Time/Place

Attendees

  • Andrew Woods
  • Esme Cowles *
  • Chris Beer *
  • Daniel Davis * (star)
  • Declan Fleming
  • A. Soroka
  • Benjamin Armintor
  • Zhiwu Xie
  • Neil Jefferies

Note-taker = (star)
Previous note-taker = *

Agenda

  • Thought exercise: "What would be the technical "risks" of releasing 4.0 Production *now*"?
    • Or another way, "Where do we want to put next sprint's dev energy"?
  1. Review of previous actions

    1. REST API spec plan: Agreement on approach? Next steps?

    2. Performance scenarios: Focus on use case numbers from Oxford and Stanford?
    3. Strawman for Grinder scenarios: Assessment Plan - Performance
  2. Third highest team priority from survey: "Preservation-worthiness"

Previous Actions

From 2014-08-20

  • Neil to define initial set of system CI tests

From 2014-08-27

  1. (tick) Ben and Adam: Begin drafting REST API spec and what a TCK should cover.   Incremental deliverable for next week: what LDP is, how F4 extends it, and bytestreams
  2. (tick) Dan: Review existing performance work and put together some scenarios
  3. (tick) Esme: Report on status of filesystem serialization once UCSD beta pilot has progressed - Beta Pilot page has been updated with deliverables

Discussion

Adam begins with API:

Base specification LDP plus base ontology but bytestreams

Possibly add transactions (suitable for web scale, not XA, JCR spec)

Thoughts about container:

  • Objects plus datastreams (fedora)

  • External to repo

  • Esme: other objects in repo

  • Andrew: question do we want to support

  • Adam: has different guarantees if outside

  • Adam: Need to think out ramifications for different kinds of outside items

  • Dan: Could have some overlap with issues about tiered storage

  • Adam: Not absolutely required for LDP

  • Andrew: Member, Reference, Indirect Container (need definitions)

  • Dan: Considerations of asynchronous responses (overlaps burden for remote operations)

  • Andrew: Need to define proposal for tiers

  • Adam: Keep core simplest possible

  • Andrew: We need to review what we have, LDP, is the interaction model logical, clean, does it represent what we expect out of the repository

  • Adam: Did we make a good guess for the implementation? Test on real world usage.

  • Adam, Andrew: Specification with dependencies for transactions, versioning, locking, etc.

  • Andrew to Adam: Can you flesh out all the tiers?

  • Adam: Will try for week from today

  • Esme: Should conversation be on Fedora tech list

    • All: yes

Performance Scenarios (Dan)

  • Fixity checking
  • Real-world scenarios
  • Cache and no-Cache
  • Look at direct REST client for Python
  • Setting up environment (Scott Prater may have done some work)
  • Many folks could contribute tests

RDF and Sparql Update well underway for next period (Esme)


Actions

  • (tick) Dan to create matrix of performance test payloads (probably here)