At 11/30/2004 03:13 PM, Christopher E Isbell wrote: Tyler, Joel, Cyndi, Don't know if we will get to this item at the Standards telecon but .... Please see my comments below. Cyndi, please provide additions or corrections or other perspective. Please do not distribute these comments further until Cyndi has had a chance to respond. Thanks, Chris I =================================================================== Planetary Data System Standards Coordination Telecon (StCT) Announcement Time: 9-10 AM PST Wednesday, December 1 JPL Meeting Room: 169-431B [text removed] - Recommending that PDS fund media research (Chris Isbell) [ text removed] A few comments regarding this topic; - There has NOT been designated funding and/or official assignments made to address general and specific issues related to this topic - Cyndi and Chris are knowledgeable to a med-high(?) degree but have done only "part-time" research as required for their project work and/or in responding to Mission and other project inquiries. Some may be under the incorrect impression that this "background" research satisfies what many see as a "full-time" need to research and address issues related to these technologies. (Cyndi, thoughts?) - Cyndi and/or Chris (or others) could certainly participate/provide input to a larger effort ... but - I believe it requires at least one FTE full-time focus (plus travel/hw/sw/material support) in researching and addressing these issues ... I will not be requesting support at this level as I have > full-time commitments within my current work responsibilities. (Cyndi?) - So, perhaps we (tech group) should (again) ask the PDS and NASA to officially recognize and support the need to designate full-time research in this area. (I know this is not an original statement as we (tech group, others) have made similar requests in the past) Thoughts? Chris I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On 12/1/2004, Cyndi Hall-Atkinson wrote: HI Everyone! Sorry I am just now getting back to you on this. I am in complete agreement with Chris's position below. I also do not have the time to commit myself full-time to this effort as my schedule is booked but would certainly be able to provide input and support where needed. I think that if we can get this approved by the technical folks, and hence moved up the chain of command (to NASA) with full PDS backing, we might be able to get this on NASA's radar. That is the problem - getting them to recognize this as a serious and important issue. Also, I know that several people of the Government Information Preservation Working Group (mainly Jerry McFaul) have drafted a letter which will be sent to all CIO/CTOs of governmental agencies for their signature. It basically states that this is an issue and we need to aid industry in coming up with sound standards and high quality media. Maybe between our pushing NASA and this letter coming from the GIPWoG, we can get additional funding from HQ for this effort. Anyway, my two cents... Thanks Chris! Cyndi ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail from Lyle Huber 12/1/2004: ...here are my quick comments on the uppercase/lowercase SCR. - This SCR is not in any shape to be voted on. The changes to the Standards Reference need to be spelled out in exact detail, not the vague statements made here. - It is not yet clear to me that there are "no other known impacts". - This SCR needs a bit more discussion, perhaps at the working group level before it moves forward. Lyle Huber PDS Atmospheres Node ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dick Simpson: (22 Jan 2005) I have more than casual interest in this SCR, but will be in meetings at ESTEC when the telecon is scheduled. The last proposals I saw on this subject needed more thought (especially regarding impact, which has only a placeholder in the 20 Jan version). I doubt that I will have a chance to digest the SCR further before leaving on my trip. >http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/tracking/standards/ds_miss/imp_status_20050120.txt I have no comments on the SCR itself; I only vaguely remember the parent SCR. But this situation is exactly why I like to check SCR's very carefully before they go to votes and go ballistic when "clerical errors" appear in material submitted to both the Tech Session and MC. Here we have an SCR approved UNANIMOUSLY by MC more than a year ago which is apparently stuck in implementation because there are conflicting MEMORIES of what REALLY was approved. Wasn't this one of the Big 8, that we struggled to complete as part of the SE-6 Performance Evaluation? If so, the fact that we can't agree on what was approved is doubly embarrassing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Wilf: (24 Jan 2005) > I have no comments on the SCR itself; I only vaguely remember the parent SCR. > But this situation is exactly why I like to check SCR's very carefully > before they go to votes and go ballistic when "clerical errors" appear in > material submitted to both the Tech Session and MC. I very much appreciate your careful checking of the SCRs for clerical errors. > Here we have an SCR approved UNANIMOUSLY by MC more than a year ago which is > apparently stuck in implementation because there are conflicting MEMORIES > of what REALLY was approved. The SCR was approved as written. There is no memory conflict about that. I can't speak for Steve, but the "memories" I told Elizabeth about were of subsequent disussions in the Tech Session, where some of the members said they were very unhappy about new required sub-objects and keywords appearing in catalog objects -- even when these had been approved by the MC (e.g., ABSTRACT_DESC). For this reason, I want to be very careful about introducing new required sub-objects and keywords; and I think it's prudent to bring this to the attention of the Tech Session and MC before it is implemented. It is also worth discussing this issue because it is part of a larger change in the role of catalog files. In the past, catalog files contained all (or almost all) the information about data sets, missions, etc. that we wanted to keep in the central Catalog. Now, with the advent of on-line distribution, there is information in the Catalog that the PDS may *not* want to be archive via the catalog files. For example, we need "resource links" in order to distribute data sets on-line, but these have no real relevance in the long-term archive. I would like the Tech Session to make the judgment explicitly whether a given piece of information belongs in both the Catalog and archive, or just in the Catalog. -- Joel