Minutes from call 2016-06-15 – next meeting on June 28
-
Discussion
-
!!! Next meeting: June 28, 15:00 CEST / 09:00 EDT !!!
Minutes from call 2016-06-15:
Attending: Thomas, Frederik, Bridget, Javier, Maggie, Ulrich, Tobias
Most of the call was used discussion the new definitions Tobias sent
over the list and the corresponding diagram uploaded to the workspace.
On the diagrams/definitions:
* Frederik suggests we could think of the combination of
+collection_state as the PID Record , allowing us to
think about a collection record as a pid record in the PIT API terms
o Tom: disagrees – a collection record can’t be itself a PID
record because it has no content (but again, disagreement on
whether collection contents, in form of a list e.g., are or
aren’t content)
* Frederik: started using the term capabilities as a property of a
service, not the collection
o Bridget: A collection needs to advertise its capabilities to the
service that offers the collection API
o so that the API correctly communicates the actions possible on
the collection to potential clients
* Tom: diagram should better refer to definitions in the wiki – put
collection as such on top of diagram, reference PID record
o several versions of diagram may be useful to illustrate the
various perspectives to look at the concepts
o also to add own definition of e.g. PID record opposed to what’s
in DFT wiki
o Tom: made a quick new diagram – demonstrates that the
combination of a PID record and collection state as the
Collection object
+ not all agree on this point .. Bridget think it’s too soon
to say whether/how a Collection is represented as a PID Record
+ Tobias: diagram still inconsistent – PID record in this new
diagram as distinct element, but will contain parts of the
bottom elements in actual implementations
+ Frederik will produce an alternate diagram as well, to
demonstrate his perspective
o Bridget suggests that Tobias’ diagram and definitions give us a
good abstract starting point for modeling a collection, in the
context of the Collections API, and that a good next step would
be to see if we can apply this model to existing collection
implementations, such as the LDP (Fedora 4) and others
* Possible next step: look at the proposed collection implementations,
match them against the definitions/diagram and see how good the
match is and how the API would work
On capabilities discussion:
* Frederik: distinguish technical from descriptive metadata
o What part should be part of the API / the datatypes the API returns?
o there are 2 types of capabilities — capabilities of the service
itself (e.g. does it provide PID minting or not) and
capabilities of the collection in the context of the service
(collections API)
+ Bridget thinks Tobias’ diagram accurate captures
representation of the latter
o technical metadata indicates the actions that are possible on
collections
+ describes to an engineer how to describe to a client way to
interact
o descriptive metadata describes to the domain expert using the
collections what its usefulness is
* The collection service may also have descriptive metadata (who is
providing it etc.)
o the service itself may also have a PID record…
* Javier: Suggestion to include at least a small use case description
as attachment to the diagram that illustrates how this may look like
in practice; also, things like the distinction between technical and
descriptive metadata
o Tobias: agreed – hard to understand otherwise for an outsider
not involved in all of these discussions and looking at it from
a pragmatic viewpoint; use cases to illustrate our finer points
o Probably have more than one example – there are some nuances and
disagreement about the implementation
Actions for July meeting:
* Bridget will contact Dimitris and confirm that we’d like him to
present his use case at the July 26 meeting.
* Bridget will also update the wiki page with a permanent link to the
goto meeting info
* All: Upload variations of definitions/diagram to be discussed again
* Tobias: Continue putting things in the document that seem consistent
and agreed at this point
—
Tobias Weigel
Abteilung Datenmanagement
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH (DKRZ)
Bundesstraße 45 a • 20146 Hamburg • Germany
Phone: +49 40 460094-104
Email: ***@***.***
URL: http://www.dkrz.de
ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4040-0215
Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Thomas Ludwig
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 39784
Log in to reply.