...
- Islandoracon feedback
- How will objects-in-motion be handled
- Suggestion:
- Keep everything in OCFL (mutable head)
- Concern about complexity of having separate storage approaches
- Interest in Fedora6 transparency, rebuildability, preservation
- Complexity may not be worth it
- Noting, Fedora is optional in Islandora
- Implementation of a mutable-head
- It is possible... but maybe not as strong of consistency as other approaches
- Rebuildability and completeness is vital
- In-motion content is a new concept to the community
- Is there any issue with the notion of a mutable-head
- not really
- important that mutable-head be in the spec
- This could raise to the level of a Fedora governance question
- There is still importance in creating versions
- Even though this is a new concept to the community
- Complexity in Fedora's implementation is that some Fedora content will never be versioned
- Must be able to support rebuildability
- One solution is that un-versioned content will not be preserved
- This would not be a solution that is palatable with much of the existing Fedora community
- Is auto-versioning could also be a potential solution
- Is inventory/size bloat an issue?
- Counter-point: if users do not care about versioning, do they care about OCFL?
- Users still want the benefits of OCFL
- Users still want co-located content, if sometimes versioning is used
- ACTION: Andrew to bring mutable-head to OCFL spec editors
- Interest in alternate storage backends?
- For folks who do not care about OCFL qualities, other backends are possible
- Conversation at Islandoracon has come from Fedora birds-of-a-feather and hallway talk
...