Page History

\[11:10\] <cwilper> Meeting now: [https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FCREPO/2010-09-28+-+Special+Topic+-+Moving+Forward+on+High+Level+Storage]
\[11:11\] <cwilper> Aaron giving an update on HLStorage status
\[11:11\] <cwilper> "Time to kick off concrete design activities"
\[11:11\] <cwilper> "Next few months = heavily design/theory oriented"
\[11:12\] <cwilper> Dan: "forward-looking roadmap but breaking into pieces"
\[11:13\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Scoping for Fedora 4.0, can be less conservative about changes"
\[11:15\] <cwilper> Aaron: "3 major threads of discussion moving forward: 1) Fedora Object model itself (what changes need to be made in order to facilitate this?&nbsp; DS Versioning?"
\[11:17\] <cwilper> "2) API itself. Have initial proposals. First from Aaron was simple, Asger introduced idea of separating into R/W interfaces.&nbsp; Have discussed return values (ticket id for reflecting on status on async storage)."
\[11:17\] <cwilper> "3) Architecture.&nbsp; Do we go with layering/chaining? Data-oriented messaging, caching, what other activities can happen in the HLStorage layer"
\[11:20\] <cwilper> "Suggest representing the HLStorage roadmap into components"
\[11:21\] <cwilper> Chris: "Could use Components in JIRA, not sure about sub-components, but we could fake them"
\[11:28\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Should we have a Component for changes to Fedora that may be necessary"
\[11:28\] <cwilper> Chris; "Important to identify when that's the case"
\[11:29\] <cwilper> Dan: "Design needs to be informed by things like, how Fedora is used as a storage resource itself"
\[11:30\] <cwilper> Chris: "Does that mean 'effect on Fedora' category makes sense"
\[11:30\] <cwilper> Dan: "Yes."
\[11:31\] <cwilper> Chris: "Effect on Fedora? as category name"
\[11:33\] <cwilper> Dan: "Suggest using Wiki for design-oriented tasks prior to getting to rigid with JIRA"
\[11:33\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Let's switch to \-How to proceeed-"
\[11:34\] <cwilper> "Use Future Special Topics mtgs for this, or Special interest groups for this"?
\[11:34\] * mdiggory wants to toss out a tangent.... [https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FCREPO/High+Level+Storage?focusedCommentId=22024650#comment-22024650]
\[11:36\] <cwilper> Thanks Mark...interesting to consider.
\[11:37\] <cwilper> Chris: "I like the idea of splitting off into interest groups for reasons Aaron mentioned"
\[11:38\] <cwilper> "(Timing and the fact that it might dominate the committer mtgs)"
\[11:39\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Communication on dev list? Concern: too much traffic"
\[11:39\] <cwilper> Chris: "Traffic=good"
\[11:41\] <cwilper> Dan: "+1 on keeping discussion on the list.&nbsp; People could filter"
\[11:41\] <cwilper> Steve: "+1 on dev list"
\[11:42\] <cwilper> Asger: "Lots of opinions on design and not a lot on how we carry out the design"
\[11:42\] <eddies> (afk)
\[11:42\] <cwilper> s/carry out the design/carry out the discussion/g
\[11:43\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Fedora Object Model is a good area to start with.&nbsp; Let's identify the sub-issues."
\[11:44\] <cwilper> "In general, make sure we have the items listed under each topic"
\[12:01\] <cwilper> (brainstorming sub-areas under "Fedora Object Model")
\[12:02\] <cwilper> So far:
\[12:02\] <cwilper> * Versioning
\[12:02\] <cwilper> * Audit Trail
\[12:02\] <cwilper> * Separating the kind of Content (XML vs non-XML) from where you store it ("Inline XML?")
\[12:03\] <cwilper> * Extensibility of Object Properties vs just using RELS-EXT/INT
\[12:04\] <cwilper> * What convenience methods, if any, should be in the new DigitalObject interface for things we normally categorize as "semantic" (e.g. the hasModel relation?)
\[12:04\] <Asger> Suggestion: Content Model Semantics
\[12:05\] <Asger> Ie. semantics that allows applications to reflect on there stuff goes in the object
\[12:13\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Reading mdiggory's post...let's step back and see the thinking and see what's applicable.&nbsp; Want to understand conclusions."
\[12:14\] <mdiggory> I wish I could be in the call, but I'm stuck on the phone now... will need to followup afterward... sorry...
\[12:16\] <cwilper> Ok, Mark, it sounds like it'd be useful to have you in on (at least) a future discussion where we talk about the DigitalObject interface.
\[12:19\] <cwilper> Aaron: "Who's interested in this particular sub-topic. (Chris, Asger, probably more)..I'm inclined to put this as an item under the Fedora Object Model thread of interest"
\[12:19\] <cwilper> (continuing with list):
\[12:20\] <sbayliss> I have to leave right now unfortunately, looking forward to discussing further on the list etc
\[12:20\] <cwilper> * Understand DSpace2 modeling decisions and how they apply to the new Fedora DigitalObject thinking (see if mdiggory can be on a call sometime soon to help us understand this a bit better)
\[12:22\] <sbayliss> (I have posted to the committers list re the up-coming release status)
\[12:25\] <cwilper> Eddie: "caught tail end of discussion re:diggory's post.&nbsp; i'm interested in whole-object versioning and required relationships in a content model"
\[12:26\] <Asger> My summary of Eddie: Regarding a set of Fedora Objects as a Fedora Record, or some sort of combined resourse
\[12:27\] <Asger> We have actually worked on that issue
\[12:28\] <Asger> In Enhanced Content Model
\[12:42\] <eddies> (must run)