[Moims-dai] Evolution of the OAIS RM

D or C Sawyer Sawyer at acm.org
Mon Feb 11 15:43:32 UTC 2019


Dear All,

I do not intend to further address this issue on the DAI list.  I stand by my paper (apart from the one erroneous statement previously acknowledged), its analysis and conclusions.  I also stand by my response to David’s comments incorporated into my paper.  It is clear that I’ve not been able to dissuade David from his recursive approach despite communications over several months.  I hope the evolution of the OAIS RM can continue with the objective of facilitating clear, unambiguous, communication regarding preservation of information.  At the same time, I do intend to respond to any comments or questions sent to me directly.

Cheers-
Don



> On Feb 11, 2019, at 9:50 AM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Don
> 
> 
> 
> See my comments below.
> 
> 
> 
> ..David
> 
> 
> 
> From: MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
> <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> > On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
> Sent: 10 February 2019 16:14
> To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>> >
> Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Evolution of the OAIS RM
> 
> Hi David, 
> 
> I have read your comments to my brief paper and I am, frankly,
> disappointed.  I was hoping that you may have abandoned your efforts to make
> recursion a fundamental underpinning to the OAIS conceptual model because I
> don’t think this helps understanding of the model nor do I think it fits
> with how most Archives see what they do,. 
> 
> Recursion has been baked into OAIS from the very start. For example,
> Provenance Information, Representation Information, Content Information etc
> are all special types of Information Objects. It has been that way from
> version 1 of OAIS. Therefore, all the things we say about Information
> Objects apply to Provenance Information, Representation Information etc.  As
> I said, it has been this way from the start. I am not making this up – check
> the standard. We are explicit about recursion for Representation Information
> because it allows us to explain Designated Community. We did not explicitly
> discuss recursion for Provenance Information because we thought we did not
> have to in version 1, but during the latest update it became clear that it
> is beneficial to make it explicit. 
> 
> Therefore I also don’t think it is beneficial to auditors and will not be a
> basic framework that can underlie their thinking. I believe frameworks that
> Archives find productive will also be the frameworks that auditors will find
> useful.  Good archival practice must be practical and not based primarily on
> an abstraction that has not been proven to be useful.  We’ve defined RepInfo
> to be a recursive concept because this fits the reality of RepInfo.  I
> submit that most archives do not see what they do as  being based on a
> recursive concept. It is not enough to say that one can implement a
> recursive framework. It must be practical to populate and use, in my
> opinion. I suspect you are, at this point, in wide disagreement but please
> read to the end where I think I highlight the basis for our disconnect.
> 
> Our extensive public and private discussions, together with your response
> to my brief paper, is consistent with your continuing effort to incorporate
> more recursion into OAIS as a basic conceptual framework. 
> 
> As I mention above, I am not shoehorning recursion into OAIS – it has been
> there from the start.
> 
> The strident tone of a number of your comments, such as your opening
> comment that my paper “suffers from a number of fundamental
> misunderstandings and fatal flaws” seems intended to dismiss discussion of
> the issues I’ve raised.  Maybe it is just that you think your views, and
> intent, are so clearly correct that anyone should see and agree. In good
> conscience, I can not.
> 
> I certainly believe what I am writing is correct; it was extensively
> discussed in the weekly telecons and on the review site. Moreover I have
> pointed to what has been in OAIS from the start which supports this.
> 
> The one factual error in my paper, which I noted in my response to Mark, is
> the statement that PDI is no longer applicable to non-digital Content
> Information. This sentence should be considered removed, but this has no
> impact on the points I’m making.  The simple truth, by definition, is that
> PDI is now only applicable to the CDO in the conceptual model and this is a
> very major change to the conceptual model. 
> 
> This is a problem only because, as I describe below, you require the CDO to
> come from a Producer which is external to the OAIS – which is wrong, as the
> definition from version 1 of OAIS has made clear.
> 
> This is not saying anything about 16363 or what any given archive actually
> does.  You say that the note following the PDI definition in the revised
> OAIS RM is meant to clarify the definition. It does no such thing.  As I
> said in my paper, the note clearly says that the general concepts of
> provenance, fixity, etc. are applicable to the RepInfo and other
> information.  This is properly formatted in the note, using lower case,
> because the note can’t contradict the PDI definition by using upper case.
> Surely you see this.
> 
> You also say that the previous applicability of PDI was clearly being
> misunderstood by archives, so this is a clarification. I have to wonder how
> many archives actually were confused by PDI applicability, but I do know
> that some key members of this working group misunderstood it.  
> 
> As I explained previously, the misunderstanding was that, for example,
> archives calculated digests, which they kept as Fixity Information, based on
> the Digital Object, not the Information Object. This makes practical sense,
> and what the changes do is to recognise the logic of that understanding. 
> 
> This is what caused the PDI to be restricted to the CDO in the revision.
> However once actual applicability was understood by the group, the proper
> response, adhering to the guidelines for updates which you attached at the
> end of your comments, would have been to make the clarification and not to
> continue with the major concept revision. This clarification could have been
> accomplished with a sentence of two. While there was the misunderstanding
> within the group about PDI applicability, one could consider the major
> revision to also be a clarification, but NOT once the misunderstanding was
> erased.  As I noted in my paper, the result is a very weakened conceptual
> model as PDI is now only associated with the CDO.  This is so obvious that
> it makes one wonder why the major concept revision has been retained,
> especially given the difficulties it has raised (e.g., the note, upper and
> lower case).
> 
> My view is that this major revision is still in the OAIS model primarily
> because you still want to reach a recursive basis for thinking about the
> conceptual model. By making the PDI only applicable to the CDO, this is a
> step in this direction as I explain below. My view is reinforced by your
> interjecting, into my brief but standard view of the OAIS functional model,
> the view that the OAIS can also be the Producer, by definition.  However the
> only place this is actually addressed in the text is when the OAIS has
> Content Information that needs updating and thus it submits the updated
> Content Information to the Ingest Function so it can get back to Archival
> Storage.  Perhaps you’ve forgotten the extensive email (private
> communication) I sent you on these points.  This is the standard view that
> anyone reading the whole document, and not just looking at a few
> definitions, comes to.  
> 
> There are many things we do not spell out explicitly – otherwise the
> document would never end. The definitions were worked on extensively and
> provide the foundation of OAIS. You write as if the descriptions of the
> Functional Model is required for conformance to OAIS – which it is not.  
> 
> A standard view that readers come to, and that thus facilitates
> understandable unambiguous communication, is the basis for the development
> and maintenance of the OAIS RM. Instead you have argued, many times in the
> past, for treating the Content Information as ‘any’ information that the
> archive wants to ‘preserve’ (not defined). If adopted, as you’ve previously
> argued, you could then treat any information, such as RepInfo, PDI, etc. as
> Content Information and its CDO would get PDI.  Thus there would be no need
> to have PDI directly associated with RepInfo because the RepInfo can be
> viewed as Content Information and thus get its PDI this way. This has been
> your recursive view.  You should see that this would be a disaster for clear
> unambiguous communication. I believe you have become so enamored with this
> recursive view that you have lost sight of the clear communication objective
> for the conceptual model. (Again, this says nothing about 16363 or how a
> given archive implements its functionality.)
> 
> Based on our previous email exchanges your fundamental error arises from
> refusing to read the definition of Producer – the OAIS itself can play the
> role of Producer – so you insist that the Producer is external to the OAIS –
> which is your initial fundamental error. This then leads you to write that
> CI must come from outside that OAIS – another fundamental error. This then
> leads you to write that PDI etc created by the OAIS cannot be regarded as CI
> – hence this is also a fundamental error. 
> 
> As further evidence, I note that you have interjected, in two places
> within my paper, bullets describing general things the archive needs to do
> to preserve (your term) some information and then you conclude that these
> are, by analogy, associating PDI (actually pdi unless you take any/every
> digital object as being a CDO). Of course I don’t object to anyone thinking
> this way, and seeing some of the relationships, but it is not anywhere close
> to the current conceptual model as anyone would understand it. It is also
> not something that I think could be developed into a clear communication
> model and it suffers from implying that every piece of information gets the
> same level of attention within the archive.  I think one would have to try
> to develop such a model from the beginning to see if it was useful.  I
> believe trying to retrofit this type of thing into the OAIS RM would destroy
> its utility.
> 
> The point I was making is that, for example, Provenance Information must be
> preserved, otherwise how can the OAIS provide evidence about Authenticity.
> You wrote that this would mean that “every piece of information gets the
> same level of attention within the archive”. Well if things have to be
> preserved then some effort would be needed but, as I pointed out in our
> email exchange, you seem to have a very file based understanding of AIPs
> whereas, as I pointed out, the important point is that the OAIS knows where
> all the components of the AIP can be found, because the AIP is a logical
> construct. As I point out in my comments in your paper, if an archive does
> not know where the Provenance is, is not sure that it has not changed, who
> can access it etc etc, then it is surely not able to fulfil the mandatory
> responsibilities.
> 
> I’m sure that we’ve been having such disconnect because you have this
> broad recursive view that you feel can be used to help auditors focus on
> what is needed – a kind of short hand concept way of looking at things.  I’m
> focused on the function of the OAIS RM for clear, unambiguous, communication
> and thus I stand by my paper as written, apart from that one erroneous
> sentence.  It seems very clear to me that one can’t retrofit your recursive
> view into OAIS without destroying its primary function – clear
> communication.  I don’t think any of us want to destroy that, and thus I
> hope you rethink your approach. 
> 
> The point I keep making is that recursion is not something I am forcing
> into OAIS, it has been there from version 1, and I continue to be surprised
> that you do not realise this. One reason that recursion is in OAIS is that
> it does enhance clarity because there is a small set of concepts that can be
> applied over and over again – one does not need to invent lots on
> increasingly abstruse new details.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers-
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 1, 2019, at 12:00 PM, David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org>
> <mailto:david at giaretta.org <mailto:david at giaretta.org>> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Don
> 
> As you will see in this marked-up document, you have made a number of
> fundamental errors.
> 
> I agree with the general point that we need to keep the process under
> continual review. But I believe we have applied the correct procedure in
> this review and your concerns about the meaning of the changes is misplaced.
> Regards
> 
> ..David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MOIMS-DAI <moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
> <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> > On Behalf Of D or C Sawyer
> via MOIMS-DAI
> Sent: 29 January 2019 04:24
> To: MOIMS DAI List <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
> <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>> >
> Cc: D or C Sawyer <Sawyer at acm.org <mailto:Sawyer at acm.org> <mailto:Sawyer at acm.org <mailto:Sawyer at acm.org>> >
> Subject: [Moims-dai] Evolution of the OAIS RM
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I’m attaching this short paper, addressing what I see as a deficiency in
> the current 5-year review process, in an effort to improve the quality of
> the next 5-year review.
> 
> <Evolution of the OAIS RM - with major comments from David
> Giaretta.docx>_______________________________________________
> MOIMS-DAI mailing list
> MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:MOIMS-DAI at mailman.ccsds.org> <mailto: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>
> 
> 
> 
> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20190211/2cfd5a39/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the MOIMS-DAI mailing list
https://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/2019-February/001672.html
mailman.ccsds.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-43
23313
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5XRCLXGPIZ3OK5ZLMHCXJW57QGNY5S7F
<urn:uuid:2eba491a-373f-41df-808a-fa8efea23742>
2021-10-27T22:10:14Z
4.34.224.252
text/html
sha1:6NILVMOSDRCKHEK5EH5DYV4I3WVOKINJ
<urn:uuid:0af90e7a-de3b-4c47-a7e7-fffdff0b0559>
https://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/2019-February/001672.html
response
<urn:uuid:b84be049-d872-4ed1-b44b-5cf3b1ce379f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-74
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/