Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


  1. Review of recently closed issues:
    • 4 process questions:

      • #123 Process for maintaining the Fedora ontology

      • #124 Process for proposing new extension specifications

      • #125 Process for amending the Fedora API specification

      • #127 What are the criteria for distinguishing between optional/core and optional/external

      • Simeon Warner proposes that we leave these 4 process questions closed and work within the current editorial remit
    • #209 Fix typo in JSON-LD context -> have created #216 to replace

    • #119 Clarification of InboundReferences -> Esmé Cowles had replied, issue to continue with or recreate?
    • #205 constrainedBy clarification -> no description
  2. Revisit strictness of requirements for external content, recursive deletion, client-specified ACLs, etc.
  3. Authorization issues
    1. issue-165: Removing support for acl:accessToClass?
      1. Wait on response to
      2. CLAW only uses ACLs for very basic partitioning of drupal instances
    2. issue-166: Requiring WebIDs?
      1. PR: — needs review from Andrew, Ben, Danny, Simeon
    3. issue-168: Cross-domain Authorization?
      1. PR: — needs review from Andrew, Ben, Simeon
    4. issue-170: Require acl:Append and acl:Control
      1. PR: — needs review from Andrew, Ben
    5. issue-172: Clarify algorithm for finding authorizations
      1. Still pending clarification from Solid
    6. issue-176: ACL creation and linking -- be explicitly silent or specify?
      1. PR: — needs review from Andrew, Ben, Danny
  4. Versioning issues:
    1. — clarifying creation of versions with PUT
    2. Other versioning questions from API Alignment sprint: Versioning /- Authorization Design
  5. External content issues:
    1. Clarify "expires" parameter
    2. Clarify response when copying remote content
  6. Notifications section:
    1. Esmé and Danny to review and create issues
  7. Fixity section:
    1. Simeon to review and create issues
    2. Simeon Warner's review: I do not see anything wrong with the fixity section. In its current form, support for fixity in any form is entirely optional, it simply points of out parts of the underlying HTTP Digest specification that might be relevant to systems that implement either transmission and/or persistence checks. If this is something that any part of the community relies upon then I think there will need to be an additional specification with a number of MUSTs, or it will end up being de-facto defined by a particular implementation.
    3. Note related issue just created: – although we can't use the suggested RFC SHOULD in the non-normative section, this seems like a sensible addition