporting Text

AIP descriptions do not alone provide all the services (or possibly any of the services) mentioned in the supporting text.

247

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.3.1 and 3.3.2 Address issue of "general public" as part of Designated Community

Many archives have general public as customers, but there can be problems if they are included in Designated Community.

248

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.3.2.1 Add discussion of staff needs

Staff knowledge is an important element for adopting and enforcing policies.

249

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.3.4 Transparency vs. other needs

For many criteria, there is often not a single concern, but there is a need for balance between competing requirements.

250

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.5.1 and 3.5.1.1 Add evidence of legislation as example of way to meet criteria

Many archives preserve data because they are legally required to do so.

254

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

5.1.1.1.4 Seems to require blank check for hardware updates

Blank checks for updates are not feasible.

256

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

5.1.1.1.8 Seems to require blank check for software updates

Unrealistic to expect committed funding for any future software updates.

244

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.1.2.1 Questions to address

These questions may arise in some audits

261

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

4.2.1.2 Allow descriptions for class of AIPs

The same definition should be adequate for a whole class of AIPs.

The definition should deal with all components of that AIP whether they are required components or not.

245

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.1.2.2 Questions to address

Questions that could arise in some audits.

246

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

3.2.1.3 Add to Examples of Evidence

Provides additional examples of how to meet criteria

252

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

5.1.1 Scaling largest systems will likely result in major disruptions

Ensure we are clear what is required and how it relates to determining risks.

253

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

How do 5.1.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.1.3 differ?

Seems to be a lot of overlap.  Not sure criteria are properly stated.

255

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

How do 5.1.1.1.6 and 5.1.1.1.7 differ?

Perhaps these should be collapsed or perhaps rewritten to more clearly indicate the distinct focus.

257

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories

Add sub-metrics to 4.2.3

Seems like several sub-metrics could be added.  If not, then metric and sub-metric could be combined.




  1.  OAIS status and group admin
     *   Combined changes wrt 2012 release of OAIS is available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/o424z4gfmoaosnc/OAIS%20final%20v3%20draft%20with%20changes%20wrt%20OAISv2%2020190425_bbh_with-DAI-responses-20190605-20190805.docx?dl=0
     *   Packaging and Content Information – see http://review.oais.info/attachment.cgi?id=56   in suggested change http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=264
  2.  OAIS-IF
     *   Proposed scope etc for OAIS-IF – see https://www.dropbox.com/s/q8a1guli4b42y7y/Draft%20introductory%20statements%20for%20OAIS-IF20190729mc-DG.docx?dl=0 (from email 30th July)
     *   Use cases https://www.dropbox.com/s/l5fdjuaa2oj06xr/UseCase_ObjectClass_Mapping_190715.xlsx?dl=0 (email 16th July) and https://www.dropbox.com/s/1efkcwuhzd5g0gx/IngestScenario_190708d.pdf?dl=0 (email 9th July) and https://www.dropbox.com/s/ay1z4gapea4ycso/02_White_Book_Recommended_Standard_OAIS-IF_Draft_190527%20v5.2%20%281%29.doc?dl=0 (latest Word file for OAIS-IF emailed 4th June)
Regards

..David



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20190813/3c8b6411/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the MOIMS-DAI mailing list