...
(DW ran through the options in the above document)
(TS) In the mutable head scenario, is it a given that auto versioning is an option? Not a default?
(AW) I think these are orthogonal topics. If you have auto versioning on at the application or Fedora level, mutable head wouldn't exist.
(DB) Having the system just auto version makes it more simple to not have a mutable head, but if we have a mutable head it makes versioning easier.
(SP) <asked about having unversioned content in the OCFL structure>
(AW/RS) You must not include other objects in the OCFL object root is the specification. See the last sentence in the draft https://ocfl.io/draft/spec/#object-structure
(RS) I think the language in the specification should be change from "must not" to "should not". I think it is ok to have content in a directory that hasn't been versioned.
(DW) Whatever we choose, it is going to be a compromise. What the decision gets down to is: where should unversioned content live? We want to hear from this group on what the community thinks, and what the best way forward for Fedora?
(TS) What is the urgency/timeline for this decision?
(AW/DB) There is a sprint that starts November 4th. We would like to have the decision a week previous to that date.
(MY) The view that Fedora enforces a particular viewpoint has been an issue in the past, so we should consider that when we decide what Fedora does. The flexibility is important.
(DW) Time is up today. David will follow up with DB and AW after the call and put together some material to help make the decision. The core issue seems to be where to store unversioned content.
Action Items