Child pages
  • URI Management Call 2016-09-20
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Connection Info:

3-4pm Eastern
+1 (641) 715 3660, access code 651025  




  • Predicate Decision Tree - feedback so far
    • Questions about intended audience
      • Use cases have originated from developers needing to identify predicates to start development work
      • Is this something intended for use for librarians? Current feedback doesn't reflect those use cases yet; Julie discussed about whether ther are similar use cases to hers in terms of mapping existing MODS data, etc.
      • Action: solicit feedback from community members to help identify additional use cases (Julie) 
      • Action: specify known motivating use case in existing predicate decision tree (i.e., for developers)  
    • Action: add note about RDF::Vocab and swap order of common ontologies and LOV
    • Range violations
      • May represent split between group doing modeling and development
      • e.g. plan to use dcterms:spatial for URI in MODS-RDF group; GeoConcerns is using a literal instead
      • Suggestion of awareness of range violations because they might impact cross-compatability of models and code 
      • Suggestion to document that some applications violate the specified ranges 
      • Action: draft up suggested language about range considerations and get feedback
    • Editing before HydraConnect to address changes?
      • Use "Suggestions" to signal that the changes are new 
  • Functional Requirements doc:
    • Recipe decision
      • Slash pattern and Mark A. Matienzo's comment: are there logical groupings for predicates?
      • Do we see the need for there to be groupings of predicates rather than a general "bucket"
    • How do we see the application? Is this a community service or an application that individual institutions run?
      • Perhaps a shared need for this to host vocabularies.
      • Don Brower: if there's an app, we'd probably want to host it locally, because we have local predicates that don't make sense out of our institutional context
      • This perhaps changes the requirements - was this what we were anticipating? 
      • It makes sense to represent this in the use cases; perhaps additional features/vocab hosting is where we change development phases and get community engineering time 
    • Recipe selection/configuration/MVP
      • No strong opinions from most of the group; slight preference for recipe #5 
      • Questions regarding implementation
    • Development phases
      • How does development start?
      • Suggested by Karen Estlund that if we had a functional requirements document, she could convene a group of developers to start work
    • Ready to post for feedback?
      • Yes, sounds like it.

  • No labels