Thank you, Sibyl! I have taken your comments and added them as GitHub issues so we can track them. I'm happy to continue the conversation on the list, though.
1. Versioning in Need section:
2. Minimal OCFL Object typo: Already fixed in the current draft (See:
3. Bagit as OCFL: Discussion started here:
> On 6 Nov 2018, at 18:54, Schaefer, Sibyl <
ssch...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi OCFL Editorial Group-
>
> This is really excellent work! Thank you all for taking the initiative and pulling this spec together. It is sorely needed and I would be surprised if it didn't become just as critical a tool as BagIt is.
>
> I have a few comments:
> • Need: I was surprised that versioning wasn't mentioned in the Need statement, given that it is one of the key aspects of the spec and of its predecessor, Moab. It also is perhaps one of the most distinguishing differences from BagIt. I think this ends up underselling the spec a bit since having a standard way of structuring version directories is a key reason to adopt it.
> • 5.1 Minimal OCFL Object: It seems the json inventory in the Minimal OCFL Object (section 5.1) may have a typo. If I'm understanding the structure correctly, the data under v2 should be folded under the data in v1, since there is no v2.
> • 5.3 BagIt as an OCFL Object: When resolving bags from OCFL objects, it appears that the inventory.json files are not included in the resulting bag. The inventory has potentially useful version information in it and it seems like you'd want that as a tag file in some form.
>
> Thanks again for your work on this.
>
>
> Sibyl
>
>
>