Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


(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, the mutable head directory wouldn't exist or would be empty because all content would be versioned.

(DB) Having the system just auto version makes it more simple to not have than dealing with a mutable head, but if we have a mutable head it makes on-demand 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

(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?