Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



(plus) (facilitator)
(star) (notetaker)


  1. What needs to be done for "initial public working draft"
    1. Open milestone issues 
  2. How do we want to handle published versions of the spec and ontology
    1. Example: →
  3. Follow-up on:
  4. Branding as Core Specification
  5. Deletion-related issues


  1. What needs to be done for "initial public working draft"
    • What do we do with the 4 month window for revision starting from public draft announcement
      • Andrew proposes the editors group continues to meet during this period
      • Ben - does this include test suite and implementations?
      • Agreement that it should certainly include the test suite (editorial group will be engaged with this), there will be a community effort to work on the community Fedora implementation but we can't rely on this
      • Ben - is 4 month realistic?
      • Andrew - how can we plan organize and adjust goals if necessary to get engagement to complete?
      • How many implementations are necessary for the specification to progress? Would it be OK to say that a test suite must be ready for the spec to got to candidate recommendation, but then multiple (2+) implementations would be necessary to progress to a recommendation?
        • Agreement on this (Ben, Danny, Simeon, Andrew – Esme not on call)
        • Expectation to continue monthly updates, perhaps to community not just FLG, if process goes on beyond 4 months
      • What are our expectations about the implementation of the test suite? 
        • Ben - experience with LDP test suite suggests that Java is not the easiest approach
        • Ben - perhaps suggest Python as implemented widely and won't affect class loading implementations with Java
        • Danny - possible use of Selenium (or similar), can do HTTP level tests, will follow up at Discovery garden
      • Andrew - perhaps question is less about language of test suite than about library for interpreting and generating test results and doing comparison – agreement that something like that output would be good
    • Open milestone issues
      • Do we want to keep #129 and #130 as requirement for release of the initial draft?
      • #130 - agreement that it is intended that servers be able to create versions with the client specifically indicating, text needs work – change milestone to Candidate recommendation

      • #129 - important distinction between containment and ldp:contains triples, needs fixes to 3.1.1, 3.7.1 and 5.3. Agreement on the need to make this distinction. Question of when this could be addressed vs. managing expectations around progress on spec. Will try to get a PR done by Sunday, otherwise we'll remove the milestone from this issue and Andrew will go ahead and announce current state for OR

  2. How do we want to handle published versions of the spec and ontology

Previous Action Items

  • Danny: will move 111 forward, and create a separate ticket for async failures

New Action Items

  • Ben will move 129 forward
  • No labels