[Esip-preserve] A Minor Note on Nomenclature

Tue Aug 24 16:33:43 EDT 2010

Not sure I'm following all this, but OAIS defines "Provenance Information" as something different from "context Information". Both are part of the full suite of Preservation Description Information along with Reference and  Fixity information. 

I generally find the OAIS definitions correct and useful.

Provenance Information: The information that documents the history of the Content Information. This information tells the origin or source of the Content Information, any changes that may have taken place since it was originated, and who has had custody of it since it was originated. Examples of Provenance Information are the principal investigator who recorded the data, and the information concerning its storage, handling, and migration.

Context Information: The information .that documents the relationships of the Content Information to its environment. This includes why the Content Information was created and how it relates to other Content Information objects.

Reference Information: The information that identifies, and if necessary describes, one or more mechanisms used to provide assigned identifiers for the Content Information. It also provides identifiers that allow outside systems to refer, unambiguously, to a particular Content Information. An example of Reference Information is an ISBN.

Fixity Information: The information which documents the authentication mechanisms and provides authentication keys to ensure that the Content Information object has not been altered in an undocumented manner. An example is a Cyclical Redundancy Check (CRC) code for a file.

-m.

On 24 Aug 2010, at 2:23 PM, alicebarkstrom at verizon.net wrote:

> While I used the term "Representation Network" to accord
> with the formal use of the CASPAR project for digital artifacts
> that are used to preserve information, the more appropriate
> term from the OAIS RM is "Context Information".  The latter
> is probably the better term and keeps the meaning closer
> to what I believe is used by the Open Provenance Model,
> as well as the record created by recording the artifacts
> actually used in production history in the papers by Frew
> and Bose, as well as my recent paper in ESI.
>  
> Do we have to invent a new term when there's already
> something in the standards?
>  
> Bruce B.
> 
> 
> Aug 24, 2010 11:41:29 AM, Curt.Tilmes at nasa.gov wrote:
> >On 08/24/2010 11:40 AM, alicebarkstrom at verizon.net wrote:
> >>From a personal perspective, I'd prefer to keep the term "provenance"
> >>(or - more precisely - "production history provenance") devoted 
> >just
> >>to files and source code PGEs that directly enter data production.
> >>In the OAIS RM, the other documents, such as calibration data,
> >>calibration plans and reports, Point Spread Function data and
> >>reports, and so on, seem to me to be part of the Representation
> >>Network that's needed for understanding data. However, unless those
> >>documents are part of the production process, it seems to me to be
> >>inappropriate to include them in "provenance tracking".
> >>
> >>If need be, I can see what OAIS RM has to say.
> >>
> >>Bruce B.
> >
> >Well, as the "community", we can establish consensus to use whatever
> >nomenclature we want. If we want to define it like that, fine. I
> >prefer using "lineage" or "production history" for the limited 
> >term,
> >and grouping all of the other stuff (calibration, analysis papers,
> >post-processing validation, etc.) into "provenance".
> >
> >If you like the term "provenance" to be equal to "lineage", 
> >what do
> >you use for all the other stuff? Do you really think we will have an
> >easier time selling these ideas if we call it the "Representation
> >Network"?
> >
> >I think an "audit" history is an important part of provenance as well.
> >
> >Lineage/Production History: I fed X,Y to process A, version 1.7 and
> >got file Z.
> >
> >Audit: I got file X from organization Q on Jan 7, 2010 at 4:50pm. I
> >compiled A on host H with compiler C version 7.2. I started the
> >process on Jan 17 at 2:25pm on host X. It ran for 27 minutes and used
> >50 MB of memory.
> >
> >Validation: I compared file Z with ground station G and produced a
> >paper P describing the results.
> >
> >Provenance: All of the above.
> >
> >
> >I liken it to the historical art world. Much of the value of the art
> >isn't in the painting itself, or even in the production history (the
> >paint, canvas and paint brushes), but in the history of ownership
> >(Fred bought the painting in 1752 from the artist, his family donated
> >it to a museum in 1780, etc.) and even more in the analysis and
> >appraisals (the brush strokes match Rembrandt's style, the chemical
> >analysis of the paint and canvas match what we we would expect, etc.)
> >All of that related information that contributes to our trust and
> >ultimately, the value of the art I would group into "provenance".
> >
> >
> >I see your point -- we are stretching the traditional meaning of the
> >word, but so what? Let's stretch it into something useful for our
> >domain.
> >
> >Curt
> >_______________________________________________
> >Esip-preserve mailing list
> >Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> >
> >target="_blank">http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve