2017-02-23—FileSets WG Meeting

Owned by Bill Branan
Jun 16, 2017

Date and Time

February 23, 2017, 2pm EDT

Connection Information

Google Hangouts:  https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/artic.edu/pcdm-filesets

Moderator: scossu

Notetaker: Julie Allinson

Attendees

Agenda

  1. Notetaker?
  2. Review last week's action items (see below)
    1. Validation code
    2. AF Base refactoring
    3. Wireframes
    4. Engagement/LDCX
  3. Discuss public facing name for FileSets
    1. Should convey difference between Files and FileSets
    2. Should be easy to understand and memorize by non-technical users
  4. Further discussion on QA needed? (see takeaways from the previous meeting)
  5. Next steps

Minutes

Validation

Jen and Andrew worked up the sketch into working code:
https://github.com/projecthydra/hydra-works/tree/pcdmuse_validator (see 3 commits, biggest one 17th Feb)
DECISION: keep this in HydraWorks until there's a compelling reason to move it to ActiveFedora

Discussion around where this validator code should be, HW or AF:

composite validator code at HydraWorks level leans us towards HW
standard ActiveModel validations could be used at AF level (Adam in favour of this), ie. validating the rdf:type of an ActiveFedora resource against a controlled vocabulary (doesn't *have* to be PCDM:use, that can be left as an implementation choice)

Discussion of config file for validation:

AGREED: config file at app level; leave it to implementer to replace with qa if they want to

QUESTION: config file has three uses(required, preferred and 'validate that it's in this list'), is that OK?

rdf:type

type is where the pcdm:use properties go

type is a bug, sortov, as you can't change the rdf:type once it's created which raises question of whether type is the right place for this info

ability to apply webac using type is a compelling reason for this to be an rdf:type (allow public access to 'display', admin only to 'preservation' etc.), plus it is describing a 'class' of thing

ideally we want to get to a point where we can change rdf:types, perhaps with some immutable types (hasModel?)
this would be a change in AF

file to file relationships

the other part is the ability to relate files to file (with iana:describes)
the problem here is that it will involve a lot of refactoring in AF, changing association behaviour

Adam - could we have a special kind of association? file_association?
would need to get reflections to work and index them in solr

Wireframes - discussion deferred to next meeting 

Previous Action Items

  • Jennifer Lindner contact Andrew Myers next week about some coding on the validator.
  • scossu Draft generic wireframe for UX, what the view, create and edit pages should look like and provide
  • Andrew Myers (question) isolate belongs_to behavior and apply it AF File, rather than AF Base. (Scalpel please.)
  • Andrew Myers scossu propose this for good area for dev time for the LDCX conference coming up

Action Items

  •  Andrew Myers squash commits and make PR; ask for community feedback
  • Andrew Myers post file to file associations question to the tech list
  • Adam Wead summarise the rdf:type issue to the tech list; what problems would the solution cause; tech call next week