...
Review of previous actions
REST API spec plan: Agreement on approach? Next steps?
- Performance scenarios: Focus on use case numbers from Oxford and Stanford?
- Strawman for Grinder scenarios: Additional Testing ScenariosAssessment Plan - Performance
- Third highest team priority from survey: "Preservation-worthiness"
Previous Actions
From 2014-08-20
...
Excerpt Include | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
From 2014-08-27
Excerpt Include | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
...
Adam begins with API:
Base specification LVP LDP plus base ontology but bytestreams
...
Objects plus datastreams (fedora)
External to repo
Esme: other objects in repo
Andrew: question do we want to support
Adam: has different guarantees if outside
Adam: Need to think out ramifications for different kinds of outside items
Dan: Could have some overlap with issues about tiered storage
Adam: Not absolutely required for LVP, but is part of traditional FedoraLDP
Andrew: Member, Reference, Indirect Container (need definitions)
Dan: Considerations of asynchronous responses (overlaps burden for remote operations)
Andrew: Need to define proposal for tiers
Adam: Keep core simplest possible
Andrew: We need to review what we have, LVPLDP, is the interaction model logical, clean, does it represent what we expect out of the repository
Adam: Did we make a good guess for the implementation? Test on real world usage.
Adam, Andrew: Specification with dependencies for transactions, versioning, TCKlocking, ontologyetc.
Andrew to Adam: Can you flesh out all the tiers?
Adam: Will try for week from today
Esme: Should conversation be on Fedora tech list
All: yes
Performance Scenarios (Dan)
...
RDF and Sparql Update well underway for next period (Esme)
- Adam and Ben to detail proposed
- All to review "Preservation Worthiness" description for next week's discussion
Excerpt |
---|
|