Page tree

Versions Compared


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


  1. What representation should be used for resources on disk?
    1. See examples towards the bottom of this document
  2. Canonicalization of RDF,  checksumming metadata, and the possibility of byte-for-byte I/O of metata resources.
    1. Is this of use:
  3. Should Fedora support non-container RDF sources?
  4. Are Pair-trees as a resource still a thing in Fedora 6?
    1. Must keep in mind use case of users migrating from fedora 4 where pair trees were enabled to fedora 6 
    2. Options
      1. pair tree maintained (where each directory becomes a LDP Container). 
      2. pair tree paths collapsed down
      3. pair tree behavior same as it is now in fedora 4/5
  5. Should the filename for the triples file containing the user provided RDF of an AG or atomistic container be the last segment of the fedora id, the full fedora id, or a constant name?
    1. Given fedora id info:fedora/my/ag from URL http://localhost:8080/fcrepo/rest/my/ag
    2. Last segment: <ocfl_storage_root>/my_ag/versions/v1/content/ag.nt
      1. pros: Short filename. Filename is relative to the filesystem path, which is consistent with other objects.
      2. cons: When going from ocfl/fedora id, requires some knowledge of how to calculate the filename.
    3. Full id: <ocfl_storage_root>/my_ag/versions/v1/content/my_ag.nt
      1. pros: filename would match the fedora id, and the directory name of the AG.
      2. cons: could produce very long filenames, which could cause more inventory bloat.
    4. Constant name: <ocfl_storage_root>/my_ag/versions/v1/content/self.nt
      1. pros: properties for the object itself are always in the same path
      2. cons: the name of the file is not descriptive and may not be readily understandable by users viewing the OCFL object directly.
    5. In all cases, the fedora id should be contained in the json file for the AG/container. Just have to know how to locate the json file.