Hello Ben
1. A ResourceAttribueFinderModule sounds like the way to go here -- how do
you envisage the policies looking to make use of this? Also it might be
worth looking at some of the FeSL code -- not sure if you are intending this
as part of FeSL or the existing Fedora XACML functionality (or
Hi Betty
That utility was introduced in Fedora 3.4, so you'll need to be running that
version to be able to use fedora-modify-control-group.
Regards
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Shrestha, Biva [mailto:shrest...@ornl.gov]
> Sent: 29 October 2010 22:43
> To: fedora-commons-users@lis
Aaron--
You don't have to convince me of the dangers. I have ugly memories of watching
Ross Wayland and Thorny Staples being chafed by the straightjacket of strong
integrity for objects/bdefs/bmechs that was baked into the 2.x series. {grin}
With time, though, I've forgotten the grim images eno
All the tests except the CommandLineUtilities test work. I have the appropriate
pathnames in the windows variable. But the instalation of fedora 3.3 didnot
gave me the fedora-modify-control-group utility whose usage is mentioned in
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FCR30/Command-Line+Utilities
Interesting bit of history, Aaron. I agree with Adam, but in light of
the reasons you list, I can see the virtues of the current design. In
which case, it may make more sense to realistically set user
expectations up front and make these principles explicit in the
documentation, then provide
> The CMA is such a core part of the repository architecture that I think a
> situation in which the repository can be said to be working but the CMA can't
> be is a bad situation to enable.
Ah, I see your perspective. "working" is a bit of a sticky point here.
In conceptualizing the CMA, here
While not really disagreeing with this take, I would point out that permitting
the successful ingestion of what is presumed by the user to be a content model
(but which lacks the crucial triple) which is then discovered not to function
as a content model could also be surprising. The CMA is such
> > (a) when ingesting content model objects, should we enforce a RELS-EXT
> > assertion to a valid content model for content model objects? or
> > (b) should we create a Resource Index triple identifying the
> > fedora-system:ContentModel-3.0 as a default for content model objects when
> > none i
If anyone could help with some/all of this question, that would be great.
Our environment is as follows: We have Apache in front of Tomcat. In
Tomcat we are running our webapp and Fedora. In a servlet filter in
front of our webapp I can get the user's Shibboleth userid and Grouper
groups.
I'm
And again, on the theme of referential integrity, the autogeneration of
the default content model assertion helps ensure that objects are
created in a valid state.
-- Scott
aj...@virginia.edu wrote:
> Since one would rather not put any unnecessary burden on people, I'm inclined
> to suggest ca
I agree with Adam -- verifying that objects are bound to valid Content
Models before attempting to run their disseminations is another useful
mechanism to maintain referential integrity among Fedora objects, not
just at ingest time, but also after updates.
-- Scott
aj...@virginia.edu wrote:
>
Since one would rather not put any unnecessary burden on people, I'm inclined
to suggest cautiously that the defaulting functionality be left in. Anyone who
is directly creating a content model (instead of using a wizard interface) will
probably be aware of the need for correct RDF and comfortab
> If a) were already implemented (particularly if we said that a hasService
> relationship means a hasModel->FedoraContentModel-3.0 relationship must also
> exist), I'm not sure c) would add any value...just code. But I haven't had
> my coffee yet...I might be missing something.
It's admittedl
Hi Steve,
> (a) when ingesting content model objects, should we enforce a RELS-EXT
> assertion to a valid content model for content model objects? or
> (b) should we create a Resource Index triple identifying the
> fedora-system:ContentModel-3.0 as a default for content model objects when
> none i
Just one thing to add re the autogeneration of a "default" content model
assertion - we do currently do this for Fedora objects that don't have a
RELS-EXT datastream or don't specify a content model in RELS-EXT. So maybe
we should also remove this functionality?
> -Original Message-
> Fro
My votes below.
Another question: does the new Enhanced Content Model functionality expect to
find or rely on this triple?
> (a) when ingesting content model objects, should we enforce a RELS-EXT
> assertion to a valid content model for content model objects? or
Yes. _Any_ Fedora object should
Interesting discussion... I too expected the CModels to be broken
without that RELS-EXT relation. Below are my votes:
On 10/28/10, Steve Bayliss wrote:
> (a) when ingesting content model objects, should we enforce a
> RELS-EXT assertion to a valid content model for content model objects?
Hello Steve and Fedora group,
Thanky you for your fast response.This sure seems like much better approach, no
so much RAM consuming.
What bothers me is the fact I don't know how to reference datastreams on file
system.
With use of API-M I know I can ingest with POST method via http like:
http:/
18 matches
Mail list logo
