Attendees

• A. Soroka
• Eric James
• Andrew Woods 
• Benjamin Armintor
• Stefano Cossu
• Peter Gorman
• Nigel Banks
• Nick Ruest
• Mike Stroming
• David Wilcox
• Ed Fugikawa
• Michael Durbin
• Martin Dow

General

• Time: 4 PM Eastern

• Indicates who took minutes - 

• ReadyTalk call-in details:
  • 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

Agenda

1. Description of context and problem space
2. Discussion of use cases
   1. inherited from Fedora 3
   2. new for Fedora 4
3. Discussion of proposal
   1. Does it meet the requirements?
   2. Is there an impact on the use of CND?
   3. ...
   4. Next steps? 

Minutes

Context setting

Fedora has history of content modeling (CM).
Currently leveraging inherited type system offered by ModeShape.

• It has some limitations in the F4 context
  Art Inst. of Chicago then brought specific needs to the table
• Artic began pushing on Compact Node Definition (CND) capabilities and short-comings
  This is has raised the question of whether CND meets the needs
• What are the gaps?
• What can we do to fill the gaps

Use cases

What use cases have not yet been recorded?
Q: Is F4 CM at the level of F3 ECM
a: In many ways F4 is more expressive

• Note, much of the underlying JCR type system is not being exposed

Q: What is most important to you about CM?

• Eric: Proposal, represent CM in RDF, not via CND
• Ben: Concern that proposal may be too broad in reach
  • Ideally, the additional functionality be optional
  • Current CND is more than adequate
• Stefano: CND covers 90% of needs
  • Drawn to starting point of restrictive types, and opening with mixins
  • Is it possible to layer a fedora abstraction over CND?
  • Priority is placed on restriction, current F4 is permissive
• Peter: Invested in mixin content models
  • Less concerned about restriction
  • Interest in being able to tag objects with content models or properties
• Nigel: F3 use of CM is nominal
  • Drawn to the idea of new characteristics based on mixins
  • Notionally interested in validation of object structure
• Nick: same as Nigel
• Mike Stroming: needs internal CM discussions
• Martin: Interested in repository user roles
  • Interested in runtime flexibility, and optional validation
  • W3C languages offer powerful expression
• Ed: Resonates with Nigel/Nick/Ben/Martin
• Mike Durbin: Likes ability to enforce relationship rules
  • Validation can happen in the repo or in the upper-level application

Summary: People are interested in an easy-to-use, nominal type system.
Restriction and validation is less of a priority to most.

Nigel would like to ensure that if a content model includes a specific datastream, that that datastream exists with the correct mimetype.

Stefano: suggestion to associate access policies to CMs

Martin: suggestion for process moving forward: timeboxing requirement gathering, roles, proposal, etc

CM in F4 meets most of the community need
There is another conversation to be had regarding extension points for validation

Actions