Meeting 04 - September 9, 2016

• Nick Ruest
• Andrew Woods
• Esmé Cowles
• Michael Durbin 
• Youn Noh
• Bethany Seeger
• Justin Simpson
  
• Joshua Westgard
  

Agenda

• Stakeholder satisfaction; Goal: complete all phase-1 requirements and documentation
  1. Support transacting in RDF
     
  2. Support allowing the option to include Binaries
  3. Support references from exported resources to other exported resources
  4. Support import into a non-existing Fedora container
  5. Support export of resource and its "members" based on the ldp:contains predicate
  6. The URIs of the round-tripped resources must be the same as the original URIs
• Retrospective
  1. What went well during the sprint cycle?
  2. What went wrong during the sprint cycle?
  3. What could we do differently to improve?
• Penn State Sprint; September 19-23

Minutes

• Stakeholder satisfaction
  • Requirements 1-6 were largely met
  • Requirement 6: true for relative paths
  • Possible future requirement to consider: option to delete fcr:tombstone
  • Focus on finding bugs and creating tickets, making it clear where we are now
  • Readme should include link to JIRA query
  • Bugs discussed: handling of pairtree nodes in plant patents data set; loss of properties upon import of plant patents data set; authorization errors
• Penn State Sprint; September 19-23
  
  • Nick, Esme, Jon Stroop, and Andrew will participate and will touch base next week
  • Justin and Josh will check their availability and will confirm on IRC by 10am ET on Monday, September 12
  • Esme: The Penn State Sprint will focus on bags; work on bugs and other issues can happen concurrently; LDP-ICs are a priority for Sufia and Hydra
• Other follow up
  • Mike will be working over the weekend; the expectation is that a mini-code freeze will be in place
  • Bethany will write a script to validate import and export by comparing triples, which could be provided with the utility
  • Andrew: code refactoring will happen early next week
  • Nick will draft an email notification to stakeholders and share it in a Google document
• Retrospective
  • Andrew
    1. IRC; integration of roles
    2. Didn't finish everything
    3. Do a better job of making sure we have time available
  • Esme
    1. IRC; code review
    2. Dependency chaining; interruptions and other work
    3. More preparation at the beginning of the sprint
  • Mike
    1. Coordination working on same code base
    2. Unclear standards for fcrepo-labs code reviews
    3. Limit distractions in code reviews
  • Youn
    1. Communication
    2. Level of effort at the beginning of the sprint
    3. More preparation
  • Bethany
    1. IRC; teamwork
    2. Didn't have models to follow and know where to contribute at the beginning of the sprint
    3. Start working on scripts earlier
  • Justin
    1. IRC; group dynamics; overall what was accomplished
    2. Naive sense of commitment required; could have started sooner; learning curve with Fedora
    3. Review time commitments at kickoff; document code review process; bring data sets and examples upfront
  • Josh
    1. Daily stand ups; wiki documentation
    2. IRC somewhat distracting
    3. Clear testing phase
  • Nick
    1. Communication
    2. Better job scoping requirements; dependency chaining
    3. Blocking off calendars; assigning work; communicating schedules