Page History

...

Given the ontology and directory layout changes, should this be version 2?

Pros: this is a bigger jump than a normal point release, especially with the ontology and data migration, but also with the RDF initialization files rearrangement
- people will need to be aware that while the upgrade process will migrate existing data, their application customizations and data ingest scripts will very likely need to be modified
- jumping to 2.0 signals a bigger change
- we can go to 2.1 if there bug fixes and/or ontology revisions need to happen soon

Cons:
- several of the key features for 1.6 are in their first implementation state and not fully mature
  - e.g., multiple language support will only support entering content in multiple language for rdfs:labels, not for data properties or custom forms
  - the web service for adding and updating RDF via SPARQL update will likely want to be extended to support queries (currently reads are accomplished through linked data requests, by changing permissions on VIVO's embedded SPARQL query page, or by a separate Fuseki SPARQL endpoint ideally running on a replicated copy of the VIVO database
- other features we consider central to a 2.0 release are not in 1.6 at all
  - updating the Jena libraries, which will require removing dependence on the Jena RDB triple store technolog, still currently used for user accounts and other internal application data
Road map consideration – the 2.0 release would serve as an excellent driver for road map discussions defining goals, features priorities, and resource requirements with a near enough milestone that division of tasks between 2.0 and post 2.0 could be effectively addressed

Please note that these are proposed features for VIVO 1.6, not commitments by the VIVO development community

...

Space shortcuts