SAWG MTG Minutes 2009-03-04
- Phil Jones
- Dan Kowal
- Tess Brandon
- Don Collins
- Ken Casey
- Scott McCormick
- Anna Milan
COWG Background by Ken
- Monthly presentations given to the COPB
- What they need from SAWG?
- Help define process/procedures for archive process to CLASS - drafting a Request-to-Archive set up procedures.
- Go through the full appraisal process and determine the use of SAs in the process.
- Present a final SA draft to the COPB.
- COPB will evaluate the draft in the April Mtg.
- Open discussion about when is the CLASS option pursued.
- Data Center x Data Center decision based on IT capacities. Ken described Coastwatch example.
- Covered budget examples in determining the use of CLASS. Ken explained that the CLASS Level-1 Requirement emphasizes the use of CLASS before the data center pursues new IT investments. Ken also pointed out how the NAO 212-15 also emphasizes the inclusion of archive costs in the end-to-end planning scheme for data management - as a means of avoiding resource constraints when the time for archival operations is needed.
- Do "Centers of Data" know about CLASS?
- COPB needs some initial information before deciding whether or not data goes into CLASS.
Presentation of SA Draft - Phil
- Quick review of group's charter.
- Instruction Links. 80% done. Hope to complete by Friday. Ken found these useful.
- Highlighted the use of Reference IDs in the document.
- Explained the repetition of SIP and Submission Sessions as needed.
- Described the use of the term "Provider" instead of "Producer."
Issues presented by Ken
- Has been an issue with past SAs.
- SAWG members explained how much of the content has been stripped out and referenced.
- Although perceived as long, it's a technical document as such and requires the verbosity which may influence technical requirements down the road.
- Blocks within sections only need to be filled in if applicable. Explained that it's tricky to provide flexibility for both simple and complex data sets.
- Exec. Summary. is useful. Instructions provide a good format. However, group discussed what implications there are if the format is not followed such as in Phil's example draft. What bearing does it have on the directors in terms of the decision process about the data set? This opened up discussion about when the SA is executed (where the determination has already been made to accept the data for archival, especially the resource determination), and the exec. summary provides a handy synopsis for directors to review before the document goes to signature.
- Tools to port information collected in the SA to a database for other purposes such as metadata creation.
- Phil thought adding "Rationale" to each section might help in educating about the importance of the information being collected.
- Consist vocabulary needed in document. Stay with OAIS compliant terminology.
- Change Storage to Archival Storage.
Appraisal Process Flowcharts Review
- Dan and Phil shared different ones created by their respective data centers.
- Group reviewed decision trees and how the simplified flow chart version can be embellished a little more for presentation to the COPB for purposes of identifying where the SA comes into play.
- The SA can be conveyed as serving as a process and collector of the "Next Level of Detail" describing the Producer>Archive interaction.
- The decision tree still needs to include procedures as to when to engage CLASS if storage/access services needed and who presents this to the COPB in the way of a formal request.
Next meeting/action items
- Mar. 6th - Phil delivers draft template to Ken. SAWG to compile any other issues via Dan and deliver to Ken.
- Mar. 9th - Ken presents draft to COWG; initiate evaluation process.
- Mar. 10th - Give briefing to COPB about where things stand with the SA review process.
- Apr. 3rd - Next SAWG Mtg. Review comments from COWG on SA.
- Apr. 14th - COPB Mtg. Present on Request-to-Archive Process and SA Template.