That wonderful to hear. It reminds me that although it's usually assumed
(at least among the committers) that there is very little uptake of the CMA
dynamic disseminations, that's mostly on anecdotal evidence. It seems to me
likely that there is a correspondence between the size (and resources) of a
site and its use of dynamic disseminations, as well as one between the age
(and experience) of a site and its use of same. But that may be only
another wrong assumption.
---
A. Soroka
Software & Systems Engineering / Online Library Environment
the University of Virginia Library
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Egbert Gramsbergen <
e.f.gramsber...@tudelft.nl> wrote:
> Just one comment on "Fedora's dynamic disseminations haven't got a lot
> of uptake":
>
> In our repository for datasets http://data.3tu.nl pretty much everything
> is done by dynamic disseminations:
> the html pages representing the objects, OAI-ORE, metadata formats for
> OAI-PMH, SOLR-xml, kml for Google maps, etc. We have 10 content models, 7
> service definitions and 13 service deployments. The Saxon xslt service is
> our workhorse.
>
> Egbert Gramsbergen
> ------------------------------------------
> E.F. Gramsbergen
> TU Delft Library/innivation
> e.f.gramsber...@tudelft.nl
> ------------------------------
> *Van:* Chris Wilper [cwil...@duraspace.org]
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 23 februari 2012 18:43
> *Aan:* fcrepo-dev
> *Onderwerp:* [fcrepo-dev] Thinking about Fedora 4, Web, and SemWeb
> Architecture
>
> Hi all,
>
> The committers had a special topic meeting today covering Fedora's
> relationship to web and semantic web architecture, inspired by some
> discussion about Fedora support for Memento, but leading to much bigger
> issues than that. I know there are folks who've been in the Fedora
> community for a while who have thought about some of these bigger
> architectural questions and would be interested, so I'm posting the notes
> below and officially inviting anyone who's interested to participate here.
>
> What are some old assumptions that should be challenged, and how do we
> see ourselves fitting in with the web, semantic web, and linked data world
> in the future? This level of discussion is particularly important for us as
> we look toward 4.0. Today's meeting was only intended as a kick-off
> discussion -- hopefully we can continue it right here on mailing list in
> the coming weeks.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> [Topic areas]
>
> 1. What are the major similarities/differences between Fedora and Web
> Architecture? The object/resource model. Identifiers, Formats, And
> Protocols.
> 2. Where does Fedora's architecture intersect with or diverge from Semweb
> architecture?
> 3. Should Memento support be added directly to Fedora's REST API, or
> considered as a higher-level service (extension) on top of it?
>
> [Notes from Feb 23rd 2012 committer call]
>
> Chris: Start with how Fedora fits/doesn't fit into web architecture. Dan
> has called Fedora a "Resource Store" vs a "Content Store". How does this
> concept of resource differ from web arch's concept?
>
> Adam: CMA and dissemination architecture. A key distinction is that
> Fedora's dynamic representations are highly specified, and the
> specifications themselves are resources.
>
> Chris: So is Fedora just filling in details, or does it actually go in a
> different direction from web arch?
>
> Adam: Fedora's object model is different. It's disseminations also look an
> awful lot like member functions in OOP.
>
> Steve: It's also about fundamental responsibilities. Fedora's about
> curation and dissemination. Fedora makes a distinction about identifying
> the representation as a thing to be preserved!
>
> Dan: I believe Adam said "An archive needs to care how a representation is
> created."
>
> Adam: Sounds good, I'll take credit.
>
> Dan: Hourglass design: push complexity to the edge and have simple stuff
> (verbs, object models) in the "waist".
>
> Adam: Fedora's dynamic disseminations haven't got a lot of uptake.
>
> Chris: Complexity, approachability.
>
> Dan: Maturity.
>
> Adam: History…things have changed with Fedora. More emphasis now on the
> graph of objects and relationships. Change ok.
>
> Dan: Also CMA. And people haven't experimented with alternate ideas for
> content modeling as much as we'd hoped.
>
> Adam: ECM has. Others haven't in part because it's too hard.
>
> Chris: What about the REST api? Where do we fight the web architecture &
> REST?
>
> Adam: Orchestration tools/APIs tend to be RPC-based, not resource-based.
> Usually you talk about operations with SOAP. A REST API doesn't fit as well
> there.
>
> Dan: Gigantic strength in seeing Fedora as middleware and not as a
> repository. Having different interfaces is important.
>
> Chris: REST doesn't define Fedora, nor does SOAP. Still feel both are
> important. Advantages of REST API over SOAP? Big one in my mind: ease of
> integration with existing languages/tools. Success with SOAP tool interop
> has historically been mixed, though it's getting better.
>
> Adam: (agree on SOAP tool interop)
>
> Frank: Also if you adhere to REST, you get some things for free. Caching
> on top of Fedora via Apache. Can't do with SOAP API.
>
> Dan/Chris: Method-for-method equivalence of REST api and SOAP is not
> necessary. But overall capabilities should be comparable.
>
> Dan: Fitting Fedora into a grand eventing architecture?
>
> Chris: Steve has suggested that more generic, resource-oriented events
> would be good to publish from Fedora. Advantage is integration with more
> generic (non-Fedora-specific) tools. Today we have Fedora-specific
> event-based messages coming out. Need for both approaches?
>
> Steve/Others: Yes. Seems both have their place.
>
> Adam: On any given interface to Fedora, it seems like we want to consider
> a Fedora-event-oriented exposure and a more generic resource-oriented
> exposure.
>
> Chris: Now, where do things seem weird with semweb architecture and Fedora?
>
> Frank: Having ids for all Fedora entities makes sense. Referencing via URI.
>
> Chris: Use of the info: scheme seems to be one place we fight some
> accepted semweb guidelines (linked data says http-only). The info-uri
> effort has been discontinued, but thankfully, it wasn't designed with
> resolution in mind so Fedora info: URIs will continue to be useful.
>
> Adam: A fundamental difference: In Fedora, the only place where I can make
> an RDF assertion is inside the object that the assertion is persisted.
>
> Chris: I'd qualify that – you can make whatever RDF assertions you want
> about Fedora object, but if you want them indexed by today's Fedora RI we
> have certain restrictions on that.
>
> Adam: Steve presentation at OR: Pattern we've seen with Fedora is that
> public ids have been exposed through some other system, not Fedora. Fedora
> has internal ids.
>
> Steve: Was a "what if": Fedora as the curator of the public ids? Valid to
> have an internal representation and a different public exposure of that
> model, and a transformation between those things.
>
> Adam: Community seems to prefer not to use info: uri as public identifier.
>
> Dan: Nuanced conversation. Asking to potentially build some new core
> ideas. Web arch. allows for private resolver systems. Was thinking of ideas
> that came out of SOA community, notion of Fedora ecosystem providing a
> private resolver system. A system for being an authority source for
> identifiers.
>
> Dan: If we provided technology or specifications for the IFAPs
> (Interfaces, Formats, And Protocols) for federating Fedora, we can
> facilitate communities who are actually putting federations together.
>
> Steve: Fedora has a role as registry repository.
>
> Dan: Can act as resolver system, but can be made better.
>
> Adam/Chris: Should Fedora's REST api endpoints be considered Durable or
> Linked Data Friendly?
>
> Dan/Chris/Adam: We should be very clear about that.
>
> Dan: Also Fedora needs to re-address notion of versioning and migration.
> Fundamental pattern of a bolt-on in Fedora to handle migration. Might not
> be all of memento.
>
> Chris: If REST API is not intended to provide durable ids for things,
> memento doesn't belong there.
>
> Dan: We often leave out the Federation of repos.
>
> Steve: Believe it's very important that Fedora have an internal id.
>
> Chris: Using URIs for internal ids works well today because we have
> standards (rdf) to relate them.
>
> Frank: What about UUIDs? Easy to generate.
>
> Chris: Also URI-compatible. It's convenient in any case for Fedora to
> continue allowing people to mint ids outside the repository.
>
> Adam: Anti-pattern we see a lot of: putting semantics in ids. But human
> nature.
>
> Steve: From a long term preservation perspective, you'd want to isolate
> yourself from current trends, standards.
>
> Chris: Riding waves is good, but we're not defined by them.
>
> --
>
> Notes from
> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FCREPO/2012-02-23+-+Special+Topic+-+Fedora%2C+Web%2C+and+SemWeb+Architecture
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-commons-developers mailing list
> Fedora-commons-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-developers mailing list
Fedora-commons-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
