Bug 326 - INPE-1:Detailed review be made of Figure A-1 in page A-2 in order that it may guaranteed that the functionally that it represents -fully- corresponds to the naturally more detailed functionality that is represented in the set of Figures 4-2 through 4-7.
Summary: INPE-1:Detailed review be made of Figure A-1 in page A-2 in order that it ma...
Status: RESOLVED NO CHANGE MADE
Alias: None
Product: OAIS June 2012
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Section:Annexes (show other bugs)
Version: June 2012
Hardware: No All
: --- Recommended change for other considerations
Assignee: David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org)
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-01-19 10:53 UTC by David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org)
Modified: 2021-04-06 19:47 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Organisation of the submitter: INPE
Disposition of the suggested change:
Category of the suggested change: ---
Due date:
Explanation of the reason for the suggested change:
he author of this proposal, for transforming it in a Brazilian Standard (ABNT/BR) had to translate to the Portuguese the previous OAIS document ISO 14721:2012, which contains the document CCSDS 650.0-M-2. The proposal being made in this current RID has the intention to avoid inconsistencies found in document CCSDS 650.0-M-2, in this case, relating the similar Figures 4-2 through 4-7 and Figure A-1 of the just mentioned document.

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org) 2021-01-19 10:53:10 UTC 
AGENCY RID NUMBER:01/03
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION(Agency,Center): INPE 
------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER'S NAME: Eduardo.W.Bergamini  
CODE: RME/CORCR/INPE             
E-MAIL ADDRESS:eduardo.w.bergamini@outlook.com     
TELEPHONE: + 55 12 3208 6166/6603         
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:   CCSDS 650.0-P-2.1 RP 20-25 
DOCUMENT NAME: Ref. Model for an Open Archival Information System     
DATE ISSUED: October 2020
PAGE NUMBER: A-2,4-6,4-9,4-11,4-13,4-16,4-19 PARAGRAPH NUMBER:n/a  
RID SHORT TITLE: Functional Matching with Composite Figure A-1   
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:(Use From: "..." To "..." format)

It is proposed that a sufficiently detailed review be made of 
Figure A-1 in page A-2 in order that it may guaranteed that the functionally that it represents -fully- corresponds to the 
naturally more detailed functionality that is represented in the
set of Figures 4-2 through 4-7.

JUSTIFICATION: The author of this proposal, for transforming it in 
a Brazilian Standard (ABNT/BR) had to translate to the Portuguese 
the previous OAIS document ISO 14721:2012, which contains the 
document CCSDS 650.0-M-2. The proposal being made in this current 
RID has the intention to avoid inconsistencies found in document 
CCSDS 650.0-M-2, in this case, relating the similar Figures 4-2 through 4-7 and Figure A-1 of the just mentioned document.   

------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
     Technical Fact ___    Recommended X    Editorial X
NOTES:
TECHNICAL FACT:  Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to
 render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not
 corrected.  (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)
RECOMMENDED:  Change of a nature that would, if incorporated, produce
 a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.
EDITORIAL:  Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
 (This type of change will be made without feedback to submitter.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:





------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION:
Comment 1 David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org) 2021-01-19 11:15:50 UTC 
The diagram as been checked an re-drawn a number of times.
It would help if some specific errors have been identified by INPE.
Comment 2 Mark Conrad (mark.conrad.iso@gmail.com) 2021-03-08 17:02:25 UTC 
Agree with David.
Comment 3 David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org) 2021-03-30 10:36:39 UTC 
DAI20210323 agreed that the diagram has been thoroughly checked and no errors found. However if the submitter has noted any specific error then please let us know.
Comment 4 David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org) 2021-03-30 10:37:53 UTC 
DAI20210323 agreed that the diagram has been thoroughly checked, particularly when it was redrawn from scratch, and no errors found. However if the submitter has noted any specific error then please let us know.
Comment 5 David Giaretta (david@giaretta.org) 2021-04-06 07:50:16 UTC 
(In reply to David Giaretta from comment #4)
> DAI20210323 agreed that the diagram has been thoroughly checked,
> particularly when it was redrawn from scratch, and no errors found. However
> if the submitter has noted any specific error then please let us know.

Eduardo Bergamini (eduardo.w.bergamini@outlook.com)  2021-04-05 24:00:00 UTC                                                                                                                                              

COMMENT: INPE is not in a condition to make a comparative analysis in sufficient detail of figure A-1 in relation to figures 4-2 to 4-7, to be in a condition to guarantee that no inconsistencies, may exist, one-by-one among them. As a result of the pandemic related home-office regime which is in practice in INPE since last year, there is no sufficient human resource for performing  this specific task as it would be expected. Good to learn that figure A-1 has been redrawn a number of times by the editorial team who did it.
Comment 6 Eduardo Bergamini (eduardo.w.bergamini) 2021-04-06 19:47:28 UTC 
In view of the already expressed comments, including mine, as follows:
__________________
Eduardo Bergamini (eduardo.w.bergamini@outlook.com)  2021-04-05 24:00:00 UTC                                                                                                                                              

COMMENT: INPE is not in a condition to make a comparative analysis in sufficient detail of figure A-1 in relation to figures 4-2 to 4-7, to be in a condition to guarantee that no inconsistencies, may exist, one-by-one among them. As a result of the pandemic related home-office regime which is in practice in INPE since last year, there is no sufficient human resource for performing  this specific task as it would be expected. Good to learn that figure A-1 has been redrawn a number of times by the editorial team who did it.
__________________ 

I wish to re-affirm my, above reproduced, commnent and add that, now, I consider that what could be done by the CCSDS DAI WG plus the other supporting reviewers, in principle, satisfies what can be expected from figure A-1, in respect to its association to figures 4-2 to 4-7. So, from my standpoint I consider this issue solved, for the time being. Thank you.