Page History

...

1. Thomas worked a bit on the docker file to give more configuration options, figure out how to trigger a build maybe Github activities or trigger docker build.If Danny could have a look at the file to verify nothing was lost in the changes from Modeshape to OCFL.
2. Wrap up containment index, do the messaging and the long running transactions as the April sprint. Is FCREPO-3262 to actually store the containment relationships or just have some way to rebuild.
   1. Ghost nodes could just be an investigation to generate other work/tickets. Not a main sprint objective but could be a side ticket if we have less work.
   2. Sprint plan
      1. Danny is interested in persisting containment relationships to OCFL.
      2. Peter has no particular interests.
      3. Ben is interested in either the messaging or transaction.
      4. Jared has no particular interests. (code review, maybe some ghost node work)
3. Discussed
4. Containment
   1. In the rebuild process would inspect the OCFL object and look for the Fedora generated elements and in the absence have a fallback.
      1. In the case of containment if there are elements in the .fcrepo directory but also in the RDF? If there are containment relationships in the .fcrepo directory, there should not be any others. But people could always edit their OCFL.
      2. We wanted to store the child → parent of relationship instead of parent → child.
      3. For containment we would rebuild starting with the contents of the .fcrepo directory first, then we would read the OCFL RDF and look for containment relationships lastly we would use relationships based on nested resources inside an OCFL object would have an inferred relationship.
   2. What about server managed triples?
      1. We are going to ignore server managed triples when included in the RDF body of a PUT/POST and not cause a request to fail due to them.
      2. Ben is going to look at What are the Server Managed Triples and see about updating with decisions related to Fedora 6.
5. Moving Fedora to the fcrepo organization?
   1. What are the dependencies that need to be updated? What will need to be changed?
   2. Do we need this? We have gotten community feedback that the 4 in fcrepo4 is confusing?
   3. Are we planning to change the repository name as well as the organization?
   4. What else from the fcrepo4 organization would need to be moved? fcrepo-module-auth-webac has been pulled back into core so it can stay. The ontologies can be moved but would need to be reviewed. The ldp-testsuite was forked to be fixed, it is an open question if that will ever happen if so it could be forked again later. fcrepo-build-tools seems like it is essential to the Fedora project and would need to be moved.

...