Date
Join Zoom Meeting
https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/111536636
Meeting ID: 111 536 636
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,111536636# US (San Jose)
+16465588656,,111536636# US (New York)
Attendees -
- Sibyl Schaefer
- David Trujillo
Regrets
Team members:
- Tom Wrobel
- Jessica Hilt
- tamsin johnson
- Michael Ritter
- David Minor
- Longshou Situ
- Tim Marconi
- Rosalyn Metz
- Bill Branan
- Andrew Diamond
- Andrew Woods
- Erin Glass
- Collin Brittle
- Brendan Quinn
Goals
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 min | Housekeeping and updates |
| |
| 45 min | UI review | David Trujillo | |
| 8 min | Status of deliverables | ||
| 5 min | Responding to community comments | Still outstanding: Will one of the specification writers respond to the comments left on the Preservation Flow page? From in person meeting: 1) Expectation is that deltas are sent, not the entire object. Send everything the first time, deltas later. Full manifest sent from Gateway- Bridge should know if it already has particular files or not? Send OCFL manifest? 2) Audits are not triggered on request. Audits may cost the DDP money (if stored in Glacier, etc). Audit frequencies are part of the SLA between the institution and DDP. 3) Relationship between objects and file group IDs is intentionally abstract because the repository and gateway know about object, whereas the Bridge and Gateway do not. Filegroup IDs represent a grouping of files ingested into DDP. Abstraction is injected so that we have a well documented way of taking files on disk and mapping them back to objects in repository. Filegroup is a serialized object. To the DDP it is a grouping of objects. Yes, we should document this better. Don’t necessarily want to use the word “work” to limit the spec to Hyrax.
|
