...

Open Development Questions

• Is it valuable, from a community perspective, for Fedora to run on top of "vanilla" OCFL, vs OCFL that contains Fedora flavorings mixed in (i.e. requirements on content)?   Acknowledging that OCFL will last longer than Fedora, do we have an opinion on the fingerprint that Fedora leaves on OCFL objects, i.e. fedora-specific system metadata?
  • Rosalyn Metz:  OCFL doesn't care what an object looks like.  Fedora shouldn't worry about putting Fedora-specific metadata in, but Fedora should also not prohibit migrations from other OCFL systems by imposing requirements; there is value in handling vanilla OCFL.  If we can't take vanilla OCFL, we're saying "we're not a place you can come"
    • Being able to see a progression over an object through time and applications is useful.  Fedora doesn't need to read and totally understand, but it needs to do something useful at a basic level.
  • Dan Coughlin:  We should be able to import vanilla OCFL, or export OCFL.  Not sure if there are technical challenges, but OCFL lasting longer than Fedora does resonate.
  • Mark Jordon:  In the interest of mitigating vendor lock-in, we really should allow Fedora to run on top of OCFL and at least provide access to the content at some basic level.  That at least provides a platform for using the information.
  • Scott Prater: Distinction between importing Vanilla OCFL vs Running on top of vanilla OCFL.  OK with Fedora enriching Vanilla OCFL, and OK if Fedora is unable to export vanilla OCFL.  Other applications can ignore the Fedora parts.

Action Items 

•  David Wilcox add Fedora 6 delivery timeline topic to Feb. 4 Steering meeting
•  Andrew Woods Danny Bernstein make a list of Fedora 6 development priorities with estimates on resource requirements (ideally before Feb. 4 Steering meeting)