Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Where we discuss case statements that are "final" (i.e. ready for review).

Moderators: Leif.Laaksonen, SaraPittonetGaiarin

Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby HermanStehouwer » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:48 am

Dear all,

we received a case statement on Preservation e-Infrastructure.
Here it is.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
HermanStehouwer
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:19 pm

Re: Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby DFFlanders » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:28 pm

Should this group also be considering the policy and potentially APIs for how 'weeding' data might occur? For example, unlike LOCKSS which works with publications; datasets/objects are too big for us to keep everything, so rather than doing bit level preservation of datasets/objects won't their be a need for repositories who are replicating data also need a method by which to know if the data should be gotten rid of so that other things can be preserved. In short, is this WG taking a 'let's preserve everything approach' to their API design and build or will their be a function for querying "is it time for us to delete this dataset/object" to make room for other data which we should be keeping?

Also, ANDS is cited but no one from ANDS is sitting on the WG.

Kind Regards,

David F. Flanders
Senior Analyst
ANDS.org.au
DFFlanders
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:33 pm

Re: Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby dgiaretta » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:01 am

Hi David

the approach in the case statement is agnostic about what is preserved in the sense that if a repository has decided to preserve something, i.e. keeping it understandable and usable, then the e-Infrastructure services we define should help.

I think I am right in saying that that although appraisal is an important topic it would not be something we would work on - unless someone already has a good way of doing this as an e-Infrastructure service. In order to make significant progress in the timescale available my view is that we need to be led by what is already out there, or what we believe is reasonably doable, and at the moment I don't know of any such service but that probably reflects my ignorance and I look forward to further discussions!

This is my view but I'd appreciate views of others in the working group and beyond.

By the way, I'll be emailing invitations to people, including ANDS, again - probably got buried in inboxes over the break - if you or anyone else would like to take part please let me know (director@alliancepermanentaccess.org). We'd certainly like you on board and playing an active part.

Regards

..David
dgiaretta
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:01 am

Re: Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby pwittenburg » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:25 pm

Dear David and colleagues,

let me add my personal comments to your case statement.

• At this moment the cs sounds more like a project proposal aiming at an infrastructure (like a registry of services) while RDA should be about specifications etc. So I don't see which concrete barrier you want to remove within the required short time frame.
• As a consequence the claims in the value proposition are very generic and the adoption statement is not clear.
• there was no debate in a group and no forum interaction, i.e. engagement etc is completely obscure
• To me the term “service” is very generic and does not say what kind of services etc. you have in mind. Several projects are mentioned without pointing to specific type of services. So even if the work is "RDA compliant" if would have no idea whether your goals can be achieved.

As it stands I would suggest to have a BoF session to a) make the goals more specific and b) see who is interested. There is also some overlap with other groups where a BoF session as suggested would be good to synchronize goals and the work.

best
Peter
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby stotzka » Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:21 pm

Dear Peter, dear David, and colleagues,

I agree with Peter that the title "Preservation e-Infrastructure" is a bit misleading, because we are not aiming at building up an infrastructure.

We definitely need to define the term Service clearly. For me as a software engineer a service is a piece of software with well defined interfaces, e.g. REST, and well defined functionality.
As an example for a service I choose "Bit Preservation", a service receiving files which are stored, replicated, and their integrity is checked in regular intervals:
Currently many different bit preservation services have been or are being defined in various data projects, e.g. DARIAH Bit preservation API, DPIF, and others. Due to their differences interoperability hardly exists, e.g. users and applications using these services are not able to switch from one data centre to an other without adapting their software. The missing interoperability is the "barrier" I see in the current state of the art.

From my point of view the major goals are to collect the state of the art in preservation services and APIs and to extract specifications/recommendations for a common set of services/APIs.

Definitely there is a need for more communication within the group. Having regular phone conferences and a session at Gothenburg are good ideas. Overlaps with other RDA groups are partly identified, e.g. with the WG "Practical Policies".

@David: Do you think we could organise a phone conference before meeting in Gothenburg?

Best regards.
RAiner
Rainer Stotzka
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
http://ipelsdf1.lsdf.kit.edu/cms/
User avatar
stotzka
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:36 am

Re: Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby dgiaretta » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:43 am

Dear Peter

I have put some responses interspersed below:

> At this moment the cs sounds more like a project proposal aiming at an infrastructure (like a registry of services)
> while RDA should be about specifications etc. So I don't see which concrete barrier you want to remove within the required short time frame.

In the draft charter we say: "The long-term vision is a standardization of preservation services and their application programming interfaces (APIs)."
so it should be clear we are aligned with what the RDA is about. The point is that there are already at least some examples of services out there and we should not ignore them. Hence we also say "identify options for service interoperability where similar service offerings are available". The barrier is that the services, especially about usability, are not in place, although they are needed, while those that do exist are not interoperable, which makes it difficult for application and solution developers.

Clearly these points are not stated well enough in the draft case statement so we can try to clarify these in the update.

> • As a consequence the claims in the value proposition are very generic and the adoption statement is not clear.
> • there was no debate in a group and no forum interaction, i.e. engagement etc is completely obscure

Sine we started slightly after the initial group of candidate groups, our email discussions took place outside the forum but there have been a number of iterations of the case statement.

> • To me the term “service” is very generic and does not say what kind of services etc. you have in mind. Several projects are mentioned without
> pointing to specific type of services. So even if the work is "RDA compliant" if would have no idea whether your goals can be achieved.

We will add some more specific examples.

> As it stands I would suggest to have a BoF session to a) make the goals more specific and b) see who is interested. There is also some overlap with
> other groups where a BoF session as suggested would be good to synchronize goals and the work.

A face to face meeting at Gothenburg will certainly be very valuable but we'll be holding virtual meetings before then. A good number of people are registered and coming for the WG meeting so I believe that we are more advanced than you suggest.

I think there are potential overlaps with other CWG but the difference will revolve around whether there are specific preservation aspects.
dgiaretta
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:01 am

Re: Case Statement: Preservation e-Infrastructure

Postby dgiaretta » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:04 pm

Updated case statement following review comments:
Preservation-e-Infrastructure-CaseStatementv4.docx
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dgiaretta
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:01 am

Case Statement initial video conference?

Postby stotzka » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:21 am

Dear David,

End of January you proposes that we should organise an initial videomeeting to start the activities of the working group.
Do we already have a date set?

Best regards
RAiner
Rainer Stotzka
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
http://ipelsdf1.lsdf.kit.edu/cms/
User avatar
stotzka
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:36 am


Return to RDA Case Statement Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron