Page tree

Versions Compared


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


This meeting is a hybrid teleconference and slack chat. Anyone is welcome to's the info:


Part 1: 

  1. Danny Bernstein 
  2. Peter Winckles 
  3. Jared Whiklo 
  4. Bethany Seeger 
  5. Thomas Bernhart  
  6. Aaron Birkland (star)
  7. Andrew Woods  
  8. Ben Pennell 
  9. Ben Cail 
  10. David Wilcox
  11. Peter Eichman 
  12. Joseph Rhoads
  13. Daniel Lamb


  1. Announcements 
    1. Sprint 2
    2. Results of documentation review
  2. Fedora and OCFL
    1. OCFL Editorial updates: 
      1. Tuesday's meeting notes:
      2. Draft pull-request detailing "extensions":
    2. "Mutable HEAD Extension" draft specification
  3. Updates to the Persistence API
    1. Proposed implementation approaches 
  4. Draft functional requirements for repositories based on NDSA Levels of Preservation 2.0


  1. In Review


    serverDuraSpace JIRA

  2. Please squash a bug!


    serverDuraSpace JIRA

  3. Tickets resolved this week:


    serverDuraSpace JIRA

  4. Tickets created this week:


    serverDuraSpace JIRA


Documentation Review

  • Small number of folks met Oct 28th for doing a one-day documentation review.
    • Not a technical review, focused on community perspectives
    • Marked docs that could be improved
    • Good notes/suggestions on ways things can be improved.  Mostly around better organization, de-duplication, defining things better.  These notes can drive documentation updates
    • There may be a couple people who are interested in documentation during the sprint, but there may be enough suggestions to support a documentation sprint later on this year or next year.
    • Most of the suggested improvements are not technical, so it is not necessary for doc writers to be committers, developers, etc
    • awoods: Each release has their own wiki space, but we have a 5.x "head".  It looks like the 5.x "head" is what was reviewed.  Presumably, it'll be re-named to 6.0.  A bulk of the review is likely based on 4.x/5.x understanding.  New content and/or updates would need to be added for fcrepo6
      • dwilcox: Hopefully, the front-facing parts of fcrepo6 won't change that much from 4/5, but new docs will be needed.
    • Fcrepo6 documentation was out of scope for this review.  That could be its own sprint, not sure if it should be its own separate effort, or part of a fcrepo6 sprint.  Difficult to do anything for fcrepo6 yet, since it doesn't exist.  It'd be difficult to write docs for it at this point.
    • Desire for a regular rhythm for doc updates. 


  • Islandora stores it's documentation in Markdown .  Might be something we want to consider for Fedora.  
    • It makes it easier to couple code changes with documentation changes.
    • ISLE also does this.  
    • There are pros/cons to docs in markdown, but it'll be interesting to watch how other projects evolve

Fedora and OCFL:

  • There will be support in the spec for extensions (generally speaking) at the ocfl-object level
    • Proposal right now is that there'd be a directory (maybe called "extensions") whereby OCFL extensions can define a subdirectory to put stuff in, functioning as a sort of namespace.  All content under the "extensions" subdir must be in a subdirectory defined by some extension.
    • Mutable head was brought up at the leaders meeting, holding a vote right now (through tomorrow, Nov 1) for approval.  
    • Folks seem to be aligning around the mutable head direction
      • PW doesn't think it'll be that challenging to implement.  Not very far into it yet.
    • Peter Winckles started a draft proposal for a mutable head extensions
      • Seems fairly robust, helped mitigate risk
      • A fair number of changes were made 10/30, now would be a great time to re-read it.

Updates, Persistence API:

  • Key thing to be aligned on going into the sprint
  • Ben updated the doc with some code examples
  • TODO:  Ben will make another version of pseudocode based off discussion.  If we sign off on that, then it makes sense to progress to a PR

Functional requirements

  • David created a doc of functionalities handled at the repository level from a broader "levels of preservation" discussion.  If folks have time to take a look at it, please do so.  It is very high-level.
    • Some items Fedora is capable of handling already, some may be handled by external services
    • Would like agreement of functional requirements, and determine which ones are already planned for fcrepo6 vs not.
  • Action item:  Flag things as in-scope of out of scope for Fedora,  For out of scope,  how would we envision Fedora integrated with an external system to accomplish (e.g. virus checking, quarantine), or do we make a claim that an area of activity is out of scope?