Versions Compared


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


  1. Custom form configuration
  2. Development processes (on vivo-tech)
    1. Thanks to Jim Blake for constructively resolving PR-60
    2. Taking small steps: All who are interested to 
      1. create a JIRA
      2. fork
      3. create a branch
      4. make a minor PR
      5. review other's PRs and approve/request-changes
  3. Community development priorities
    1. 1.10 Release
    2. Ontology discussions?
    3. Alignment with other interest groups?
  4. Integration testing
  5. Other community work to bring to next week's meeting?


  • Add PR-template
    • Andrew - Adding a pull request template in github.
  • Enable build
    • Andrew - “Maven Clean Install”  - Clone and Build should work.
  • Update README with build instructions
    • Andrew - Minor update is required to README
  • Add javadocs
    • Andrew - Some simple javadocs needs to add
  • Add integration testing framework
  • Enable checkstyle plugin
    • Andrew - Enable plugin for coding styles fit.
  • Set up Travis (with README badge)
    • Andrew - runs every command that is required.


Benjamin: I would like to contribute where I can. Maybe Pull Request template? Does anybody have an example I can work from?


Agenda Item #1.

Huda: Powerpoint made for Linked Data for Libraries. One issue came up for we need to create several customizations. Using different ontology. Needed to make customizations.


Jim - Yes. We did a little earlier. Possibility is that it will work with current dev branch. But can be tested.

Agenda Item 3b

Mike: Ontology Improvement Task Force tried to get make a single vivo.owl ontology file ( There were 43 files in the filegraph, now there are 4 ( Goal was to load ontology easily and start to work on the ontology. The ontology should be available at a single web address . Assertions – the same file should be served from the web address that is the released version in the most current software.  Toward the goal, application configuration assertions were removed, that didn’t belong there etc. Everything is just reorganization of the status quo, nothing is new. We discovered annotations that didn’t belong into in the VIVO ontology, now in new file vitroAnnotations.n3. This might belong into Vitrothere is a new VIVO Application Ontology (which may belong in the Vitro Ontology), maybe it belongs to the VIVO application.  All Vitro assertions about classes and properties are in a new file vitroAnnotations.n3.

Don: Does it change the way to edit labels?


Benjamin: We should be able to take the owl files and drop them into a VIVO test installation.

Mike: Yes

Andrew: Any issues with Freemarker templates

Mike: It’s gonna break, we need to hunt down where it breaks.

Jim: Agree.  The assertions control access to items on the screen.  Broken SPARQL will result in granting access to things intended to be restricted.

Mike:  Will start looking for the places where these assertions are used.

Action items

  •  ...

Recent JIRA Tickets