TAB/OAB Feedback

Case Statement Revisions required from the TAB/OAB Review

Must do:

  • Elaborate on the statement in the Value Proposition that PID Information Types and the DTR are sufficient tools to describe collections
  • Better demonstrate the need for unifying layer and CRUD support and clarify what will this enable that can't be done now. What use case motivates this work? (the ESGF example is a partial answer to this question). Provide evidence that differing practices across communities are hindering interoperability.
  • Supply additional "impact visions" (other than “interoperability”).  How, for example, might this work benefit curation or registration activities?
  • more clearly identify outputs and differences between definite and possible ‘bonus’ outputs or processes
  • identify if/how the WG outcomes will address data access questions
  • fix typos

Should do:

  • clarify difference between collections, compound objects and aggregations
  • expand upon connection to fragment identifier scheme
  • contribute to the evaluation of the PIT and the DTR
  • involve players outside of US and Europe
  • include people from Collections efforts (such as OAI)
  • include other people who participated at P6
  • engage with existing efforts and service providers (particularly cross-disciplinary and multi-national services) as potential adopters