WP21 meeting, 30th November 2012


  • Simon Lambert
  • David Giaretta
  • Stefan Proell
  • Stephan Strodl
  • Silvio Salza
  • René van Horik
  • Ash Hunter
  • Jeffrey van der Hoeven
  • Barbara Bazzanella
  • Yannis Tzitzikas
  • Juha Lehtonen

Progress with gathering services

The wiki page now has a list of around 20 services (or service types) that seems to have stabilised. It might become apparent that some services have been missed when a comprehensive classification is available.

David noted that although our working definition of a service is that it can be offered to many users by a service provider, in fact many tools could be offered as a service through the web, so the distinction is blurred. We need to be clear in the deliverable what we mean. David is also keen to apply the evidence base of WP14 to WP21.

Ash remarked that there are many human tasks in the standard for audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories—not all can be automated.

Classifying/analysing services

There was a lengthy discussion of how to classify services for the purposes of analysis. Stephan asked who is the target audience for the work—it might help with classification. Barbara suggested a classification of stakeholders. Ash proposed that there are some technical services like SDB plus high-level services based on user needs. Yannis suggested that the classification of D25.1 might be useful.

David sees the WP as a basis for expert advice on what services to use. This should be backed up with evidence. We should think about what questions users will users want advice on. The KB document on the needs of digital libraries might help here. We also need to identify gaps in the availability of services.

Stephan pointed out that the Library of Congress has a web page that is rather similar (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/tools/), and wondered if we can reuse and extend it. He also proposed setting up a platform with an open registry to collect information from outside APARSEN.

In the end it was agreed that (a) a two-dimensional classification (say type of data and service function) is appropriate; and (b) to take the LoC classification as a baseline and to apply it to our list of services, with a view to seeing how to enhance the classification itself (e.g. for science data).

David suggested that we could also add user scenarios; Ash pointed out that some have been developed for WP14.

Status of deliverable

No further work has been on the deliverable at this stage. The outline (table of contents) is available on the wiki page.

Revision of DoW

Simon had not received any comments on the proposed revision of the text of WP21, so it is presumed to be acceptable to all.

-- SimonLambert - 2012-12-01

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-12-01 - BarbaraBazzanella
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