WP21 meeting, 21st November 2012

Present:

  • Simon Lambert
  • Ash Hunter
  • Juha Lehtonen
  • Stephan Strodl
  • Stefan Proell
  • Stefan Hein
  • Jeffrey van der Hoeven
  • Barbara Bazzanella
  • Emanuele Bellini
  • Maurizio Lunghi
  • Silvio Salza
  • Ash Hunter

Follow-up from previous MegaMeeting and from All Hands Meeting

Simon recalled the main issues for WP21 arising at the session on sustainability at the AHM in Frascati:

  • No analysis yet done
  • Significant underbooking of effort so far in year 2
  • Should we attempt "workflows" as stated in DoW?
  • Need to extend beyond consortium to maximise coverage

Additional input on services and on user/data holder requirements

ACTION: Jeffrey to add some services from SCAPE to the wiki page.

Yesterday Simon circulated a spreadsheet relating services to the metrics of the standard on audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories. Ash Hunter is adding to this from the perspective of Tessella's Preservica system.

Jeffrey and others have set up a set of questions for data holders at partner organisations or elsewhere (http://aparsen.digitalpreservation.eu/bin/view/Main/ApanStream2). This is important to obtain input from the user perspective.

ACTION: Simon to send a reminder to all to talk to data holders and ask the questions, ot at least provide names of contacts.

Ash Hunter offered that if necessary Tessella sales staff might be available to talk to data holders about their requirements for services - though obviously there would be a commercial interest for them as well!

Classification of services: the "landscape"

Stefan Hein suggested that there is further scope for consolidation of the "rows" in the table on the wiki to give a more coherent view of services.

Ultimately it should be possible to point to a service for which there is a real need and where more work remains to be done, such as automated metadata creation.

Ash Hunter pointed out that there are two different levels of services: those that apply to individual repositories, and those that operate above individual repositories, such as federated search.

It was generally agreed that a two-dimensional classification of services is appropriate:

  • the community requirements side, based on the audit/certification metrics and fidnings from data holders
  • the service provider side, based on the Mind Map already sketched, and other classifications.

Jeffrey said that the KB has done some work on services in a library context, and produced a white paper available at http://www.kb.nl/sites/default/files/docs/KB_Long_Term_Preservation_Services_2010-08-05.pdf

ACTION: All and especially Simon to review classification of services and make concrete proposal for use in the WP.

Status and completion of deliverable

Simon reminded that the deliverable will be submitted with the M26 deliverables (not M24). We agreed in Frascati to make a strong push to complete the deliverable satisfactorily by then. There is a milestone "integration of sustainability" that follows the deliverable, and some further effort could be spent there once the deliverable is submitted.

Revision of DoW for WP21

ACTION: All to check that the revision of the WP description at http://aparsen.digitalpreservation.eu/bin/view/Main/ApanRevDoW-WP21 is acceptable.

-- SimonLambert - 2012-11-21

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2012-11-21 - SimonLambert
 
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