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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 9 Next »

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:

Attendees 

Agenda

  1. Open Repositories committer meeting reflections

  2. fcr:metadata and NonRdfSource descriptions

    1. Requirements
      1. Single subject in RDF
      2. User-definable descriptions of binary resources (non-RDF resources)
        1. In addition to the default fcr:metadata?
        2. Instead of the default fcr:metadata?
      3. User-definable descriptions of binaries that can be Containers
      4. LDP link header "describedby" on Binary to description
      5. Remove description (if auto-created) when binary is removed
        1. Remove binary when description (if auto-created) is removed??
          1. Fedo Raadmin: this isn't required by LDP-- does Fedora want to require it?
          2. A. Soroka: If a bitstream has no retrievable properties, how to supply system-managed properties like date-modifed? What about fixity or audit info?
    2. Questions on the table:
      1. Dealing with fcr:metadata:
        1. Should fcr:metadata, as an LDP-RS with a URI distinct from the
          LDP-NR, exist at all?
          1. If yes, should the contents of fcr:metadata be refactored such that all triples have only one subject?
            1. If yes, what should that subject be?
          2. 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?
          3. 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?
      2. Dealing with Fedora resources, created by a user, to describe
        NonRDFSources:
        1. 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
        2. 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?
          1. If yes, what is the mechanism by which the repository determines when a resource is describing a NonRDFSource? 
            1. Is it the presence of specific "special" properties such as iana:describes or iana:isDescribedBy? 
              1. If so, where must these specific properties be asserted (i.e. in the properties of the NonRDFSource, or by the describing object)?

  3. 4.2.1 Release manager?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. ...

Minutes

 

  • No labels

All content on the LYRASIS Wiki is licensed under the CC BY (Attribution) license, unless otherwise noted.