[Esip-preserve] A Minor Note on Nomenclature

[Curt Tilmes]

On 08/25/10 08:14, alicebarkstrom at verizon.net wrote:

> It strikes me that this discussion can be made quite useful and
> relevant if we move away from a discussion of "verbal categories"
> and convert it into a collection of lists or "database table
> contents".

Ok.

> For example, it seems like we've got a pretty concrete idea of what
> we mean by production history. That's sort of represented by four
> tables:
> 1: Table of Files
> 2: Table of Jobs
> 3: Table of which Files were input into which jobs
> 4: Table of which Files were output from which jobs
> You could attach the time and circumstances of production
> to the table of jobs.

That's the core of course, but I think even our general model needs a
little more structure than that.  Especially for the "industrial
production" model, documenting the regularity will help organize the
vast quantity of information a bit.

I'll try to take a stab at generalizing a bit from our model and send
it out.

> Second, it looks like we've identified a "Custodianship Table" that
> contains such information as which facility ran the job, who was on
> duty or authorized the job, and so on. This needs some work, but
> should be doable in a fairly short period of time. It would also be
> helpful to have an informal use case that says something about the
> circumstances under which people might access this table, how they'd
> use it, how often we think they might use it and so on.

> Third, it looks like we're headed toward defining the contents of an
> audit. This begins to impinge on what we might call "authenticity
> verification". That could broaden the discussion considerably, but
> if we could sort of identify what we think we'd want to see in an
> audit report, it could be quite useful, particularly if we could put
> that information into a table that could serve as a checklist for
> project submission agreement completeness.

> Fourth, I think it would be very useful to create a list of the
> documents or reports of context information, who is expected to
> create these documents, and the circumstances of use, it could be
> very useful - and, indeed, the sooner we could get such a list
> published, the better off the community would be.

> Rather than spending time arguing about verbal categories, it seems
> to me compiling these kinds of tables and making sure we have a
> clear identification of their contents and use would be far more
> productive. In slightly different language, it would be useful to
> think of our role as "information architects".

You are right, of course.  I'll try to get some bits of my model on
the Wiki as a strawman you can poke at.

Curt