Progress update:
Aaron worked on a putting together draft design docs. He produced a few documents describing the work done so far. Identified a few areas where concrete decisions have not been made.
Aaron pointed to the documents, suggested people to take a look at the document and make comments on them over the next couple weeks so that discussion around these topics could start. This will be a topic for discussion in the next call (6/23).
The documents attempt to distinguish the differences between extensions and services: Extensions describe the services’s relation to repository objects and indicate how services are exposed. Services are the motion of web resources.
Elliot agrees with the distinctions made
Document on Extension Definition and Binding:
Preliminary feedback on the usage of OWL reasoning was being sought:
The document proposes using reasoning (OWL2) to infer a resource is a member of a particular class that can be acted on by an extension
This document deserve the most scrutiny.
Ruth has positive experience using semantic reasoning.
Andrew: there are downside to OWL reasoning, such as processing complexity. Asked if Aaron was aware of the pitfalls of OWL reasoning.
Aaron: a number of pitfalls are mentioned in the doc. But it could be mitigated based on observation from the SWAP project: defining the scope of reasoning to limited
The document proposes that for determining the set of extensions bound to a single object, reasoning limited to extension definition resource, candidate repository resource, and closure of owl:imports.
Ruth: 2.6 m records data set, 1 new object/5mins, raises performance issues with the volume of data.
TODO: Ruth will produce a use case for dataset with vast amount of data. (I didn’t quite capture where this usecase would be put: google doc?)
Process for Documents review
(Andrew) Documents appears to be of high quality. He feels that not much disagreement will arise against what’s being proposed in the documents. The documents captures the essence of what’s been going on for a quite a while. Suggested that instead of asking for volunteer to review, we should put out a public call for document review with a published ratified-by date, to give people a chance and a deadline to review and contribute to the ratification of design docs.
@ the July 7th meeting the design documents will be ratified. Call for design review and contribution could be sent out now, while noting that design docs are in draft stage.
Some implementation could take place concurrently.
Elliot, Ruth, Katherine intent to review the docs
TODO: Aaron to comment on the GitHub issues to link them to particular sections of the design documents.
Google docs are good home for the design docs initially until a firmer vision for the design is achieved, at which time the design will be put in to markdown pages in the repository.
Comments on a design doc that are of a debate/opinion nature should be added as comments on the doc
Decision on exemplar extensions to implement
WIll hold off on picking extensions to implement until after design is ratified (July 7), noting that other institutions has their own plan to implement extensions that are relevant to them.
Information API-X gathering at OR
OR is next week, github #18, interest in holding an informal API-X gathering at the conference: lunch time tuesday + follow up that evening. TODO: Aaron will announce this gathering to invite whoever interested. Aaron will capture Notes from OR gathering, specially if there are any significant developements.
Wiki gardening:
Josh has done some wiki gardening, pointed to landing page
TODO: Add links to design docs to the wiki pages.