[Moims-dai] Summary of resolution of ISO suggestions for OAIS

[Gerald Banon]

I would like to know the reasons why the following recommendation was
rejected:  "Unique AIP identifiers for each AIP in the Federation; these
identifiers MUST be Unique Persistent Identifiers within a naming system
SPECIFIED BY THE FEDERATION." (Bug 382).

Gerald Banon.

Em qua., 28 de fev. de 2024 às 07:51, David Giaretta via MOIMS-DAI <
moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org> escreveu:

> At the meeting yesterday we decided the following – the text is the
> closing comment I added.
>
>
>
> Please email the list if you have any comments – but if you don’t like the
> text please give alternative text rather than just saying you do not like
> it.
>
>
>
> ..David
>
>
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=329
>
> DAI20240227 after many weeks of discussion decided to reject this
> suggestion because the terms Persistent Identifiers  and Unique Persistent
> Identifiers are each used only once. The term "unique identifier" is used
> several times, but never capitalised, and is used in a rather informal way.
> Because of this OAIS is not a good place to define these terms.
>
> However we should remove the capitalisation for Persistent Identifiers
> and Unique Persistent Identifiers.
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=356
>
> DAI20240227 agreed to reject this suggestion because we currently use preservation plan(s) about 20 times in this document and it seems to be used in a generic sense that is more generic than any specific document.
>
>
>
> We noted we have hierarchy of document definitions in ISO 16363
>
> "Preservation Policy"
>
> "Preservation Strategic Plan" and
>
> "Preservation Implementation Plan".
>
>
>
> It seems more needed and appropriate to differentiate these documents there.
>
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=382
>
> DAI20240227 agreed, after much discussion, to reject this proposal.
> However the capitalisation of "Unique AIP Identifiers" and similar terms
> should be remove where possible.
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=357
>
> DAI20240227 agreed to reject this suggestion because Section 2.4
> Preservation Objectives is devoted to this topic.
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=371
>
> We agreed to leave this open for a few more days in order to gather more
> views.
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=369
>
> DAI20240227 agreed with
>
> FROM:
>
> It is essential for an OAIS to have documented policies and procedures for
> preserving its AIPs, and it should follow those procedures. In particular,
> AIPs shall never be deleted unless the deletions are allowed as part of an
> approved policy; there should be no ad-hoc deletions. A deletion policy
> should gather information about the deletion (i.e., what, why, who).
>
> TO
>
> It is essential for an OAIS to have documented policies and procedures for
> preserving its AIPs, and it should follow those procedures, capturing an
> audit trail showing the actions regarding the AIPs. In particular, AIPs
> shall never be deleted unless the deletions are allowed as part of an
> approved policy.
>
>    1. http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=386
>
> DAI20240227 decided to reject this suggestion because the standard is
> widely known across many domains beyond that of space. This shows that the
> name does not cause confusion. On a practical level, removing "Space Data
> System Practices" would run counter to CCSDS procedures.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240228/bd5676cd/attachment.htm>