## RID Review

**Note:** **Updated Feb.15 with Addendum RIDs 86-91**

**OXF/00/P2/N3**

**OAIS Critiques/RIDS**

**25 October 2000**

This document contains all the OAIS relevant critiques and RIDS received
as follows:

NARA RIDs

CNES RIDs

CEDARS Review

NEDLIB Review

Nat. Lib. Australia Review

ICSTI Review

GSFC RIDs

It does not include any material from official ISO channels.

To facilitate review, the comments have been sorted either by OAIS
document section number and paragraph, or by topic. However the ICSTI
comments arrived late and so their \'General Comments\' and \'Editorial
Comments\' have been inserted at the beginning of the list without
specific reference to what parts of the document they may affect.

Some of the critiques/RIDs had received initial P2 dispositions, but are
included here for completeness and because the US group has now taken a
position. The US perspectives were generated at the US/ISO Archiving
workshops held 19-20 July, and September 14-15, 2000. If there is no
additional annotation from a US workshop, the US group was in agreement
with the previous disposition.

In some cases the editor of this document (DMS) has added a subsequent
note as more information has become available (such as DMS meeting with
David Holdsworth on September 18th). Two NASA/GSFC RIDs were received as
this list was being finalized and they have been inserted in appropriate
sections.

All critiques/RIDs have been numbered, starting with R-1 (for RAL -1) up
to R-85, but with 2 others needing to be added, so the total is now 87
RIDs.

==============

### GENERAL COMMENTS FROM ICSTI

**R-1: ICSTI REVIEW**

One of the major issues raised by the review of the OAIS is the
different definitions of what constitutes an "archive". For example,
most learned societies, because of their commitments and charters to
preserve the research (both data and publications) of their communities,
consider their entire publications process to be "archiving". While the
comments below, particularly under functions and compliance, will show
that there is not much difference between the Reference Model's
applicability to "archiving" in this sense versus the narrower
preservation sense, this is still an area of confusion. It would be
helpful to have the full publications process addressed in the context
discussion or the scope refined to indicate specifically that the Model
is not intended to encompass the whole process, and therefore, not
"archiving" in the broader sense.

US Response: OAIS is not \'publications in the broader sense\'; we
attempt to use \'archiving\' in the traditional sense, versus extremes
of usage such as \'putting the data on a medium\', or \'the full
publications process\'. Basically reject, with explanation.

**[AGREE with response]{.underline}**

================

**R-2: ICSTI REVIEW**

One reviewer thought that use of such a Model would make him less likely
to create material to deposit in an archive and more expensive to be an
archive.

US Response: Yes, real preservation costs money and this is a prime
point we are attempting to emphasize.

**[AGREE with response]{.underline}**

=============

**R-3: ICSTI REVIEW**

One reviewer was concerned that this might not adequately address
records management and suggested that the CCSDS make sure that it has
been reviewed by groups such as records managers, government and
institutional archivists.

US Response: Presented to SAA and to ARMA, and comments have been
provided by NARA. Presented to DOD records manager (5015.2 STD is their
basic document).

**[AGREE with response]{.underline}**

==============

**R-4: ICSTI REVIEW**

Some of the examples used throughout the draft should be less
data-centric -- for example while a checksum is mentioned as a means of
ensuring integrity after migration, it was noted by one of the
publishers who maintains an archive that a checksum does not necessarily
work well on full text.

US Response: Specific examples would be needed. The checksum does work
on full text. These are only examples.

**[AGREE with response]{.underline}**

=====================

**R-5: ICSTI REVIEW**

Most of the examples relate to CD-ROMs, when Web-based information
presents other archiving problems.

US Response: We don\'t try to cover all possible cases in the examples.
We don\'t give solutions for specific media types or environments. We
would recommend applying the same approaches to the WEB. What other
problems are being referred to here?

**[AGREE with response]{.underline}**

=======================

**R-6: ICSTI REVIEW**

**In the Annex of scenarios, it would definitely be good to have a wider
spectrum of applications, perhaps one from the national library and
another from a learned-society scientific publisher.**

**US Response: We would welcome a scenario from such groups as long as
they**

**follow the template, which we can provide on request.**

**[NEDLIB example expected \*\*\* see action XXX]{.underline}**

====================================

### EDITORIAL COMMENTS FROM ICSTI

R-7: ICSTI Review

**The definitions should appear in alphabetical order.**

[AGREED]{.underline}

**================================**

**R-8: ICSTI Review**

**Under Fixity\--CRC is not in the list of acronyms.**

[AGREED]{.underline}

**================================**

**R-9: ICSTI Review**

**Reference Information might include SICI or DOI to use a
library/publisher example.**

[AGREED \*\*\* Review by TvdW \*\*\*ACTION XXX]{.underline}

**================================**

**R-10: ICSTI Review**

**It would have been much easier to read if the major acronyms (AIC, AIP
AIU, etc.) had been spelled out throughout the text.**

[REJECT: a style decision was made not to have 2 letter acronyms. The
first time 3 letter acronyms are used they are given in
full]{.underline}

**=================================**

**R-11: ICSTI Review**

**Section 4.1.1 ("Detailed Description of Functional Entities" begins
with a discussion of the IEE POSIX OSE Reference Model that does not
appear to have any real relevance to the rest of the document. The
section goes on to describe in detail the internal functions of an OAIS
system. Although this section does provide some useful guidance to the
system builder/designer, it seems that it belongs more in the annex than
imbedded in the middle of what is a generally theoretical/conceptual
discussion.**

[REJECT: this is an important section. The POSIX OS model discussion is
just an acknowledgement of the source]{.underline}

**================================**

**R-12: ICSTI Review**

**One reviewer thought that some important terms in section 6 are
missing from the glossary (e.g., federated archives, co-operating
archives).**

[ACCEPT: will add these 2 to the GLOSSARY -- any other suggestions for
entries are welcome]{.underline}

**=================================**

**R-13: ICSTI Review**

**There is inconsistency in the way the definitions are structured. Most
terms are nouns, but the definitions begin with a variety of articles or
no article at all.**

**[ACCEPT: will make these more consistent]{.underline}**

=========================================================================

### SECTION 1

R-14: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

Discussion of additional comments in the meeting:

Section 1.1 Last sentence Current versions reads as an apology i.e.

\"Finally it attempts to define a maximalS.., but it defines a
minimalS\"

Suggest swapping the phrases to:

\"It defines a minimal set of responsibilities for an archive to be
called

an OAIS , and it also defines a maximal archive to provide a broad set
of

useful terms and concepts\"

AGREED

**[ACCEPT]{.underline}**

=============================

R-14.5: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

Section 1.3 1st sentence Read literally we are led to understand

that organisations are exploding!

Suggest changing \"an explosion of organization\" to \"an explosion in
the

number of organization\"

AGREED

**[ACCEPT]{.underline}**

===========================

R-15: CCSDS REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID) :

RID INITIATION FORM

AGENCY RID NUMBER : 5

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center) : CNES

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWER\'S NAME : Claude HUC CODE :

E-MAIL ADDRESS : huc@cnes.fr

TELEPHONE :33 5 61 27 44 21

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER : CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME : Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System

DATE ISSUED : April 2000

PAGE NUMBER : 1-4

PARAGRAPH NUMBER : 3

RID SHORT TITLE : how to read this document

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE :Use From : \"\...\' To \"\...\" format)

The advice about the subsections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 are no more useful at

this place in the document.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended : \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_ Editorial :

NOTES :

TECHNICAL FACT : Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to

render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected .

Supporting analysis/rationale is essential)

RECOMMENDED : Change of a nature that would, if incorporated produce a

marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL : Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(this

type of change will be made without feedback to submitter).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS :

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION :

Style issue: we\'ll go with the ccsds style consensus, whatever that
turns

out to be.

**[REJECT: we will follow the style guide and CCSDS editor's
advice.]{.underline}**

========================================

R-16: National Library of Australia

Section 1.6.1 acknowledges this and provides a useful guide

to readers. However, there are some important concepts that are only

develped fully well into the model. For this reason, we would recommend
a

last check to align the definitions in Section 1.7.2 carefully with the
full

model, particularly where there are multiple concepts with similar
sounding

definitions. Examples where clarification would help are:

\* Both Content Information and Information Object are defined as a Data

Object together with its Representation Information. It would make the

model clearer if Information Object was defined as a super-class of

Content Information in this section as it is in Figure 4-13.

US: Propose replacing second sentence in definition of Content
Information with the sentence: \"It is an Information Object\".

**[ACCEPT]{.underline}**

\* Similarly, it needs to be clarified in Section 1.7.2 that Archival

Information Package, Submission Information Package and Dissemination

Information Package are all types of Information Package and that

Archival Information Unit and Archival Information Collection are

specialisations of Archival Information Package.

US: Propose revision of AIP to: \"An Information Package which is
preserved within an OAIS.\" Also, revised definition of DIP for
parallelism with SIP.

\*\*\* Think more about these definitions \*\*\*

Accept in principal for 2 examples, but need the complete problem list.

**[ACCEPT]{.underline}**

======================================

R-17: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

2\) PAGE NUMBER: 1-7 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1.7.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Terminology

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \"\...\" To \". .\" format

Move the entire Terminology Section to the Annex and review all
definition

against existing Standards definitions

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS

The terminology section in the front of the document confuses the
reader,

since some of the definitions are not consistent with or what are used
in

the actual body of the document, Therefore, it is more appropriate to
have

this section as a reference. But the definitions should be consistent

throughout the document

\*\* dms- The location of the terminology section can not be changed as
it is

an ISO style. Any inconsistent use of terms needs correction \*\*

Many of the existing definitions are in conflict with current ISO

definitions, as well as other standards documents such as the Society of

American Archivists (SAA) Glossary. In addition, some of The definitions

are in conflict with definitions within the document. These have been

identified specifically in other comment sheets

\*\* dms- ISO definitions are not consistent across all ISO documents.
We

need specifics on which definitions are in conflict before any changes
can

be made.\*\*

DISPOSITION:

REJECT this but we will ask for specific examples and also review
Glossary

US: We\'ll ask for specific examples of conflicts apart from those given
later.

**[REJECT but will consider specific examples if
presented.]{.underline}**

===================================================

R-18: 1.7.2 Terminology

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

In using the model we constantly have the need for a precise term that

describes the original digital object (i.e. that part that together with
the

representation information forms the Content Information). PDO Primary

Digital Object or perhaps Preserved Digital Object. I prefer the first
one,

as we need to refer to it before it has got to the stage of being
preserved.

US: Accept in principle; Content Data Object, and see how it works in
the application. In section 4.2.1.4.1, first sentence becomes: \"The
Content Information is the primary information that the OAIS is tasked
to preserve.\"

Then the third sentence becomes: \"The Content Information, which is an
Information Object as shown in Figure 4-9, is the Content Data Object
together with its Representation Information\". Delete the last sentence
of the paragraph which is now redundant.

**[AGREE with proposal]{.underline}**

**[(some discussion -- NB and TvdW - about "original" CI and versions --
see RID79)]{.underline}**

==================================================

R-19: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

3\) PAGE NUMBER: 1-7 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1.7.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Terminology - Definition of Archive

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \...\" To \....\" format)

Change definition of Archive from \"An organization that intends to
preserve

information\...\" to \"An organization that intends to preserve archival

information packages\...\"

\*\* dms- The original sense is what we meant, while the proposed change
gets

into the \'how it is done\'. Recommend we reject this \*\*

Add definition for \"Archives\" - The DOCUMENTS created or received and

accumulated by a person or organization in the course of the conduct of

affairs, and preserved because of their continuing value. Historically,
the

term referred more narrowly to the NONCURRENT RECORDS of an organization
or

institution preserved because of their continuing value.

2\) The building or part of a building where archival materials are
located;

also referred to as an archival repository.

3\) The AGENCY or program responsible for selecting, acquiring,
preserving,

and making available archival materials; also referred to as an archival

agency, archival institution, or archival program.

\*\*dms- We define \'archive\' as an organization that intends to
preserve

information. We intend \'archives\' to be the plural form. We do not use
it

to refer to the documents being preserved nor to just the building in
which

they are housed. Therefore our usage, in singular form, is more in line

with definition 3 above. Do we need to define \'archives\' as the plural

form of \'archive\' to help avoid confusion with \'documents\'? \*\*

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

The change to archive adds clarification to the document. The new

definition of archives adds consistency with other archival Standard

definitions within the International Council on Archives (ICA) Glossary.

\*\* dms- We should check this glossary. Perhaps we need to note these
other

uses of the term \'archives\' and make clear this is not our intended
usage.\*\*

DISPOSITION:

REJECT - we use OAIS specifically to avoid the overloaded definition of

\"Archive(s)\". However we will add a \"(S)\" after Archive and
organisation in

the glossary definition of Archive to make ourselves clear.

TBD after review of the ISO definition identified.

US: Propose that we reject the rid and not add an \'s\'. However we
propose to include a \'thesaurus\' that shows that \'archives\', in
sense 3 above, is close to our use of \'archives\'. This could be a
subsection of 1.7.2.

**[REJECT but agree that editors should find acceptable way to indicate
the possible common mappings: Records, Accession & Archives (plus others
if equired)]{.underline}**

================================================

R-20: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

4\) PAGE NUMBER: 1-8,4-25, PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1.7.2, 4.2.1.4.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Terminology - Definition of Context Information

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \" \... To \".. \" format)

As part of the definition of \"Context Information\", delete the last 2

words, \"existing elsewhere\".

SUPPORTING ANALYSTS:

This change to the \"Context Information\" will add Clarify to the

definition. The words \"existing elsewhere\" confuse the reader and
create

the unanswered question of Where might these other objects exist?\" For
the

standard it is not important where they might exist.

\*\* dms- Seems acceptable. \*\*

DISPOSITION:

AGREED

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

====================================

R-21: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

5\) PAGE NUMBER 1-8 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1.7.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Terminology - Definition of Data

DESCRIPTlON OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \"\...\~ To \~

Delete the current definition of data, and use the ISO definition.

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

This change will add consistency across standards.

\*\* dms- I requested identification of the ISO document, as our
original

definition was taken from an ISO document. I\'ve received a response
saying

it could be found in ANSI X3.172-1990, Dictionary for Information
Systems.

It cites ISO 2382, Vocabulary - Information Systems, as the source of
the

definition of data. We should check this definition to see if it is

acceptable. \*\*

DISPOSITION:

TBD after review of the ISO definition identified.

US: Agreed: An editor will look this up.

**[AGREE to check ISO document and then decide]{.underline}**

=================================================

R-22: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

6\) PAGE NUMBER: 1-10 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1.7.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Terminology - Definition of Format

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \~\...\" To -\...\" formal)

NATIONAL ARCH 1

Delete the definition of format.

Supporting ANALYSIS:

The concept of \"format\", by itself is not addressed in the body of the

document. e.g., there are \"file formats\" and \"data formats\" but not
format

alone. As a result, the term only adds confusion, particularly using
words

like \"sequential organization\" and \"components\" in the definition
which are

not further defined elsewhere.

\*\* dms- While format is sometimes used alone, it is then a short hand
for

\'data format\' or \'format of a piece of data\'. I have no problem with

deleting the definition of \'format\' because as a general concept it is
a

bit abstract. I think format is generally understood sufficiently to not

need a special definition \*\*

DISPOSITI0N:

AGREED

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

===========================

R-23: ICSTI REVIEW

One reviewer thought that the terms were confusing, because they stand
in the abstract. More real-world examples would help.

US Response: Would need identification of specific terms needing
examples.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**: but we will consider specific examples if
presented

=========================

R-23.5: ICSTI REVIEW

Some reviewers expressed concerned about the definitions of data and
information. This is probably a hold over from the data community
perspective. On the other hand, it could be that this type of problem
with the definition is particular to the information community
(libraries and publishers in particular). However, one reviewer noted
that while the distinction between data and information in the
introduction and the glossary is clear, it is not maintained throughout.
For example, the term Data Management Data, is defined in terms of Data,
but perhaps should be defined in terms of information and maybe the term
should be changed.

US Response: We should look at this.

**[ACCEPT -- editor will search for use of DATA and consider
changes]{.underline}**

===========================

R-24: ICSTI REVIEW

The concept of a "designated community" from a primary publisher's
environment caused some concern. However, the group thought that this
was just a matter of degree and suggested that "designated community"
would best be equated with the term "primary audience" for a journal.

US Response: We agree.

**[AGREE -- no change to text except possible addition to "thesaurus".
Could also be "target audience"]{.underline}**

===================

R-25: ICSTI REVIEW

From a publisher\'s point of view, the Content Information and the
Provenance Information appear to be very narrow. For them, content is
likely to be at the article level or report level and provenance would
include where the content was published (though the framers did include
\"who has had custody\" which could be the publisher).

**US Response: We would welcome additional examples.**

[This is a comment rather than a RID, but extra term may be added to
table 4-1. \*\*\*see TvdW action XXXX\*\*\*]{.underline}

**=====================**

R-26: ICSTI REVIEW

"Ownership" is used in the definition of an archive, and this may be
misinterpreted to have intellectual property implications; "stewardship"
might be a better term. Ownership of the object and ownership of
intellectual property need to be better distinguished.

US Response: We need to look at the distinction between ownership (ideal
case) and stewardship where there are copyright issues, to see if this
is clear.

REJECT: first para of 3.2.2 makes the distinction between ownership and
custodianship. (\*\*\*ACTION Check glossary for "ownership" -- may be
appropriate to change to custodian/owner)

==================

R-27: ICSTI REVIEW

One reviewer thought that "ingest" sounded too much like a computer
term. More importantly, it does not connect readily with the other terms
related to the function of submitting data\-- Data Submission Session,
Submission Agreement, and Submission Information Package.

US Response: Reject. This has been the topic of much review and the
consensus is to stay with \'ingest\'.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

**========================**

R-28: ICSTI REVIEW

The term "Digital Migration" is defined as a "transfer of digital
information". It seems that to many people transfer means to move
without changing, but that applies only to one kind of transfer
identified in the document (refresh). Migration might better be defined
as a "transformation". As a special case of digital migration, refresh
operation would then involve a null (no change) transformation, but
other types would have varying degrees of change.

US Response: Reject: We feel that \'transfer\' doesn\'t necessarily
imply change, but does capture the important aspect of moving. Therefore
we feel the current terminology is appropriate.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

**========================**

R-29: ICSTI REVIEW

The definition of an "Archival Information Unit" as atomic is confusing.
Perhaps some examples would help here.

US Response: Reject: AIU is not defined as \'atomic\'. This is only one
way to view it. We give the definition and we give an example, in the
glossary.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

**=========================**

R-30: ICSTI REVIEW

One reviewer more involved in traditional archive functions, questions
the applicability of the word "Consumer", because it suggests cost
involved in using the archive.

US Response: Reject: Definition doesn\'t imply cost. To consume doesn\'t
mean you have had to buy what you are consuming.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

**=========================**

R-31: ICSTI REVIEW

For one reviewer, there was confusion over the description of an
Archival Information Collection. Although some attention is paid to the
idea of organizing by "origin" more time is spent on thematic
collections. However, in traditional archiving the organizing principle
is origin or provenance with the thematic being handled by queries
against the archive. If the idea is that the AIC, one based on
provenance or one based on theme, is built from a query, it wasn't
completely clear. This same reviewer noted that the AIC scheme, if
applied according to provenance, is a very good one, since it allows for
description at the constituent unit level as well as at the collection
level. Preservation Description Information would then repeat across
units when provenance is the combining factor, making a collection-level
PDF much easier to put together, and more meaningful for users.

US Response: We think the reviewer figured it out very well!

**[Not a RID]{.underline}**

**==========================**

**R-32: ICSTI Review**

Another odd term was the "Ad Hoc Query" (as my guess is most queries to
an archive are not event-driven, i.e., cyclical, but are to find
specific information known or expected to be held in the archive). But
it could be mapped easily to something else.

US Response: It appears to have conveyed the intended meaning.

**[Not a RID]{.underline}**

**==========================**

R-33: ICSTI REVIEW

"Member Description" was unclear, as the definition is a \"member of a
collection.\"

US Response: This is not the definition. The key part is that it is an
associated description. As a note to editors, remove the plural from
\'associated descriptions\' in the glossary.

**[Agree with response]{.underline}**

**==========================**

R-34: ICSTI REVIEW

The term "Finding Aid" seems to be any search tool, even an online
public access catalog. This clashes with the archivist's use of the
term. Would it be better to call the concept "Searching Aid"?

US Response: Finding Aid is more general, which is intended, and is
found to be widely accepted in the archival community.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

**==========================**

R-35: ICSTI REVIEW

The term "Designated Community" might be better as Consumer Community or
primary Consumer Community. The former connotes more deliberate
intention in reaching an audience than is common on Internet sites
today.

US Response: The reason for using \'designated\' is to make clear that
an active identification of the relevant Consumer Community is to be
made. However the glossary definition needs clarification because there
are too many \'sets\'. Perhaps :...\' who should be able to understand a
particular collection of information.\'

[Agree with response]{.underline}

**=============================**

R-36: ICSTI REVIEW

The term "Data Management" has a multi-part definition that one reviewer
could not understand. There are several ways to add parentheses, commas
and semi-colons, but not sure which one would be correct.

US Response: Accept: Propose wording is:

Data Management: The OAIS entity that contains the services and
functions for populating, maintaining, and querying a wide variety of
information. Some examples of this information are catalogs and
inventories on what may be retrieved from Archival Storage, processing
algorithms that may be run on retrieved data, Consumer access
statistics, Consumer billing, Event Based Orders, security controls,
OAIS schedules, policies, and procedures

**[Agree with response -- but change "querying" to
ACCESSING]{.underline}**

**===========================**

R-37: ICSTI REVIEW

One reviewer indicated a problem with treating producer and consumer as
roles, since it is then difficult to talk about sets or groups of these
roles. He suggested the following definitions: Consumer: An agent (a
person, organization, or program) with a persona that may interact with
OAIS search and access services. This persona (a set of motives and
responses) may actuate the agent temporarily or intermittently, but does
not define it: for example, a Consumer may also be an OAIS or a
Producer. A similar definition was suggested for Producer.

US Response: We don\'t feel that a significant problem has been
presented with the current use of \'roles\', and find the proposed
definitions to be more confusing .

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

### SECTION 2

R-38: REVEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID )

AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATlON (Agency, Center): NARA

REVIEWER\'S NAME: Mary Ann Hadyka

CODE

E-MAIL ADDRESS: MaryAnn.Hadyka@arch2.nara.go

TELEPHONE: (301) 713-7360 X222

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, issue

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

1\) PAGE NUMBER:2-1 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 2, 3, 4

RID SHORT TITLE: \"OAIS CONCEPTS

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \"\" To \" format

Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, change: \"Traditionally, an archive\" to \"

Traditional archives\"

\*\* dms- Seems acceptable \*\*

AGREED

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

Paragraph 3 -, Delete the sentence: \"Although some archives may be

temporary, some or all of their information my need to be preserved

indefinitely.\" Combine the next two sentences to read: \"Because much
of the

supporting information necessary to preserve this information is more

easily available or only available at the time when the original

information is produced, these organizations need to be active
participants

in the long-term preservation effort

\* dms- This change removes the use of the term \'temporary archive\'
from the

document. Seems acceptable dms - should be further reworded later \*\*
AGREED

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

Paragraph 4 -delete the last sentence which begins with: \"The designers
and

architects should document where compromises have been made. \...\"

\*\* dms- This change has the effect of not encouraging compromises, in

active archvies, of preservation for the sake of access,etc. \-- Seems

acceptable on this basis \*\*

REJECT BUT AGREE to change \"compromises\" to \"solutions\" and reword
the

sentence to keep spirit of the suggestion.

**[Agree with reponse]{.underline}**

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS

The use of archive, archives, and temporary archives is confusing. These

changes clarify the terms. Also designers and architects play no role in

the body of the reference model, so the sentence is irrelevant to the

document.

\*\* dms- Designers and architects are mentioned several places in the

document as primary beneficiaries of the reference model, so this
rationale

is not correct, but I find the changes acceptable \*\*

DISPOSITION

See above for individual points

=======================================

R-39: CCSDS REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID) :

RID INITIATION FORM

AGENCY RID NUMBER : 4

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center) : CNES

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWER\'S NAME : Claude HUC CODE :

E-MAIL ADDRESS : huc@cnes.fr

TELEPHONE :33 5 61 27 44 21

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER : CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME : Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System

DATE ISSUED : April 2000

PAGE NUMBER : 2-5

PARAGRAPH NUMBER : 5

RID SHORT TITLE : definition of \'Content Information\'

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE :Use From : \"\...\' To \"\...\" format)

We suggest replacing \'The Content Information is that information which
is

the primary target of preservation\' (this sentence is valid only for
AIP,

certainly not for DIP) by \'The Content Information is the primary

information of interest\'.

Regarding to the \'information definition, section 2.2.1), it seems

interesting to add : \'The Content Information is an information object

which consists of SS

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended : \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_ Editorial :

NOTES :

TECHNICAL FACT : Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to

render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected .

Supporting analysis/rationale is essential)

RECOMMENDED : Change of a nature that would, if incorporated produce a

marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL : Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(this

type of change will be made without feedback to submitter).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS :

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION :

Agreed that there is an inconsistency. Need to work on a solution which

doesn\'t dilute the preservation notions being introduced at a high
level in

section 2, while removing the inconsistency.

We can clarify that the content information is an information object, as

introduced a bit earlier.

US: Propose to change the definition of Content Information in glossary
to be the \"that information which is the original target of
preservation by the OAIS\". We need to clarify that a DIP is derived
from an AIP, and that non-AIP information is carried by a \'result set\'
or \'report\'. With regard to the suggestion that the definition include
the fact that it is an information object, this is already addressed and
agreed by US.

**[Agree with response]{.underline}**

============================

R-40: ICSTI Review

In 2.3.3 the text of the Reference Model implies, without stating it
specifically, that the consumer has no further rights to data residing
within the archive once the order has been completed. Many scientific
consumers, however, have some expectation that, having taken a
subscription for one year to a journal that they have rights to the data
in the archive for that year of the subscription for all time. They seek
to treat the purchase of an electronic subscription as giving them an
"eternal" archive in the same way that the print edition does.

US Response: This is a policy issue that goes beyond the model.

**[REJECT: this is a policy/implementation issue for a specific
sector.]{.underline}**

=====================

R-41: ICSTI Review

The discussion of "Order Agreement" doesn't mention authentication and
payment

US Response: This is intended to be a high level summary, although it
does mention pricing. Authentication is mentioned under common services,
in section 4.1.1.1.

**[REJECT -- agree with response]{.underline}**

### SECTION 3

R-42: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

7\) PAGE NUMBER: 3 .2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER 3.2.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Paragraph titled\" Copyright implications\"

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: -\...\~ To \"\...\" format)

Change title of paragraph \"Copyright implications\" (occurs in 2
places,

paragraph 2 and 3) to \"Copyright implications, intellectual property
and

other legal restrictions on use\". Add new first sentence to paragraph
3:

\"An archive will honor all applicable legal restrictions.\"

Supporting ANALYSIS:

Addressing only copyright is misleading. This section needs to be

broadened and should be more general in dealing with legal issues
related

to intellectual property and other legal restrictions, eg., National

security classifications and Privacy Act.

\*\* dms- I think this is an improvement and should be incorporated. See

following RID for rest of the recommended change \*\*

DISPOSITION

AGREED

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

============================================

R-43: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

8\) PAGE NUMBER PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.2.1, 3.2.2

RID SHORT TITLE:

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: u t. To \"\... format)

Change all but the first sentence of the first paragraph of 3.2 2 from

\"When acting as a custodian, the OAIS may need to involve the actual
owner

(s)) in some migration and access decisions depending on the authority
it

has been granted to act independently. When it is the legal owner, it

already has the independence to do what is required to preserve the

information and make it available.\" to \"**When acquiring lega1
ownership from**

**the producer or any other entity, the OAIS should ensure that the
transfer**

**of ownership clearly specifies any limitations imposed by the former
owner**

**and that its subsequent actions to preserve the information and make
it**

**available conform with these limitations. When the OAIS accepts
information**

**solely as a custodian, the OAIS should establish an agreement with
the**

**owner which specifics what involvement the owner will have in
preservation,**

**management or release of the information. In most cases, it will be**

**preferable for the OAIS to negotiate an agreement which specifies
the**

**(prior) owners requirements and authorizes the OAIS to act in
accordance**

**with those requirements without active involvement of the (prior)
owner in**

**individual cases**

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

The current draft assumes that in situations where an OAIS owns the

information it preserves, it has unrestricted discretion over the
actions

it takes. In fact, in many cases where an OAIS acquires ownership from

another entity, the transfer is effected by a deed of gift or other
legal

instrument which includes limitations on the OAIS\'s discretion. The

recommended revision addresses this fact It also suggests that in either
a

custodial or owner role, it is advantageous for the OAIS to have any

limitations on its discretion expressed in categorical terms which
minimize

occasions when another owner or party is actively involved in specific

decisions.

\*\* dms- I think this improves the paragraph and recommend it be
accepted. \*\*

DISPOSITION:

AGREED

**[AGREED -- but change "limitations" to "conditions" -- other
clrifications needed. \*\* ACTION : NB to suggest revised wording
\*\*\*XXXX\*\*\*]{.underline}**

==============================

R-44: ICSTI Review

Most felt that the responsibilities were complete and they could be used
independent of the stakeholder group doing the archiving function. One
reviewer indicated that the responsibilities of a compliant OAIS are
very similar to that of a responsible learned-society publisher.

US Response: Good

**[Not a RID]{.underline}**

=========================

R-45: ICSTI Review

Security of the archive seems to be missing both specifically in the
responsibilities and in the amount of text devoted to Fixity
Information.

US Response: Again, this is addressed in security services under common
services, because this is ubiquitous.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

=========================

R-46: ICSTI Review

There was significant discussion about the requirement to have the
information remain "understandable for the designated community" group;
several reviewers believe this is out of the scope of an archive and
access is all that can be required. "Ensure the information .... Is
independently understandable...", raises the question "independent of
what?"

US Response: An OAIS is a long term preservation function which expects
the information to be understandable without going back to the creator.
This is a traditional function of an archive. We will look at revising
the \'independently understandable\' phrase to clarify.

**[AGREE: resolve by using text from Glossary definition of "Long Term
Preservation" and move it to a separate Glossary item for "Independently
understandable information" (note UNDERSTANDABLE rather than
USEABLE).]{.underline}**

**============================**

**R-47: ICSTI Review**

There are some aspects that aren't clear upon closer reading. For
example "negotiate and accept appropriate information" implies that the
information is negotiated, when it is more likely the archiving
agreement that is negotiated. Perhaps "negotiate for".

US Response: Change to \'negotiate for\' in section 3.1 and 3.2.1.
Provide other cases which are unclear.

**[ACCEPT for this specific case -- other specific examples would be
considered.]{.underline}**

### SECTION 4.1

R-48: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

11\) PAGE NUMBER: 4\~2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 4.1

RID SHORT TITLE: Functional Model, Administration

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \"\...\~ To \'. \" format)

In the paragraph titled \"Administration\" add the following phrase to
end

of the first sentence: \"which could include the hardware, software and

telecommunications.\"

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

Within Section 4 of the reference model, there is no stated function for

the entity which is responsible for the actual operation of the system

infrastructure (operations and maintenance of the hardware, software and

telecommunications). This may be implicit\' in the Administrative
function,

however, the function as currently described focuses on oversight not

actual operations. The change as described above will make the function

explicit.

\*\* dms- I think the issue here is whether there is an entity that is

\'responsible for the actual operation of the system infrastructure\'.
Is

the operation and maintenance of the hardware and software for each

function handled by that functions, or is there a general support

sub-function for this? Administration has a \'Manage System
Configuration\',

but does not talk about actually operating any systems. Needs
discussion.

\*\*

DISPOSITION

REJECT, this section already states that \"This entity manages the
overall

operation of the archive system.\" We specifically did not wish to imply
any

hierarchy of management or implementation.

US: First sentence becomes: This entity provides the services and
function for the overall operation of the archive system. For
parallelism, change first sentence of Access to: \"This entity provides
the services and functions that support Consumers in determining the
\....\". This will better address the issue while improving consistency.

**[AGREE with US proposal]{.underline}**

========================================================

R-49: AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Oct 25 14:09:04 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Elisabeth Brinker

CODE: code 586

E-MAIL: elisabeth.brinker@nasa.gsfc.gov

PHONE:

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH NUMBER:

RID SHORT TITLE: Promote functional entity Common Services to figure

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

FROM:

Current Text:

\" In addition to the entities described above, there are various

Common Services assumed to be available. These services are

considered to constitute another functional entity in this model.

This entity is so pervasive that, for clarity, it is not shown

in figure 4-1.\"

TO:

Recommended Text

\"In addition to the entities described above, there is an

infrastructure of various Common Services. These services are

considered to constitute another functional entitiy in this model

supporting the portability and interoperability that are

characteristic of Open Systems. This entity is pervasive enough

that, for clarity, connections to other functions are not shown

in figure 4-1.\"

Corresponding recommendation for figure 4-1: OAIS Functional

Entities.

Place a small rounded rectangle in the bottom right corner of the

figure, as follows: (figure did not copy)

The rectangle could be made with dashed lines as shown, or with

lighter ink to indicate the intended transparency of the

function.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

The purpose of this recommendation is to give a more consistent

and cleaner view of the functional model. The function of Common

Services is to be transparent to the user community but not to

the administrators and operators, as these functions are expected

to provide the infrastructure that supports openness between

archives and consumers.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

===============================

R-50: CCSDS REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID) :

RID INITIATION FORM

AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

9)PAGE NUMBER: 4-6, 4-7, 5-1 thru 5- 4 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 4,1,1,3, 5.1,

5,1,3, 5.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Paragraph titled \"Migrate Media\"

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \"\...\" To h\...\'l format)

Change title of paragraph which begins with \"The Migrate Media
function\" to

\"The Migration function\" Change the \"Migrate Media\" block in figure
4-3 to

\"Migration\"

Make Section 5.1, 5.2 consistent with this title change.

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

This name change is more general and better encompasses the four
migration

types identified in Section 5.1.3. adding clarification to the document.

\*\* dms- The \' migrate media\' function is archival storage covers the

migration types of refreshment, replication, and repackaging, but NOT

transformation. Calling this function \'migration\' is too general,
while

\'migrate media\' is perhaps too narrow. Basically, what this function
does

is migration as long as there is no change in the content information

(i.e., there is no transformation). This is spelled out in the text of

this section. Better name for this set of functions? \*\*

DISPOSITION

REJECT change simply to \"Migrate\" as this is too broad a term. However
it

is recognized that \"Migrate Media\" could be misleading. Therefore
change

this to \"**Replace Media**\" reproduce

US: \*\*\* Need more analysis. Come back after doing more work on the
preservation issue.

**[AGREE: Rename as "REPLACE MEDIA" -- also remove REPACKAGE from this
function -- leave only REFRESH and REPLICATE]{.underline}**

====================================================

R-51: Page 4-4 4.1.1.2 Ingest

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

before Generate AIP - new section

(but it may already be covered by the data formatting and documentation

standards aka motherhood and apple pie)

Identify the underlying abstract form (UAF) of the data. The UAF is some

conceptual view of the components of the data, that is likely to stand
the

test of time. Likely UAFs are: file tree, file containing lines of text,
a

relational database.

Once this form has been identified, the data should be converted into a
byte

stream for long-tem preservation. The archive must maintain a list of
UAFs

and have the transformation capabilities for converting from UAF to byte

stream and for regeneration of the UAF from the byte-stream.

The purpose of the UAF concept is to facilitate the delivery of data
onto a

platform different from that upon which it originated. This is
particularly

valuable for access to really old data, for which the original platform
(say

a \*\'\" tape, or 12\" laser disk) is unlikely to be available.

US: \*\*\* Hold off on this until we address the preservation issues to
come up later.

Need more information.

**[REJECT: the suggested change is too implementation specific however
we agree with the spirit of the comment.]{.underline}**

============================================

R-52: ICSTI Review

Ingest should be more specifically defined with some guidelines given
for the format of the information that is most easily ingested and best
for archiving, such as ASCII or SGML. While details about format would
be out of the scope of a Reference Model, it may be worth mentioning
that there are some standards that appear to be preferable when dealing
with migration, depending on the type of data.

US Response: This is done within negotiating the submission agreement.

**REJECT**

==========================

R-53: ICSTI Review

Ingest deals with the technical submission of data or documents into the
OAIS data base. This leads one to believe that scientific refereeing is
covered in the administration part of the Model and not in the \'Receive
submission\' which gives the impression on a first reading of an
oversimplified submission procedure. The same applies to \'Quality
Assurance\' which covers only the quality control of the data transfer
and does not in any way concern any tests on the scientific integrity
and quality of the data. In fact, \'scientific integrity and quality of
data\' being specifically mentioned in the \'administration\' part of
the Model.

US Response: The implementation of an OAIS is not specified by the
grouping of functions within the model. The separation was intended to
highlight the day-to-day operations in Ingest, with less frequent
reviews and verification of content taking place in Administration. A
full reading of the model is required.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

====================================

R-54: Page 4-6 4.1.1.3 Archival Storage

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

I think that this section may be overly prescriptive. The function of
the

archival storage is to receive the AIP and return it sometime later.
This

includes appropriate activities to deal with disasters. With present

technology we assume media migration, and back-ups for disaster
recovery,

but new ideas may change that.

The best way to view all the diagrams of 4.1.1 may be as a checklist of

capabilities, rather than a prescription for implementation. (This
opinion

may sit uneasily with my previous comment on 4.1.1.2!)

US: REJECT: These figures are meant to give the concept of the scope of
the functions, not an implementation. Look to see where this may be made
even clearer.

DMS: David is concerned that some of the detailed concepts implied by
the subfunction breakout might discredit the model in the future as
technology evolves. For example, perhaps archival storage should
emphasize that submission of AIP and get it back, and the rest is
implementation.

**[REJECT -- it is made clear in section 1 that this is NOT a design for
an implementation]{.underline}**

===========================

R-55: AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Oct 25 14:56:35 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Elisabeth Brinker

CODE: code 586

E-MAIL: elisabeth.brinker@nasa.gsfc.gov

PHONE:

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: F-11 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 5

RID SHORT TITLE: Enlarge responsibility of Customer Service function in
text

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

FROM:

\"The Customer Service function will also create, maintain and

delete Consumer accounts and will bill and collect payment from

Consumers for the utilization of archive system resources.\"

TO:

\"The Customer Service function will create, maintain and delete

Consumer accounts and will bill and collect payment from

Consumers for the utilization of archive system resources. This

function will also be a collection point for Consumer feedback on

products of the Archive.\"

Update corresponding figure 4-5, Functions of Administration, to

reflect this recommendation. Add such words as \"feedback\",

\"confirmation\", \"delivery acknowledgement\", or \"delivery status\"

between consumer and Customer Service.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

The Archive is intended to serve Consumers, albeit in an open,

standardized fashion. Does it not seem reasonable to acknowledge

communications other than payments?

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

**[AGREE in concept -- editor will propose rewording.]{.underline}**

===========================

R-56: NEDLIB Review

The OAIS Document provides some perspectives on the issues of
information preservation using digital migration across media and across
new formats or representations, but it is not clear which processes are
needed and which functionality is required. It discusses medium
migration (refreshing or copying a publication) as a preservation
procedure belonging to Archival Storage. As formats become obsolete and
the viewers needed to interpret and render these formats be come
obsolete as well, measures to preserve the content of a publication and
all related aspects such as look and feel, layout, structure and
functionality, need to be taken. To this end, several strategies may be
followed, such as migration and emulation. The OAIS model does not
discuss different preservation strategies and how they affect the model.
It implicitly accepts data migration, i.e. \"transformation\" of digital
content, as the preferred strategy. In all cases, transformation leads

to a \"new version\" of the original publication. However, even with
this strategy, it is not clear where transformation processes take place
in OAIS. It does not belong to Archival Storage and this is
understandable because Archival Storage does not have (and does not need
to have) any knowledge of the content of a publication. The
Administration entity has an \"Archival Information Update\" function
that provides a mechanism for updating the contents of an AIP stored in
Archival Storage, by accessing it as a DIP, updating its content and
resubmitting it as a SIP to Ingest. However the Reference Model does not
clarify if and in what way this function belongs to a preservation
process.

What NEDLIB found missing in the OAIS Model was a conceptual entity
symbolising the preservation processes required of an OAIS, whatever the
preservation strategies followed. Therefore NEDLIB has added in its DSEP
model a Preservation entity that manages the preservation processes
required of a DSEP. Although it is recognised that the preservation
function affects all DSEP processes, NEDLIB has added this separate
preservation entity to make this function more visible and more explicit
in the model. Much in the same way as metadata processing affects all
DSEP functions, still, OAIS has defined a separate Data-Management
entity to visualise the metadata processing function.

Both transformation and emulation approaches are worked out in some
detail in the DSEP model. The resulting output is either a new version
of a formerly deposited publication, in which case it is ingested anew
in the system, or it is a set of specifications for interpreting or
emulating the interpretation of the publication. In both cases, new
preservation metadata are generated and managed by the Data-Management
process.

US: See the proposed new function \"Preservation Planning\" for a
partial response.

**[AGREE: see proposed new Preservation Planning entity.]{.underline}**

==================================

R-57: National Library of Australia

Need for a Preservation function

Our main concern with the model in its current form is the need to

incorporate a Preservation function. The Nedlib Project also found the
need

to extend the model in this area in its Data/Functional Model for a DSEP

(DSEP), which otherwise follows the OAIS Reference Model. There are
other

functional areas essential to deposit libraries building selective
archives

of electronic publications - for example, Selection , Evaluation and

Collection of Content Information - that we accept as falling outside
the

scope of the model. However, we see the preservation function is a core

responsibility of an OAIS. Section 5 currently goes some way towards

addressing this isssue but it still implies that Preservation is not a
core

function of an OAIS or that it is somehow already addressed within the

model. The new Preservation function needs to be separate from Archival

Storage to support Digital Migrations that change the Content
Information

and therefore create a new Archival Information Package. Work in this
area

would assist in identifying more fully the information needed to support
the

Preservation function, either as Preservation Description Information or
as

Data Management Data (see below). Currently, the sections on Data
Management

Data are most developed in relation to information needed to support the

Access function.

US: See the proposed new function \"Preservation Planning\" for a
partial response.

**[AGREE: see proposed new Preservation Planning entity.]{.underline}**

=====================================

R-58: NEDLIB Review

Handling software

Our understanding is not yet well advanced in relation to software
required for accessing a particular Archival Information Package and how
this is handled in the model. The model makes it clear that
Representation Information cannot depend on referencing software, as
this would not completely specify the Representation Network needing to
be in place for on going access to a given Archival Information Package.
However, we also assume that, at a given time, an OAIS will use software
as part of the Access function to provide current access. We assume that
software is another type of Information Object, that it might be treated
as an Archival Information Package in its own right, and that it might
be part of a set of operations invoked during Access. We are not sure
where information about the software needing to be invoked in order to
support current access to a given Archival Information Package would be
managed.

US: TBD

**[AGREE: Editor will propose text to address this.
XXXXXX]{.underline}**

================================

R-59: CNES Summary points

\-- Preservation

Long-term preservation of information constitutes the leading essential
mission of an OAIS archiving system. This is translated in the Model by
a series of consequences and at multiple levels:

For example: have representation information without which our bits
cannot be interpreted.

For example: the \'archival storage\" function must preserve the bits.

However, there is no central monitoring and control function for this
aspect. Technological developments must be taken into account in order
to decide on the migrations to undertake. Who decides on the migrations?
This is not easy to find in the Model. The \'storage\" function
comprises a sub-function \'migrate media\', but this only covers part of
the necessary migrations. A function handling all hard and soft aspects
of preservation would clarify the situation. Its role would be to ensure
permanently that all conditions required to preserve data using the
available technologies are satisfied. This function could be either an
integral function of the Model or a sub-function, part of DLIB seem
justified.

\-- Emulation

With regard to the substance, we are in full agreement with the
reservations expressed by the Reference Model concerning the question of
emulation (paragraph 5.2).

However, we must be aware that today there are thousands of electronic
documents in CD-ROM form, including the executable software required for
access to the information in these publications. In particular, this
concerns major publications such as encyclopedias.

For these publications, the Reference Model cannot simply adopt the
standpoint that, in the absence of a source code and appropriate
documentation, it is not and will not be possible to preserve these
publications.

The emulation technique is still too young to be able to settle this
problem definitively. The Model may be able to handle this problem in a
separate chapter. While describing the limits and dangers of this
approach, the possibility of developing this part, taking into account
long or medium-term experience, will be kept open.

Refer to the report by Jeff Rothenberg on this subject

http://www.kb.nl/nedlib/results/emulationpreservationreport.pdf

US: See proposed new function \"Preservation Planning\" for a partial
response to these issues. Need a view/paper on how AIP emulation may be
used. Note the distinction between preservation of information and
preservation of access to information, as called out in section 5.2

**[Take last para of 5.2 (ACCESS SERVICE PRESERVATION) but remove
REQUIREment of having source code. Summarise the techniques in
Preservation Planning.]{.underline}**

### SECTION 4.2

R-60: Pg 4-16 4.2.1.1 Information Object

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

I propose that a third choice be added to the data object alongside the

sequence of bits, namely a sequence of bytes, treating a byte as an
atomic

object.

Although it is true that a digital object is a bit-stream at the lowest

level, in practice computation since the 1980s has been completely

byte-oriented. The hardware that we have for implementing the storage is

byte-oriented, and the underlying abstract forms for representation of
the

data are also byte-oriented.

I used to think that this was a small point, but I now realise that if
bits

are the atoms, the process of recovery involves unpacking the bytes into

bits and then packing them back again. In CEDARS we are using ASN.1\'s
Basic

Encoding Rules for packaging the AIP and could easily accommodate the

choice. I note that X.509 insists in describing signatures as
BIT_STREAMs

and this leads to some messy practices in the PKCS standards, where
there is

a recognition that the byte has become a \"natural unit\" of
computatioN.

REJECT: We fail to see the problem that bit-stream brings, since bytes
and now unicode (16 bits) are comprised of bits.

DMS: David points out that modern storage technology stores bytes not as
individual 8-bit objects

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

==============================

R-61: Page 4-17 4.2.1.3.1 Representation Networks

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

It is quite clear in CEDARS\'s intended end-user community that the
archive

should enable use of software that renders access to the intellectual

content of the preserved material. Without software in the
representation

network, the chances are that the information will never be looked at. I

appreciate that this may be more a library perspective than that of
space

data.

The challenge is to keep the rendering software working over time. We
take

that view that keeping an inventory of these Gödel Ends in the

representation network. is a vital part of the function of the

Administration, and would recommend that Figure 4-5 and §4.1.1.5 be
amended

to include this.

We now have successful emulation of a 1970s operating system, giving
access

to information previously lost, and the implementation is only
dependedent

on the ability to run a C program. I believe that concentration on
rendering

facilities that depend only on implementation of main-stream programming

languages offers the best promise of continued access - but it must go

hand-in-hand with monitoring the Gödel Ends. After all, one can still
run

FORTRAN77, but most of the binary programs that were written in
FORTRAN77 in

1977 will not not now run - only those from IBM 360s

US: \*\*\* Agree that an inventory of \'ends\' is important. It might be
in Admin or somewhere else - hold off until we discuss the
\'preservation function\' issue.

**[AGREE -- see proposed new PRESERVATION PLANNING entity]{.underline}**

=============================

R-62: Page 4-17 4.2.1.3.1 Representation Information Types

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

The Figure 4-10 should have the semantic information box on the left so
that

it relates more easily to Figure 4-11 - or it may be that I have failed
to

understand Figure 4-11, which I find to be both more detailed and less

informative than Figure 4-10.

US: Agreed

I believe that I would find figure Figure 4-11 more convincing if Figure

4-12 were to be replaced by a concrete example. The current example is
more

by way of ectoplasm.

US: Agreed

DMS: David suggests we might want to put this in an annex, and then
consider referring to a URL where the reader could navigate the example.

I used to think that Figure 4-10 appeard as a one-off in the Red Book,
but

it reappears as a part of Figure 4-19, to give it extra substance. The

representation nets used in CEDARS are more easily seen in terms of the
4-9

formalism.

Whatever else, I think that relationship between 4-9 and 4-10 should be
made

clearer.

US: Seems clear to us. Ask him to propose how to make it clearer.

DMS: David has interpreted 4-11, operations and relationships, as a
realization of the semantic information, while the other children
correspond to the structure information. Therefore, swapping the two on
figure 4-10 would make this parallelism clearer.

**[AGREE to swap order of lower boxes in Fig 4-10]{.underline}**

=====================================================

R-63: Page 4-22 4.2.1.4.1 Content Information

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

On the third line there is a reference to \"primary data object\",
neatly

supporting my first point.

US: Already addressed

6th para - starting \"This is not difficult to do \...\"

The vital part of an environment is the API (applications programming

interface). It is this that needs to be preserved (and we have practical

proof of doing this). I take issue with Rothenberg on such matters of

emulation, but have not had time to write a paper on the subject. I
believe

that identifying the appropriate abstraction for the software
environment is

the correct route, and is closely parallel to the ideas about underlying

abstract form.

US: Basically agree, but not sure what you would like to see
differently. See also Annex E on a model for software use in
representation information.

DMS: David says: The essence of the environment is the API which is
normally realized by some underlying hardware, etc.

7th para - starting \"In summary \...\"

I never found the Subsection 6.2 refered to in the last sentence.

US: AGREED: Should be 5.2

8th para - starting \"An important \...\" - parts b, c and d

This is transitive closure until we arrive at nodes that are meaningful
to

the designated community. It may help to spell this out

US: REJECT: These words are not really clear to most readers, including
ALL of the review committee.

We found it vital to introduce the CRID (Cedars Reference ID) in order
to

make absolutely clear the need for globally unique names for use as
poniters

in the construction of representation nets. I note that you too have the

ADID. Perhaps here is something else that needs another term in the

glossary.

US: Reject - too much implementation

**[AGREE in part -- we use Content Data Object; correct section number
to 5.2; REJECT the rest]{.underline}**

====================================================

R-64: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

10\) PAGE NUMBER:4-23 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 4

RID SHORT TITLE: Paragraph beginning in summary

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \"\...- To \"\...\" formal)

Incorrect reference: Last sentence refers readers to Subsection 6.2,

reference is incorrect, and it is unclear what the reference should be.

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

This is a factual error needing correction.

\*\* dms- This should have been 5.2, Access Preservation. Accept change
\*\*

DISPOSITION

ACCEPT

**[AGREE]{.underline}**

========================================

R-65: Page 4-25 4.2.1.4.2 Preservation Description Information

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

The section on Fixity entangles the concepts of error handling, and

authenticity. I propose scrapping any mention of errors. The faithful

preservation of the byte-stream is the job of the archival storage.

Authenticity is a different matter, and perhaps invites the use of
digital

signatures. If this is to be meaningful, it may introduce a new form of

migration, becuase today\'s 1024-bit keys may be easily cracked in 2050,
so

that the authentication may need some refresh process (perhaps another

layer) to sign things afresh with new technology cryptography. (This
begins

to look like a can of worms

US: Propose to replace the corresponding text under FIXITY with:

Fixity Information includes special encoding and error detection schemes
that are specific to instances of Content Objects. Fixity Information
does not include the integrity preserving mechanisms provided by the
OAIS underlying services, error protection supplied by the media and
device drivers used by Archival Storage. The Fixity Information may
specify minimum quality of service requirements for these mechanisms.

DMS: In discussion with David, the point is made that the underlying
services need to be treated with some skepticism for error detection.
Perhaps authenticity is more a matter for an implementation of
provenance.

**[AGREE in part: "Authentication" should be replaced -- use Data
Integrity check or Validation/Verification(XXX \*\*\* ACTION on editor
to check \*\*\*). Accept proposed text for second sentence
onwards.]{.underline}**

=======================================

R-66: CCSDS REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID) :

RID INITIATION FORM

AGENCY RID NUMBER : 1

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center) : CNES

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWER\'S NAME : Claude HUC CODE :

E-MAIL ADDRESS : huc@cnes.fr

TELEPHONE :33 5 61 27 44 21

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER : CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME : Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System

DATE ISSUED : April 2000

PAGE NUMBER : 4-25

PARAGRAPH NUMBER : 1

RID SHORT TITLE : inconsistent references

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE :Use From : \"\...\' To \"\...\" format)

We suggest replacing \'Srepeat Steps 2 through 4\' by \'repeat Steps a
to d\'

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended : \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial : X

NOTES :

TECHNICAL FACT : Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to

render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected .

Supporting analysis/rationale is essential)

RECOMMENDED : Change of a nature that would, if incorporated produce a

marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL : Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(this

type of change will be made without feedback to submitter).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS :

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION :Accepted as per May version.

US: Already in the official May version

**[DELETE this RID]{.underline}**

================================================================

R-67: Page 4-26 4.2.1.4.3 Packaging Information

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

The last paragraph is superfluous (or even wrong) if the concept of

underlying abstract form is taken on board enthuiastically.

US: Don\'t see the concern. Suggest replacing the following sentence:

Packaging Information is not guaranteed to be preserved by Migration

DMS: In discussion with David, it may be useful to have the UAF concept
in section 5, and then be referenced as it is now from this section.
Needs review to see if this works.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

======================================

R-68: Page 4-28 4.2.2.1 Information Package

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

If we had been more definite about the need for a name-space, the first

paragraph could be much crisper

US: REJECT: Too much implementation

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

=======================================

R-69: Page 4-30 4.2.2.3 The Archival Information Package

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

Figure 4-19: swap sides of the two boxes in the embedded Figure 4-9

US: Agreed, and change arrow direction

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

======================================

R-70: AGENCY RID NUMBER : 2

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center) : CNES

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWER\'S NAME : Claude HUC CODE :

E-MAIL ADDRESS : huc@cnes.fr

TELEPHONE :33 5 61 27 44 21

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER : CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME : Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System

DATE ISSUED : April 2000

PAGE NUMBER : 4-31

PARAGRAPH NUMBER : 1

RID SHORT TITLE : inconsistent reference

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE :Use From : \"\...\' To \"\...\" format)

We suggest replacing \'and this is discussed and modeled in section 4\'
by

\'and this is discussed and modeled hereafter in this section\'

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended : \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial : X

NOTES :

TECHNICAL FACT : Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to

render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected .

Supporting analysis/rationale is essential)

RECOMMENDED : Change of a nature that would, if incorporated produce a

marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL : Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(this

type of change will be made without feedback to submitter).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS :

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION :

Agreed, but as: \'modeled later in this section.\'

US: Agreed

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

===========================================

R-71: CCSDS REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID) :

RID INITIATION FORM

AGENCY RID NUMBER : 3

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center) : CNES

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWER\'S NAME : Claude HUC CODE :

E-MAIL ADDRESS : huc@cnes.fr

TELEPHONE :33 5 61 27 44 21

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER : CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME : Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System

DATE ISSUED : April 2000

PAGE NUMBER : 4-34

PARAGRAPH NUMBER : 5

RID SHORT TITLE : inconsistent reference

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE :Use From : \"\...\' To \"\...\" format)

The reference to \'4.2.3.1\' (this sub-section doesn\'t exist) should be

replace by \'4.2.3\'

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended : \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial : X

NOTES :

TECHNICAL FACT : Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to

render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected .

Supporting analysis/rationale is essential)

RECOMMENDED : Change of a nature that would, if incorporated produce a

marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL : Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(this

type of change will be made without feedback to submitter).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS :

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION : Agreed, but already in May version.

**[DELETE this RID]{.underline}**

================================================================

R-72: ICSTI Review

One reviewer compared the Model to the ISO/OSI which formalizes
components that are reasonably well established in practice.

US Response: Yes

Others thought the Model was too detailed and would make a particular
implementation too expensive.

US Response: The model is intended to make the true costs more apparent.
See the following reviewer\'s bullet.

[NO A RID]{.underline}

============================

R-73: ICSTI Review

One reviewer thought that the Model provided a good framework for the
analysis of his company's archiving approaches against high level best
practices and that it pointed out some issues that they had not
previously addressed.

US Response: Great!

**NOT A RID**

==========================

R-74: ICSTI Review

There could be issues related to the granularity of the AIPs. The case
cited by a reviewer is that in which a dissertation is archived by a
national library or institutional archive, but the archive version for
the document when the dissertation is published as a journal article
would reside with the publisher. The two would have separate "owners"
from the copyright standpoint and separate archiving responsibility. On
the other hand it may not make sense to divide such "objects" into
different packages. Minimally, there should be some link between the
two.

US Response: This is a typical problem, and the AIPs, with AIC and AIU
seems to provide a useful framework for these issues. There can
certainly be links between the two in the Descriptors. Provenance can
also address such issues. These are implementation decisions.

**[AGREED -- no change required]{.underline}**

===========================

R-75: ICSTI Review

Fixity Information, which is used to insure integrity, and issues
related to security should be covered more thoroughly.

US Response: Security is a ubiquitous concern and security facilities
are stated to be present in underlying services (e.g., see 4.1.1.1).
Fixity is directed to specific AIPs, and includes such techniques as
checksums and various encoding approaches. We\'re not persuaded by the
comment to add more specifics.

REJECT: agree with US response

=========================

R-76: ICSTI Review

**In the discussion of Representation Networks, the document does a good
job of describing the need for a low level of Representation Information
(i.e., cycling down through various representation schemes all the way
down to a discussion of ASCII). One reviewer thought that it would be
useful to introduce the concept of a base OAIS representation. This
would be a representation object that would be common building blocks
(e.g., ASCII) underlying all other representation information objects.
Almost a more bottom up approach.**

**US Response: It is not clear that there is a base OAIS representation
that will survive for very long. The OAIS needs to track emerging
technology to keep up to date with what is still useful. It is beyond
the scope of the model.**

**[REJECT -- this is an implementation concern for a specific
archive]{.underline}**

========================

### SECTION 5

R-77: Page 5-1 5.1.1 Digital Migration Motivators

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

It is obsolecence of disk and tape drives that is the prime motivator.
It

deserves a mention.

US: Accept, by clarifying what is meant by hardware in the second
bullet, by inserting \" (e.g., disk/tape drives)

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

=================================

R-78: ICSTI Review

The discussion of "Digital migration motivators" seems to over emphasize
the physical decay of the data support medium at the expense of the
obsolescence of the logical context.

US Response: We can add a bit about other changes to the Designated
Community that affect their ability to understand the information.
However, we are not clear what you mean by logical context. Is it like
directory structures or file systems?

**[REJECT -- BUT to clarify the issue change the order of the points in
this section, putting "Improved Cost Effectiveness" first and "Media
Decay" last in case people regard this as a priority order. Note that
that paragraph also addresses technology obsolescence.]{.underline}**

==============================

R-79: Handling old versions

National Library of Australia

Sections 5.1 and 5.1.3.4 state that the outcome of Digital Migration in
an

OAIS is a full replacement for the Archival Information Package that is

undergoing transfer. We understand that by this is meant that the
transfer

process should result in minimum information loss, not that the Archival

Information Package undergoing transfer is necessarily discarded. In
cases

where a new Archival Information Package is created, our archival policy

requires the source AIP to be retained. We might transform an Archival

Information Package from one file type to another to enhance current
access

while retaining the source copy as an archival master. At a later stage,
the

replacement copy might be used as the source of another transformation;
or

we might return to the archival master for the new transformation. It
would

be useful if this requirement to retain source AIPs was clarified in
Section

5.1.3.4.

US: Propose the following changes for clarification:

1\. Section 5.1.3.4, 1^st^ para. Replace material with:

In all cases the intent is to provide maximum information preservation.
The resulting AIP is intended to be a replacement for the AIP that is
undergoing Transformation. The new AIP qualifies as a new **Version** of
the original AIP. The previous versions may be retained.

2\. Section 5.1.4, 2^nd^ para, add sentence: \" The previous versions
may be retained.\"

**[AGREE with proposed responses, but change "new version of the
original AIP" to "new version of the previous AIP. The first version of
the AIP is referred to as the original AIP and may be retained for
verification of information preservation."]{.underline}**

=================================

R-80: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

Section 5.1.3 2nd bullet, last sentence Change \"but Replication

can occur without all the constraints of Refreshment.\"

To

\"but may require changes to the Archival Storage mapping
infrastructure.\"

For clarity.

AGREED

Section 5.1.3.4 3rd scenario, penultimate sentence Change

\"This approach is an advantage\"

to

\"This approach would be advantageous..\"

AGREED

US: Agreed

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

=================================

R-81: National Library of Australia

Handling process history information

Section 5.1.4 states that, when an Archival Information Package
undergoes a

Digital Migration that involves Transformation, the process history is

recorded in the Preservation Description Information of the new Archival

Information Package. In contrast, when an Archival Information Package

undergoes a Digital Migration that does not involve Transformation, the

Preservation Description Information does not get updated, but OAIS
still

tracks such migration. Presumably, this information would be stored as
Data

Management Data. If so, this means that process history information is

managed separately depending on the process performed. We are not sure
if

this is an issue, but it is an area where we have found it difficult to
make

a clean mapping between our model for the PANDORA Archive and the OAIS

Reference Model.

US: \*\*\* agree in principle- this is current situation

National Library of Australia

It would assist if examples of this kind of Data Management Data were

included in Sections 1.7.2 and 4.2.3. (See NLA Comment under 5.1.4)

US: Agree in principle

**We agree but the name may be Preservation Process History and will be
added in Data Management.**

=================================================================

### SECTION 6

R-82: AGENCY RID NUMBER NARA

Section 6.1 Bullets

The use of the phrase \"A Local Community\...\" to begin the bullets

is confusing.

Suggest changing to:

\"- Independent - Archives motivated by local concerns, with no
management

or technical interaction among them

\- Cooperating - Archives with potential common producers, common
submission

standards, and common dissemination standards, but no common finding
aids.

\- Federated - Archives with both Local and Global Communities, and
having

both local and global finding aids. The Local Community usually has

priority over the Global Community. Global dissemination and Ingest are

optional features.

\- Shared resources - Archives that have entered into agreements with
other

archives to share resources, perhaps to reduce cost. This requires
various

standards internal to the archive (such as ingest-storage and

access-storage interface standards), but does not alter the community\'s

view of the archive.\"

AGREED

Add definitions of Local Community and Global Community to

Glossary

**AGREED**

==============================

R-83: CCSDS REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID) :

RID INITIATION FORM

AGENCY RID NUMBER : -6

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center) : CNES

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWER\'S NAME : Claude HUC CODE :

E-MAIL ADDRESS : huc@cnes.fr

TELEPHONE :33 5 61 27 44 21

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER : CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME : Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System

DATE ISSUED : April 2000

PAGE NUMBER : 6-2

PARAGRAPH NUMBER : 2, 3, 4 and 5

RID SHORT TITLE : clarification about terms global and local

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

The terms global or local community, global or local access, Global

producer need to be clarified. These termes have not been understood by
the

readers.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE :

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended : \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_ Editorial :

NOTES :

TECHNICAL FACT : Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to

render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not corrected .

Supporting analysis/rationale is essential)

RECOMMENDED : Change of a nature that would, if incorporated produce a

marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL : Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(this

type of change will be made without feedback to submitter).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS :

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION :

Define \'local\' and \'global\' early in chapter 6. Local and global
producer

needs review and revision. Alternatively use other terms to convey the

distinctions.

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

===================================

R-84: 6.1 Technical levels \...\...\...\...

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

under Federated, last sentence - too much optionality!

US:ACCEPT: Delete the first \'Optional\'

**[AGREED]{.underline}**

=================================================================

R-85: 6.1.3Federated Archives

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

The section on unique AIP names would benefit from the introduction of a

glossary-level term for such a name (e.g. CRID, ADID).

US: We feel that \'unique AIP name\' is adequate.

**[REJECT]{.underline}**

===================================================================

# Addendum -- Nov 15 Additional RIDS from GSFC

R-86: Representation software vs. access software

AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Nov 15 17:14:52 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Don Sawyer

CODE: code 633

E-MAIL: donald.sawyer@gsfc.nasa.gov

PHONE: +1 301 286 2748

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: 2-4 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: last

RID SHORT TITLE: Representation software vs. access software

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

Clarify the distinction between software used to display

representation information and access software - the latter being

software that \'displays\' some or all of the meaning of the

Information Object.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

Does Representation Information include software used to display

the the Rep. Info, or not? This is not clear.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

======

R-87: Meaning of \'modify representation info\'?

AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Nov 15 17:29:15 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Don Sawyer

CODE: code 633

E-MAIL: donald.sawyer@gsfc.nasa.gov

PHONE: +1 301 286 2748

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: 3-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 4th under 3.2.2

RID SHORT TITLE: Meaning of \'modify representation info\'?

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

What does \'modify representation information\' mean in this

context? It appears to equate modifying representation

information with a modification to the Content Information.

Depending on what is really meant by \'representation

information\', this may not be correct.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

If representation information is understood to include not just

the meaning of the representation information but also its

container or wrapper, as in the case of using a Word file (the

wrapper) to hold a text description of a data structure, then one

can alter the container (by going to word perfect, for example)

without altering the description of the data structure - i.e.,

without altering the significant meaning of the representation

information. When representation information is used here, does

it include the notion of the container or not? Apparently not.

Clarify and try to use this consistently.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

======

R-88: what is \'part of the digital object\'?

AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Nov 15 17:36:03 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Don Sawyer

CODE: code 633

E-MAIL: donald.sawyer@gsfc.nasa.gov

PHONE: +1 301 286 2748

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: 4-18 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 2nd, 2nd sentence

RID SHORT TITLE: what is \'part of the digital object\'?

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

The sentence can be misleading depending on what \'part of the

digital object\' is intended to convey. Clarify between part of

the representation info. and part of the primay digital object.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

If it means part of the Rep. Info, then I think it is correct, but

if it means part of the PDO, is is not correct as it mixes up

Access Software working on the digital object with representation

software working on representation bits.. This has implications

for the rest of the discussion in this section. I think this

needs clarification.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

=====

R-89: Digital Content Info.

AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Nov 15 17:47:22 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Don Sawyer

CODE: code 633

E-MAIL: donald.sawyer@gsfc.nasa.gov

PHONE: +1 301 286 2748

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: 4-23 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1st full, 3rd sentence

RID SHORT TITLE: Digital Content Info.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

Replace \'digital object\' with \'digital Content Information\'

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

The focus here is on access software, which provides access to the

Content Information, and it is not on representation information,

which would be allowed under the use of \'digital object\'.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

R-90: Revise series of steps

AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Nov 15 17:51:58 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Don Sawyer

CODE: code 633

E-MAIL: donald.sawyer@gsfc.nasa.gov

PHONE: +1 301 286 2748

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: 4-23 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 4th, all bullets

RID SHORT TITLE: Revise series of steps

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

Revise these to start with a single \'representation info. object

that can be composed of multiple objects, as follows:

a\) Identify the bits comprising the Primary Digital Object of the

Content Information.

b\) Identify a Representation Information object that, in some

way, addresses all the bits of the PDO and converts them into

more meaningful information.

c\) For the Representation Information object identified, examine

its content to identify if it is a Referencing Representation

Information object. If it is, identify the Representation

Information objects it incorporates by reference. Repeat this

step until no additional Representation Information objects are

identified.

d\) For each Representation Information object addressed in Step c

above, that is held as a Digital Object, identity its

Representation Information object and repeat Steps c and d until

no new Representation Information objects are identified.

e\) The Content Information consists of the Primary Digital Object

and each of the Representation Information objects identified in

Steps b through d.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

Otherwise we don\'t have any place to put the information that

aggregates the initial set of Rep. Info. objects.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

=====

R-91: use of representation information

AGENCY RID NUMBER: Wed Nov 15 18:05:22 2000

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): NASA, GSFC

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

NAME: Don Sawyer

CODE: code 633

E-MAIL: donald.sawyer@gsfc.nasa.gov

PHONE: +1 301 286 2748

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 650.0-R-1 Red Book, Issue 1

DOCUMENT NAME: OAIS Reference Model

DATE ISSUED: May 1999

PAGE NUMBER: 5-6 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3rd, 2nd sentence

RID SHORT TITLE: use of representation information

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: \'\...\' To \'\...\' format)

Clarify what is meant by representation information because this

implies that it only includes the meaning and not its container.

How does this impact what is meant by Content Information?

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended

Technical Fact \_\_\_\_ Recommended: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Editorial:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:

TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as

to render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if

not corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)

RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated,

produce a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.

EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing

correction. (This type of change will be made without feedback

to submitter.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:

If representation information also includes its container, then

sentence is not always correct. It says that if the Content Info

or PDI change, then there must have been changes to the primary

digital object as well as the representation information. But

one can change a part of the Rep info without changing the

primary Digital Object. Is this not a change to the Content

Information? How about if the part of the Rep. Info. that

changes is its container (assuming this is considered part of the

Rep. Info.)?

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DISPOSITION:

======