2024.05.09 Editors Meeting

Call-in

See invite

Attendees

• Julian Morley (Stanford)
• Rosy Metz (Emory)
• Simeon Warner (Cornell)
• Andrew Woods (Harvard)
• Neil Jefferies (Oxford)

(The AI takes the notes)

Agenda

1. IPRES Workshop Logistics
   • who will be presenting?
     • Neil
     • Andrew
     • Julian
     • Rosalyn
   • what do we want to prepare?
   • Dates: Sept. 16 to 20, 2024
   • topics: this is a tutorial rather than a workshop
     • history, philosophy, objectives
     • review of the specification
     • common challenges (object models, when to version)
     • implementations
     • version 2 use cases
     • can we do something hands on? validator, fixture objects, error messages
2. OCFL In Person Editor's Meeting Logistics
   • what is our goal for the meeting?
     • triage into spec or implementation notes
     • determine what tickets are grouped together
     • are there any issues that we can address during the meeting
   • tentative dates still?
     • Sept. Thurs. 12 and Fri. 13
     • Sept. Fri. 20 and Sat. 21
3. Initial Extension
   • any updates on this?

Standing agenda items

1. Spec
   1. Open PRs
   2. Open Issues
2. Extensions
   1. Open PRs
   2. Open Issues
3. Fixtures
   1. Open PRs
   2. Open Issues

Notes

Conference Preparation and Presentation Strategies

The team discussed their plans for the workshop at IPRES. They planned to prepare extensively in advance, with some final touches to be made during the on-site meeting. The conversation turned toward covering the design philosophy behind OCFL, its history, original use cases, and the key objectives for OCFL during the presentation. They also planned to discuss OCFL version one, its implementation, and the use of the extension mechanism to expand OCFL functionality. The group discussed possibly using the OCFL Google Drive folder for presentation materials. Additionally, the team shared their past experiences with presentations and workshops, including reusing portions of previous presentations. No explicit action items or decisions were made, but a consensus seemed to be reached that work should be accomplished before the conference.

Neil explained that the presentation would cover OCFL's background, objectives, and rationale for design choices like checksums and manifest structure. It aims to help attendees understand OCFL's architecture rather than implementation details. Neil mentioned Fedora and Invenio as potential systems represented, and Rosalyn planned to confirm Fedora's attendance. They discussed the possibility of OCFL-focused sessions emerging at the event based on past experiences.

Rosalyn, Neil, and Andrew discussed the implementation and potential of the OCFL specification for data validation and preservation. Neil highlighted the efficient use of OCFL and its extension mechanism, which allows for added functionality without disrupting the system's fundamental attributes. They agreed to create a detailed outline of OCFL's philosophy, implementation, and use of the extension mechanism. They plan to involve a tutorial or hands-on session to illustrate the concepts further. Neil and Andrew also discussed the potential benefits of having other tools to validate and preserve OCFL, with Neil agreeing to discuss this possibility with James.

Data Transfer Methods and New Management System

Andrew asked for a recap of the Community meeting. Neil and Rosalyn discussed the previous community meeting's demo, and the two methods for transferring data between applications: rebuilding file structures and using snapshots. Joe's approach, which employed a Docker container and required transfering a tar file, was noted to be more time-consuming because of network connectivity issues. The group also discussed the potential of using rsync instead, which Neil suggested offered advantages in simplicity and efficiency. Andrew proposed this demo as an addition to their presentation.

V2 Project Scope and Use Cases

Andrew had questions about whether or not we had determined the scope of V2 for OCFL. Neil and Rosalyn discussed the scope of the upcoming V2 project, referring Andrew to the use case repository that already exists. They also revisited the list of use cases, deciding to focus on fewer, more in-depth analysis of each. The team discussed the potential for combining certain use cases and addressing them as a single entity. The intention is to finalize a plan for V2, outlining the set of additions to the specification.

Addressing Use Cases and Implementing Mechanisms

Neil proposed a mechanism to address various use cases including loss, corruption, and version pruning, by introducing a consistent method for handling the absence of specific files. Rosalyn and Andrew discussed the tagging of certain tasks as 'out of scope', specifically those related to issue 45, which Neil clarified was included as it could be addressed with other methods. The discussion also touched on the potential for object forking and collapsed versions, with Neil suggesting these could be supported with the proposed mechanism.

Project Discussion and Logistical Planning

The team discussed a proposed project, which Neil indicated might be beneficial but was not essential. The focus then shifted to logistical issues related to the workshop, including event scheduling and task management. Andrew, Rosalyn, Julian, and Neil agreed to being open to having the OCFL Meeting over the weekend, and Julian intended to manage his commitments around the IPRES conference and OCFL workshop. The team agreed to be flexible with scheduling and to prioritize the workshop and V 2 meeting within the week of the IPRES conference, pending further program details.

Action Items

-[ ] Neil to update or create a new PR for the Initial Extension