| | | |
|---|
| Agenda Going forward | Tom Johnson | Present or Upcoming issues? Converging on general shared assumptions on what our data models look like 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 | |
| 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 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) 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?
|
| 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)
|