...
- Success would mean Fedora6 is something we can use and the steps for migration would be clear
- Something we can use:
- Requirements:
- Migration performance
- how many objects representing
- how much data migrated in
- how much time
- Migration performance
- Are the development targets outlined by the Fedora 6 design summary aligned with NLM's needs?
- Concern around external content
- Current F3 stack makes heavy use of external content
- How to use an external content model with the Fedora6 / OCFL design?
- Would we (NLM) have to bring in all the external binaries into Fedora ? Or is would it make sense to use external content?
- OCFL objects can point to external content (via a URI)
- NLM would always have the option to bring in the content into OCFL later.
- Having binaries and metadata collocated is a principle of OCFL not a requirement
- Concerns around RDF and LDP:
- NLM wants to use own URI's for subjects.
- Other concerns detailed in this discussion: http://fedora-commons.1317035.n2.nabble.com/fedora-community-URLs-as-URIs-for-digital-objects-td7585842.html
- The issue is close to the heart of the metadata community
- Requirements:
Actions
- Danny Bernstein to bring in the question of external binaries in OCFL in the weekly tech call. Pilot partners should feel free to raise the issue on in the #fedora6-pilots slack channel
- Andrew Woods to schedule a dedicated call to discuss URLs as URIs for digital objects.
- Nancy Fallgren to review the thread and make sure to raise any issues that are not touched on in the thread.