Time/Place
This meeting is a hybrid teleconference and IRC chat. Anyone is welcome to join...here's the info:
- Time: 11:00am Eastern Daylight Time US (UTC-4)
- U.S.A/Canada toll free: 866-740-1260, participant code: 2257295
- International toll free: http://www.readytalk.com/intl
- Use the above link and input 2257295 and the country you are calling from to get your country's toll-free dial-in number
- Once on the call, enter participant code 2257295
- IRC:
- Join the #fcrepo chat room via Freenode Web IRC (enter a unique nick)
- Or point your IRC client to #fcrepo on irc.freenode.net
Attendees
- A. Soroka
- Unknown User (acoburn)
- Michael Durbin
- Yinlin Chen
- Andrew Woods
- Osman Din
- David Wilcox
- Stefano Cossu
- Jon Roby
- Unknown User (escowles@ucsd.edu)
- Unknown User (daniel-dgi)
- Doron Shalvi
Agenda
- Open Repositories committer meeting reflections
fcr:metadata and NonRdfSource descriptions
- Requirements
- Single subject in RDF
- User-definable descriptions of binary resources (non-RDF resources)
- In addition to the default fcr:metadata?
- Instead of the default fcr:metadata?
- User-definable descriptions of binaries that can be Containers
- LDP link header "describedby" on Binary to description
- Remove description (if auto-created) when binary is removed
- Remove binary when description (if auto-created) is removed??
- Fedo Raadmin: this isn't required by LDP-- does Fedora want to require it?
- A. Soroka: If a bitstream has no retrievable properties, how to supply system-managed properties like date-modifed? What about fixity or audit info?
- Remove binary when description (if auto-created) is removed??
- Questions on the table:
- Dealing with fcr:metadata:
- Should fcr:metadata, as an LDP-RS with a URI distinct from the
LDP-NR, exist at all?- If yes, should the contents of fcr:metadata be refactored
such that all triples have only one subject?- If yes, what should that subject be?
- If yes, Should fcr:metadata support the same kinds of operations that
other repository resources support (such as DELETE or POST), or do only
a subset of these pertain? - If no, then should the binary contents of an NonRDFSource
as well as its RDF description be available from the same URI, via
content negotation? Is this consistent with letter and spirit of LDP?
- If yes, should the contents of fcr:metadata be refactored
- Should fcr:metadata, as an LDP-RS with a URI distinct from the
- Dealing with Fedora resources, created by a user, to describe
NonRDFSources:- Should Fedora allow users to modify
iana:describes/iana:isDescribedBy properties on Fedora objects? Right
now, these are server-managed. If a user wishes to express the
relationship between a given NonRDFSource and an object that describes
it, using the iana:describes/iana:isDescribedBy predicates, they cannot
do so. They would need to use terms from another vocabulary or
ontology - Should Fedora, in its core codebase, as a value-add service, add
additional "Link rel=describedBy" headers on NonRDFSources, based on the
existence of resources in the repository that claim to describe it?- If yes, what is the mechanism by which the repository
determines when a resource is describing a NonRDFSource?- Is it the presence of specific "special" properties such as iana:describes or
iana:isDescribedBy?- If so, where must these specific properties be
asserted (i.e. in the properties of the NonRDFSource, or by the
describing object)?
- If so, where must these specific properties be
- Is it the presence of specific "special" properties such as iana:describes or
- If yes, what is the mechanism by which the repository
- Should Fedora allow users to modify
- Dealing with fcr:metadata:
- Requirements
Tickets resolved this week:
Tickets created this week:
- ...
Minutes