Child pages
  • Meeting Minutes 2018-06-15
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees:

Agenda:

  1. Roll call
  2. Call for additional agenda items
  3. Review previous action items
    1. 2018-06-01 Meeting
    2. Huzzah we completed all of them!
  4. Groups requirement
    1. Discussed that group is a bunch of users, and a group is analogue to a user
  5. Clarify IP Authenticated User Use case
    1. We need to revisit and clarify this use case
    2. These are assigning IP ranges to groups (e.g. because you are in the On Campus group you can see this)
    3. IP Ranges have similarities to users, or may be an overlay of an authenticated user
  6. Adding an Owner user as a use case?
    1. How does this differ from acting on your own item?
    2. Is there a conflation of Depositor and Proxy?
    3. You are a collection owner and delegated deposit to a student, the student leaves and were the owners of the object. Does that make sense?
    4. What does "owner" of an object mean in relation to our emerging use cases?
    5. Do we need an "owner" concept and use case? Are these subsumed in the varying permission methods?
  7. Bulk actions - how do these fit?
    1. Maria Whitaker - Under the works section in the Permission Matrix, there is Batch Edit. Is this Bulk edit? Yes (LaRita Robinson)
    2. Discussion about limiting bulk actions
      1. Not everyone may have a bulk edit action, even though they might have permission to update more than one item
      2. Bulk actions we see are Update Permissions, Update Metadata, Export Metadata
  8. Design questions from Slack channel (attn Anna Headley)
    1. Discussed preliminary design objectives
      1. This is not just for Hyrax
      2. Desire to define a well-formed plugin interface
      3. How is this different from CanCan?
      4. Expunge the concept of using is_admin? or is_superadmin?
  9. Discussion concerning permission to view different formats (attn Anna Headley)
    1. Just because I can see the HTML representation does not mean I can see the RDF Turtle representation, nor the IIIF
    2. There is an implication in this requirement that we are really looking at attribute level permissions and not necessarily format permissioning
  10. Establish next steps and action items

Action Items:

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Thanks for discussing my points!

    Re: separate permissions for the manifest, we had a use case here where an item may have been ingested but the images not yet gone through QA. At that time, anyone in the system could see the item show page but could not see not the iiif viewer (i.e. could not read the manifest) until QA was complete.

    1. I should probably mention we don't have this use case anymore. we still have the code infrastructure that would support it but the use case is no longer.