LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


PIG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  January 2007

PIG January 2007

Subject:

Re: Revision of the PREMIS Data Dictionary - call for comments: significantProperties and preservationLevel

From:

Evan Owens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:16:50 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

I would suggest that PreservationLevel is distinct from
significantProperties and should be kept as separate as possible. Also
PreservationLevel is not the same thing as PreservationIntention. This
new breakdown of PreservationLevel is problematic.

Here's the wording on the wiki:
 
>>>>>
However, it is not clear whether the semantic unit describes the
intended level of preservation support (as per 'expected to be applied',
in the definition) or the current level of preservation capability (as
per the '"preservability" of the format') in the rationale).
Repositories have reported using this semantic unit in varying senses,
and the ambiguity may pose issues for interpretation among repositories
or between repositories and depositors.
>>>>

It seems to me that this needs even more refinement. Is
preservationCapability what the archive was capable of at that time that
the PreservationIntention was assigned? If so, this is a time based
property and needs date/time as well. If not, if this the current
capability of the archive, then it should not be distributed out to
every item in the collection.

I think what is really needed here is not Preservation Capability but
rationale for assigning the Preservation Level.

Some use cases might help:

1) Archive ingests a file in format ABC version 1.5. At the time of
ingest, the archive had no tools for ABC 1.5 so it assigned a
preservation level of "Byte Preserve". The capability at the time was
only byte preserve (nothing else) and the promise made was byte
preserve.

2) A year later, Archive has tools for format ABC version 1.5 and can
validate and migrate to format XYZ 1.0. The current capability is now
to support and migrate; the promise made was still byte preserve but can
now be upgrade to support and migrate. But that is a time sensitive
assertion.

3) Archive ingests a file in format DEF version 1.0. The file is
defective. A preservation level of "byte preserve" is therefore
assigned. The capability of the archive is to support and migrate DEF
1.0; the reason that the preservation level or intention was assigned to
this file is because of the validity of the format, not because of
archive capabilities.

In thinking about use cases, it is essential to consider what you do
with bad data; there is lots of bad data out there.

Portico considered a preservation level of "byte-preserve pending" which
meant that we are byte preserving it now because we don't have any tools
yet. We discarded that because it rolled two facts together that are
potentially unrelated.

I suggest that "PreservationCapability" is something that belongs as
global information about the archive, possibly in the format registry or
at a system level.

Preservation Level is a true property of each individual object. What
you need to go with it is information about why and when you assigned
that preservation level. That could be because that was the best the
archive could do at the time, or it could be because the file itself was
defective.



==================================
Evan Owens, Chief Technology Officer
Portico www.portico.org
[log in to unmask]
(609) 986 2224
100 Campus Drive, Suite 100
Princeton, NJ 08540
 

 

 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager