Meeting Minutes - 2nd May 2013

Present David Giaretta, Patricia Herterich, Kirnn Kaur, Simon Lambert, Karlheinz Schmitt, Heiko Tjalsma


  • Reviewer's comments on benefits and costs (KK)
    • we have been asked to give attention to the benefits side and specifically the relationship between costs and benefits to make good business cases for DP
    • Bibliography to be integrated further and to include:
      • Brian F. Lavoie, “The Fifth Blackbird: Some Thoughts on Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation,” D-Lib Magazine, March/April 2008
      • keynotes of Seamus Ross at IPRES 2011
      • UNESCO Memory of the World in the Digital Age 2012

  • SL comments (and email)
    • We cannot devote a large amount of effort to benefits analysis, and the reviewers must recognise this.
ACTION - SL to contact Manuela Speicer to confirm that this will not be the main focus of our report but that we will provide something (1 or 2 pages in our final deliverable)
    • Their most specific recommendation is "Of particular importance is specifically the relationship and ratio between costs and benefits". We could carry out a gap analysis that is also planned for the remaining work in WP32 and keep the focus on cost models, but ask how they relate (or could relate) to benefits: to ask what benefits are implicit in the assumptions of the cost models, and what might be missing. We could examine (some of) the set of cost models from this perspective. This would lead to part of the gap analysis, by telling us what further work would be needed on the cost models to cover the range of benefits.
    • KK confirmed that we should only focus on the 8 cost models given in Table 1 (page 20) of the report D32.1
    • Figure 13 from the deliverable (which is taken from WP36) is relevant, "Reasons for using a cost model". We could ask what are the implicit benefits in the balance between costs and benefits. For example: the reason "To ensure the efficient use of resources/budget" - the cost model user wants to know that they are not paying over the odds, or what is a reasonable cost. But this must be in the context of what range of benefits are required or expected in the future from the actions taken.
    • So, do the examined cost models allow for realising the benefits, or do they deal with activities/processes that can only realise a subset? For example, a cost model for secure storage with ingest and periodic integrity checking would lead to some benefits - ability to access the digital objects with assurance that they have not changed - but would not allow for benefits of opening up the digital objects to a wider community (because there is no addition of metadata/representation information).
ACTION - SL to see if Robert Darby can carry out desktop research on this from the following sources (from reviewers, HT, DG). SL meeting RD on 8.5.13

ACTION - DG to provide documents for desktop research

ACTION - ALL to provide details of any relevant documents related to this work

  • D32.2 - DRAFT - proposed input for benefits section
    • Benefits research findings (RD)
    • Relationship between costs and benefits (TBC - RD or PH)
    • Cost models related to benefits (PH may be able to provide input)


Test Data - see wiki page for links

From DANS - needs to be updated - ACTION - HT to provide by 8th May 2013

From DP4lib - see wiki link above

CMDP - is it usable? ACTION - HT/KS to confirm

LIFE3 - 4 case studies published, are they usable? ACTION - HT/KS to confirm

Models to be tested

Cost model to be tested Test data from Tester Completion of template Deadline
DANS DP4lib HT   16 May 2013
DANS CMDP HT   16 May 2013
DANS LIFE2 HT   16 May 2013
DP4lib DANS KS   16 May 2013
DP4lib DANS (revised data - tbc) KS   16 May 2013
DP4lib CMDP KS   16 May 2013
DP4lib LIFE2 KS   16 May 2013
LIFE3 DANS KK   16 May 2013
LIFE3 DANS (revised data - tbc) KK   16 May 2013
LIFE3 DP4lib KK   16 May 2013
LIFE3 CMDP KK   16 May 2013
LIFE3 LIFE2 KK   16 May 2013

ACTION - testers to ensure template is updated with all relevant information which will be used to write the deliverable. Details of reasons why testing not possible, including recommendations on test data etc

COST PARAMETER MAPPINGS - ACTION - to be finalised by mid May

  • CMDP, KRDS, Presto PRIME mappings - ACTION - to be finalised by PH some time next week
  • NASA CET - ACTION - KK/PH to review next week
  • ENSURE - ACTION - SL to send over details and KK to check
  • ISIS - ACTION - SL to send over details and KK to check


ACTION - To commence mid May and finish end May

  • To include areas for further investigation and development
  • To look at areas not only where gaps but where mapped to check for similarities etc.

ACTION - KK to contact N Grindley and check who would be contact for reviewing final draft of mappings so their feedback can be included within final report, D32.2


  • see above - draft report to be made vaialble for comment
  • NG agreed to provide some comments for deliverable
  • HT confirmed that our work would help in building the cost curation exchange (4C output) and would form the starting point for work in 4C project's analysis
  • S Schrimpf is good contact as well as Ulla and Alex at Danish Royal Library and Archives

VCoE input

  • dependent on offering in terms of consultancy etc - still to be confirmed

Date of next meeting

9th May 2013, 11.30 GMT

-- KirnnKaur - 2013-05-02

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2013-05-16 - KirnnKaur
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback