Hydra Connect RDF WG 2014-10-03

Samvera Community Wiki


Hydra Connect RDF WG 2014-10-03

Date

Oct 3, 2014

Goals

  • Rights Metadata

  • Agenda going forward

  • Choose a new chair for RDF working group 

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Agenda Going forward

Tom Johnson

  • Present or Upcoming issues?

  • Converging on general shared assumptions on what our data models look like

    • Explore in the context of Fedora 4

  • Documentation and communication plans

  • Lots of interest in workshop, and already doing RDF but didn't know about changes in AF7

  • How to get from Relational DB to RDF?

  • New Coordinator: ?

  • Tasks: Ordered Lists, Rights

  • Community Outreach

  • Pre-conference at C4L?

 

New Coordinator

Tom Johnson

  • Should RDF Working Group discussion merge with Committers Call?

  • RDF standing section on Committers Call? Talk with Adam

 

Access Control

Justin

  • Hydra Rights Metadata - Copyright and Jurisdiction access

  • Fedora could have an ontology that handles the Group/User access control

  • Could be actionable at Fedora or Hydra Level

  • Majority use super user account to access Fedora, Fedora doesn't know who is making request

    • Benefit of using Fedora is that enforcement of Rights (whether from Hydra/Islandora/etc.)

  • Embargo/Lease is more complicated for automation (local decisions on access)

  • Rights metadata should be extensible. Currently hard-coded assumptions around existing predicates

  • Current: "This Object is editable by Group X"

  • Proposed: "Groups have statements about Objects, or classes of Objects"

    • 4 modes of access: read, write, append, control (being able to change ACL)

      • discover: not needed because you can apply read mode to the object, and private on the datastream

    • Web Access Control Ontology

    • Liability: Lots of Objects in repository, so lots of statements for groups

    • Advantage: Update to access control logic doesn't require touching all repository objects, just touch the WAC objects

    • May be compatible with LDP spec over time

  • Is Web Access Control Ontology compatible with needs of Hydra Rights?

    • need a way to get from User in Ruby to a URI and back

    • Specifies independent Objects with statements for: 

      • Agent (person or group)

      • Mode (edit, read)

      • accessTo (repository object)

 

Rights

 

 

Embargoes and Leases

 

  • Can Access objects know about embargoes and leases?

  • Should this support a workflow of a path for an Object with an embargo or lease?

  • Who has embargoes: majority of institutions

  • Who has leases: fewer, but can see value

  • Do we need straw-person examples of this as well?

  • worthwhile has current implementation of Hydra Access Controls (Hydra 7.2)

References:

Action items

RDF Pre-Conference at Code4Lib
Karen will setup a call, that may be part of the Hydra Committers call
Esme and David will create examples/use cases and generate RDF examples of Fedora Model with statement on the Object, and Web Access Control Ontology. Will report back during next committers calls 
Modes: read, write, append, control from WAC
Karen and Mark are going to be having discussion on Rights and can provide a recommendation back to Hydra. That will trigger further discussion on Rights Metadata in Working Group