...
- Cons:
- several of the key features for 1.6 are in their first implementation state and not fully mature
- e.g., multiple language support will only support entering content in multiple language for rdfs:labels, not for data properties or custom forms
- the web service for adding and updating RDF via SPARQL update will likely want to be extended to support queries (currently reads are accomplished through linked data requests, by changing permissions on VIVO's embedded SPARQL query page, or by a separate Fuseki SPARQL endpoint ideally running on a replicated copy of the VIVO database
Jira server DuraSpace JIRA key VIVO-101
- other features we consider strong candidates for a 2.0 release are not in 1.6 at all
- updating the Jena libraries, which will require removing dependence on the Jena RDB triple store technolog, still currently used for user accounts and other internal application data
- external concept linking to Library of Congress Subject Headings and the National Agriculture Library Thesaurus
- being able to select people from another VIVO
- addressing organization identifiers
- other post-1.6 issues
- several of the key features for 1.6 are in their first implementation state and not fully mature
- Road map consideration – the 2.0 release would serve as an excellent driver for road map discussions defining goals, features priorities, and resource requirements with 2.0 a near enough milestone that division of tasks between 2.0 and post 2.0 could be effectively addressed
...