---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com> Date: 5 January 2011 23:35 Subject: Re: SWORD Business Case To: Richard Jones <rich...@oneoverzero.com> Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 5 Jan 2011, at 10:25, Richard Jones wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Great - we don't like the name business case either but didn't have a good > name for it. Is it a technical "proposal"? It describes what we're going to > do, so would that make it more like a design document? That definitely sounds like a better fit! It would be useful to discuss the governance, funding and sustainability issues though - e.g. the funding timescales, decision points for choosing governance models, IP and licensing etc. Is there a separate process for this or ..? > Cheers, > > Richard > > PS - note the new list "techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org" that Stuart has set > up for the group. > > > On 05/01/11 08:59, Scott Wilson wrote: >> I'm not sure I'd call this a "business case" so much as a technical >> proposal. Is there something else which covers governance and sustainability? >> >> S >> >> On 24 Dec 2010, at 17:06, Richard Jones wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Thanks to all of you for agreeing to join the SWORDv2 Technical Advisory >>> Panel. To leap straight into the project, please find attached the SWORDv2 >>> business case document, which describes the standard as we are proposing it >>> for this project. This document has been written with extensive reference >>> to the original SWORD white paper which many of you will have read and >>> commented on, and also takes the comments we received since OR10 both >>> online and in person into account. The result is, hopefully, a coherent >>> looking standard which doesn't stretch AtomPub in any uncomfortable way, >>> while allowing us to extend SWORD into full deposit lifecycle (CRUD) >>> management. >>> >>> Of all the areas of the proposal, there is one area which stands out as >>> particularly contentious and on which I would be very interested in your >>> feedback: When more than one file has been deposited into the same item on >>> the sword server (first with create, and then with update), what does the >>> edit-media URI refer to? My proposal in the paper is that the edit-media >>> URI (referred to as EM-URI throughout) abstractly refers to all the content >>> of the item, and that exactly what you get back depends on how you content >>> negotiate for it. This means that it does not necessarily return to you >>> what it was that you deposited originally (how could it, if you have >>> deposited multiple files?). I then hope to fix the issue of allowing the >>> client to retrieve the originally deposited files/packages by providing an >>> ORE resource map which describes the structure of the item on the server, >>> and is extended to identify which files are the original deposits. >>> >>> Any thoughts that people have on this perversion of AtomPub would be >>> gratefully received. >>> >>> I am, of course, aware that it is now Xmas :) Your thoughts in the new >>> year would be most welcome. In the mean time, hope you all have a >>> fantastic break. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> PS this document is available on google docs. If you'd like me to give you >>> access to that version, please just let me know what address to use. >>> >>> >>> On 23/12/10 08:03, Stuart Lewis wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> This is just a quick email to welcome you all to the SWORDv2 Technical >>>> Advisory Panel! Membership is made up of two groups: >>>> >>>> - Core project members and contributors >>>> - Associated experts and representatives from different repository >>>> platforms, areas of expertise, or associated systems >>>> >>>> We're glad to have you all on-board, and are looking forward to working >>>> together to develop SWORDv2, which is looking like it will be an exciting >>>> step forward for the standard. >>>> >>>> For a bit more background about the v2 project and its aims, please take a >>>> look at the blog: >>>> >>>> - http://swordapp.org/2010/12/swordv2-project-plan-staff-introductions/ >>>> - http://swordapp.org/2010/12/swordv2-project-plan-workplans/ >>>> - http://swordapp.org/2010/12/swordv2-project-plan-timeline/ >>>> >>>> If it is OK with you all, I'd like to post another blog entry introducing >>>> the members of the panel (just names and affiliations, no email addresses >>>> etc). I trust that this is OK? If not, please email me in the next week >>>> or so and I won't include your name. >>>> >>>> Next steps... Richard will probably be in touch over the next week or two >>>> with a document titled 'SWORD v2: Deposit Lifecycles'. This looks at the >>>> broad issues the standard is trying to address, and some preliminary >>>> suggestions of how to fulfill these. Your input and comments about this >>>> document will be highly appreciated. >>>> >>>> Many thanks, and our best wishes for Christmas and the New Year ahead, >>>> >>>> >>>> Stuart Lewis (SWORD community manager) >>>> Richard Jones (SWORDv2 Technical Lead) >>>> Paul Walk (Project Director) >>> <SWORDv2DepositLifecycle(3).pdf> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Sword-app-techadvisorypanel mailing list Sword-app-techadvisorypanel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-techadvisorypanel
