Talk:2.2.3 INFORMATION PACKAGE VARIANTS: Difference between revisions
(→Transfer Information Package: new section) |
PRWheatley (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
During discussion recently I suggested that something like a "Transfer Information Package" could be a useful concept to include in the OAIS. That would be for things being transferred to an organization that then does some additional appraisal and arrangement before creating a SIP to be ingested and turned into an AIP. I would be interested to hear if others thought this would be a useful addition or just redundant.--[[User:Euanc|Euanc]] ([[User talk:Euanc|talk]]) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC) | During discussion recently I suggested that something like a "Transfer Information Package" could be a useful concept to include in the OAIS. That would be for things being transferred to an organization that then does some additional appraisal and arrangement before creating a SIP to be ingested and turned into an AIP. I would be interested to hear if others thought this would be a useful addition or just redundant.--[[User:Euanc|Euanc]] ([[User talk:Euanc|talk]]) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
I'm not sure there is a huge problem to be solved here, but in line with the later steps in the lifecycle it would seem useful to have standard terminology for a package of content as it reaches the OAIS. This of course relates to ISO 20652:2006 and to discussions around the possible addition of a [[Pre-ingest]] stage [[User:PRWheatley|PRWheatley]] ([[User talk:PRWheatley|talk]]) 14:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:22, 11 July 2016
Transfer Information Package
During discussion recently I suggested that something like a "Transfer Information Package" could be a useful concept to include in the OAIS. That would be for things being transferred to an organization that then does some additional appraisal and arrangement before creating a SIP to be ingested and turned into an AIP. I would be interested to hear if others thought this would be a useful addition or just redundant.--Euanc (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a huge problem to be solved here, but in line with the later steps in the lifecycle it would seem useful to have standard terminology for a package of content as it reaches the OAIS. This of course relates to ISO 20652:2006 and to discussions around the possible addition of a Pre-ingest stage PRWheatley (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)