>>> From: fedora-community@googlegroups.com <fedora-community@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Scott Prater <scott....@wisc.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 08:00
>>> To: fedora-community@googlegroups.com; Andrew Hankinson
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fedora-community+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>
> --
> Scott Prater
> Shared Development Group
> General Library System
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fedora Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fedora-community+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Hi all,
I would be cautious about developing an expectation that a Fedora repository persists content on a filesystem in a particular way, unless we are prepared to define Fedora as such,
That being said, I really like the notion of standard/specification for persisting repository resources – particularly if it will offer advice on linking between resources that are persisted on the same file system. A significant portion of a fedora 4 repository is hypertext, and it is essential not to have to possess some piece a priori knowledge in order to dereference resources that are linked from other resources. Even Fedora 3 suffered from this in its own special way. Managed Datastream IDs on FOXML were opaque, and could really only be understood by the software that created them.
In my mind another great application of OCFL is packaging resources in BagIt archives for preservation or transfer. The Fedora import/export tool adopted its own set of conventions for arranging and naming resources[1]. One needs to know the conventions in order to interpret the content exported by it, including the baseURI if the repository the resources were exported from. Likewise, there is another approach that uses an external manifest for distinguishing “domain objects” from file content, and uses a custom URI scheme for unambiguously linking between local resources in a bag [2]; but its scope is narrow. If OCFL can provide a generalized and widely-adopted solution in this space, that would be a big win.
-Aaron
From: Andrew Woods
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:08 PM
To: fedora-community
Subject: Re: [fedora-community] Proposal: Oxford Common Filesystem Layout
I'm with Aaron. Perhaps we can start by calling out some fundamental principles, such as "Objects stored by Fedora should be retrievable from the storage layer and immediately interpretable without needing to know how Fedora internally manages its data". Of course, we'll need to have some a priori knowledge -- hence an OCFL standard.
(Something like CMIS, but for import/export to/from storage layers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Management_Interoperability_Services)
-- Scott
On 10/20/2017 02:53 PM, Aaron Birkland wrote:
Hi all,
I would be cautious about developing an expectation that a Fedora repository persists content on a filesystem in a particular way, unless we are prepared to define Fedora as such,
That being said, I really like the notion of standard/specification for persisting repository resources – particularly if it will offer advice on linking between resources that are persisted on the same file system. A significant portion of a fedora 4 repository is hypertext, and it is essential not to have to possess some piece a priori knowledge in order to dereference resources that are linked from other resources. Even Fedora 3 suffered from this in its own special way. Managed Datastream IDs on FOXML were opaque, and could really only be understood by the software that created them.
In my mind another great application of OCFL is packaging resources in BagIt archives for preservation or transfer. The Fedora import/export tool adopted its own set of conventions for arranging and naming resources[1]. One needs to know the conventions in order to interpret the content exported by it, including the baseURI if the repository the resources were exported from. Likewise, there is another approach that uses an external manifest for distinguishing “domain objects” from file content, and uses a custom URI scheme for unambiguously linking between local resources in a bag [2]; but its scope is narrow. If OCFL can provide a generalized and widely-adopted solution in this space, that would be a big win.
-Aaron
[1] https://git.io/vdbew
[2] https://git.io/vdbeH
From: Andrew Woods<mailto:awoods@duraspace.org>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:08 PM
To: fedora-community<mailto:fedora-comm...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [fedora-community] Proposal: Oxford Common Filesystem Layout
Hello AndrewH and All,
Thank you for resurfacing this important topic in a concrete, constructive way.
The Fedora community has been putting significant focus on defining the Fedora API Specification [1] as a common abstraction for the services expected from a Fedora repository. Although the Fedora API Specification is the interface through which Fedora clients should interact with the repository, I agree that the Fedora community should play a more direct role in collectively defining expectations of the underlying persistence characteristics and content layout, with an eye towards preservation needs.
As a part of this conversation, however, we should be careful to draw a clear line between how we expect Fedora clients to interact with the repository contents (via the HTTP API) and what characteristics and layout we may expect from the persistence layer.
That said, I would be excited to help forward an initiative related to Fedora's preservation sensibilities, potentially under the auspices of a time-bound "Oxford Common Filesystem Layout" (OCFL) interest group.
If at least three separate institutions can respond to this thread with a +1 indication of commitment to participating in an OCFL interest group, I will send out a Doodle to coordinate the first call.
Regards,
AndrewW
[1] http://fedora.info/spec/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fedora Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fedora-community+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:fedora-community+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Scott Prater
Shared Development Group
General Library System
University of Wisconsin - Madison
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fedora Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fedora-community+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.