DSpace Architecture Review Report

The report of the Architecture Review group (January 24, 2007) is now available. See below for lots of notes and discussions that went into it. There are some ongoing discussions on extension frameworks and workflow systems, along with more detailed discussion notes about some of the issues discussed in the report.

See this Overview of the Architecture Review Report.

History

In 2006, the DSpace community undertook a major review of the DSpace architecture and technology in order to create a roadmap for platform development to be implemented over the next year. The following documents describe the group's work:

• ArchReviewProcess : Process for moving this work forward
• ArchReviewWorkingPrinciples: Working principles for the group to follow
• ArchReviewIssues: Issues that the group will address
• ArchReviewScoping: Tangible performance and scalability goals that the platform should meet

The group is editing and discussing these draft documents. Nothing is final, and the process will be as open as possible.

Architecture Review Members: The group has the following ArchReviewMembers

Survey: Draft list of questions for PreReviewSurvey

Review Meeting Materials:

• Pre-reading for review members
• Tentative schedule for review meeting
• FINAL Schedule broken out by issues
• Location for documentation and files used in review process
• Bakery for Half-Baked Ideas

• Rob's data model use cases and older asset store use cases
• Mark's data model diagram expressed in UML

• Discussion Notes:
  • Monday
  • Tuesday
  • Tuesday JSE
  • Wednesday
  • Wednesday JSE
  • Thursday
  • Thursday JSE
  • Friday

• Synthesis of discussion conclusions

• Post Meeting Projects and Action Items

Mailing List

There is a private mailing list (dspace-review, hosted by the University of Toronto) for the group to handle logistics, but as much discussion as practical will be held in open forums such as the dspace-devel mailing list, and we invite comments and discussion from the entire community during this process.

Questions?

For questions please contact MacKenzie Smith, MIT Libraries (kenzie@mit.edu) or John Mark Ockerbloom, the chair of the working group at ockerblo@pobox.upenn.edu