SAWG:Changes and Proposals for Current SA Draft

From NGDC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Review Info

Review Date: 8/25/09, 8/28/09 Reviewers: Dan and Phil

Applies to Full Document

  • Mandatory/Optional Guidance. Should all sections have an M/O designation, or is placing "NA" enough for now?
  • Instructions need to be reviewed and updated to accomodate new edits to the document.

Approval Page

  • Make CMO signature optional. There may not be a designated person at the data center.


  • Remove the table listing. For the most part the table titles correspond to the section/sub-section headings. It's a maintanance issue. If additional tables are inserted, the update of the TOC does not automatically add them to the list. Has to be a manual process.

Section 1.0, Introduction

  • Rewording in first paragraph.
    • rewording in 2nd paragraph.
    • removed information regarding the scope of the project. Information contained in Executive Summary and Citation Information.
    • Add to Instructions why the SA is important within the context of the archive project.
  • 1.4 Change Management - expand "changes in the data model" to include other pertinent changes to the archive process.


  • 2.1 & 2.2. - Condensed and merged static info (physical address info).
  • 2.3. Add additional detail to instructions about how to describe the designated community.
  • 2.4.1 Contact Roles
    • new role table
    • add Document Change/Control.
  • 2.4.2 - Contacts Directory
    • make landscape
    • Roles to be comma-separated?


  • 3.1.1 - Propose to remove Aggregate ID. We have cases where Data Family IDs are tracked at a Data Center and at CLASS. There are situations when these IDs are changed at one place and both repositories then have different identifiers or purposely use a different system. Given this scenario, should AG ID be removed or remain for CLASS purposes only, and then update the instructions that this is only for data destined for CLASS?
  • 3.1.2 - Remove.
  • Description. Add to instructions to cite references given in Representation Information Section that correspond to Vocabularies used for the data set.
  • Spatial Coverage - offer SAWG two options to evaluate.
    • Option 1. Include 4 tables to hold coverage info: 3 for Geospatial and 1 for non-geospatial (ex. space wx).
    • Option 2. Have one general Extents table; one general Resolution table. Each contains blank rows for free text descriptions. Instructions should include examples of what to include for both geo/non-geospatial coverage info.


  • 4.1.1 - Change Latency Period to Buffering Period.
  • 4.1.4 - 4.1.6 Instructions. Update Instructions to describe how tables can be amended to include additional items per REF ID as opposed to replicating a complete set of Error/Validaton/QA for each SIP.


  • 5.2.1 - Access Constraints. Better clarification needed in instructions to describe constraints within the archive (restricted to certain personnel as opposed to data access constraints.)
  • 5.2.2 - Change "anticipated" to "any".
  • 5.2.3 - Mitigation Option - Phil may have better term or approach to use for Risks.


  • 6.1.2-1 Dissemination Services.
    • Description: Placeholder for brief description and access url.
    • Features: Placeholder for unique features of Service such as web services or data encryption, authentication required.
    • Keep Anticipated or Expected Volume.
  • 6.1.3 - Search and Display Metadata
    • Validation Removed. Belongs more in a Design Document. Replaced with Implementation or Service field to tie into Dissemination Services.

Appendix A, Terminology

  • Remove OAIS terms not used in the document.
  • Add to instructions that terms specific to the data archive project can be included here.