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

Notetaker?
Review last week's action items (see below)
1. Validation code
2. AF Base refactoring
3. Wireframes
4. Engagement/LDCX
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
Further discussion on QA needed? (see takeaways from the previous meeting)
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 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

Browser not supported