...
- I. Process Check Re: Outcomes
- awoods: If the top-level objective is an evaluation of whether the RC meets community needs, are the efforts of the TWG moving towards that?
- Should there be a list of features that match up to expected use cases.
- Like an acceptance test
- awoods: Should we get a consensus on the criteria?
- awoods: Preservation worthiness is an example, discussion can happen asynchronously
- II. REST API Partitioning and LDP Conformance
- Rob Sanderson is in communication with LDP ed board as a Stanford rep
- Ben and Chris have both proposed stronger alignment with LDP, though this may require some rewriting and yield a block on the 4.0 release
- III. Preservation Worthiness
- Esme: There should be a transparent, text-based serialization of the node metadata as RDF and JCR/XML
- Ben: JCR/XML? Sounds fishy.
- Ben: I think json is a relatively transparent format. Because I am suspicious of this use case, I cannot offer good opinions about the relative quality of these serializations, but inasmuch as I’m going to think about, JCR formats seems shaky in their platform dependence.
- Ben: I also think that this sounds more like “We should have a well defined API, here’s a thing that implements it and stores everything as text” vs “We should coerce MODE into doing this thing it is more-or-less designed not to do”
- Dan: Binaries are fine as long as the format is transparent, and well understood.
Actions
| Excerpt |
|---|
|
