Changes between Version 7 and Version 8 of Archive/Nijmegen-Aug2010 Issues

Timestamp:

08/16/10 09:27:47 (14 years ago)

Author:

vronk

Comment:

--

Archive/Nijmegen-Aug2010 Issues

@@ -4 +4 @@
 
 == MDService/Browser ==
- * situation: [[wiki:MDServiceImpl#Currentstatusofimplementedfunctionality]]
+ * situation: [wiki:MDServiceImpl#Currentstatusofimplementedfunctionality]
  * next steps: [wiki:MDServiceImpl#Nextsteps]
  * towards: MetadataBrowser#RepositoryMatrix
@@ -14 +14 @@
    * show counts to Collections - ok 
    * show only used Terms (same as above - based on Repository Statistics)
- * trivial ResourceViewer[[BR]]
+ * provide trivial ResourceViewer[[BR]]
    easy to accomplish in the minimal version (iframe or new window for for audio/video-files) and nice to show;[[BR]]
    -> it should be possible to use the `ResourceRef`-handle to get to the resource
@@ -26 +26 @@
  * ?How is/should be the MDRecord (instance) to schema/profile referencing done?
      MDRecords should have the usual schema-reference in the root-element. (At least those produced by Avril)
-     But there is no guarantee.
+     But there is no guarantee. [wiki:MDServiceImpl#Openquestions some remarks on that]
 
 === Issues with eXist-implementation ===
@@ -36 +36 @@
 
 === Alternative Implementations ===
-At least Until NEERI-October we concentrate on eXist. Still we should investigate especially the Zebra package at some point.
+At least Until NEERI-October we concentrate on eXist. Still we should investigate especially the Zebra-suite at some point.
 CmdiRepository#AlternativeImplementations
 
@@ -60 +60 @@
  remove::
   at some point we may allow removing profiles/components deprecated for a long time (# years),
-  probably under the condition, that a mapping/conversion routine is available to transform the metadata instantiating the profile to be removed to a format complying to some active profile. The conversion routines may be provided by the authors or by the registry providers. This shall nevertheless stay an exception, as it actually breaks the contract.
+  probably under the condition, that a mapping/conversion routine is available to transform the metadata instantiating the deprecated profile to a format complying to some active profile. The conversion routines may be provided by the authors or by the registry providers. This shall nevertheless stay an exception, as it actually breaks the contract.
 
 == SemanticMapping / RelationRegistry ==
- * above statistics illustrate '''level1-SM''', ie CompReg-based: `elems->datcats->elems`
- * ? Who cares for other DCR (dublincore, ...)? Shall isocat proxy?
- * TODO: define mapping dc -> imdi (or whatever is inside) to be able to search in DC for demonstration
+ * above statistics illustrate '''level1-SM''', ie CompReg-based mapping between Elements and Datacategories
+ * We start mapping only datacategories (not Components)
+ * But sooner of later the issue of ''Container-Datacategories'' (mapping to Components) seems relevant
+ * ? Who cares for other DCR (dublincore, ...)? Every service on its own or shall isocat proxy?
+ * In the first step the relations will be added "manually".  
+   -> TODO: define mapping dc -> imdi (or whatever is in the Repository) to be able to use dublin-core for searching
+ 
 
 == Server security ==
@@ -71 +75 @@
 
 == Other ==
- *  we shall create a commons-package in subversion - for shared xsl-stylesheets and stuff..
+ * ! we shall create a commons-package in subversion - for shared xsl-stylesheets and stuff..