You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 14 Next »

Time/Place

This meeting is a hybrid teleconference and slack chat. Anyone is welcome to join...here's the info:

Attendees

  1. Danny Bernstein
  2. Peter Eichman 
  3. Bethany Seeger 
  4. Jared Whiklo (star)
  5. Andrew Woods
  6. Kevin Ford
  7. Ben Pennell 
  8. Aaron Birkland  
  9. Mohamed Mohideen Abdul Rasheed


Agenda

  1. Announcements

  2. Sprint 2 Progress
  3. Open questions: 

    1. Shall we stop rejecting PUT requests that only contain SMTs in addition to your chosen triples? (Jared Whiklo )?
      1. Current situation:  to replace non-server managed triples in RDF you must
      2. GET with `-H"Prefer: return=representation; omit=\"http://fedora.info/definitions/v4/repository#ServerManaged\""`  and PUT with  `-H"Prefer: handling=lenient; received=minimal"`
      3. Does the above conflict with https://fcrepo.github.io/fcrepo-specification/#http-put-ldprs
      4. Also seems to make complicated what should be a simple thing for the user to accomplish.
      5. Documentation of SMTs:
        1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xmuzYwMn0r3p5Dgch7GX3DACftL-3nr5ImSqt_KpUbk/edit?usp=sharing
      6. Related questions:
        1. What are our SMTs? What is the impact of allowing them to be modified?
        2. What is an acceptable workflow for changing interaction models? Does the presence of a matching rdf:type in the RDF matter?
        3. What is an acceptable workflow for updating the properties of a resource?
        4. What is an acceptable workflow for restoring a version? (either from a memento or from a local export)
    2. Should GET ONLY return SMTs when specifically requested?
      1. Essentially, reverse the current behavior by requiring an "include" header instead of an "omit"
      2. Should PreferContainment header be considered a subset of SMTs i.e. should they be suppressed on omit SMT? (Not relevant if we going to reverse the current behavior?)
    3. Shall we make all resources versionable by default? 
        1. Follow-on question:  Should it be possible to make resources non-versionable?  In other words, are we saying, everything is versionable, period?
        2. Implications:  
          1. Remove DELETE LDPCv
          2. Remove "Enable Versioning" from HTML UI
  4. <your agenda item here>

  5. Please squash a bug!

    key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution

    Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

  6. Tickets resolved this week:

    key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution

    Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

  7. Tickets created this week:

    key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution

    Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

Minutes

  1. Future Agenda Topics: 

  • No labels