Difference between revisions of "Talk:ESciDoc Content Model Object"

From MPDLMediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 24: Line 24:
**Container handler is convenient even though it is apparently clear Items are very similar to containers
**Container handler is convenient even though it is apparently clear Items are very similar to containers
*independent from the implementation
*independent from the implementation
**CModels should not contain implementation specific details
**why?
***E.g. CLARIN
**can contain link to e.g. WSDL, REST interface (as contracts for type-specific operations)
**Shall we go for WSDL, other description?
**resource behaves as a service (with contracts for it's own specific operations)
*interoperable
*interoperable
**related to Implementation non-specific
**MRA: CMX
*inheritance from CModels
*inheritance from CModels
*CModels define the behavior of Services (search, Relations, technical metadata-extraction)
*CModels define the behavior of Services (search, Relations, technical metadata-extraction)

Revision as of 14:29, 24 November 2008

Agenda discussion 24.11.2008[edit]

Brainstorming[edit]

  • Validation
  • Classification of objects (typization)
    • agreed by all
  • CModel should be defined in XML (XSD, Schematron, RDF, RelaxNG, proprietary)
    • agreed by all
  • (Formal) structure of objects "festlegen"
    • agreed by all
  • CModels to their digital objects are what classes are to instances
    • discussion, MRa point: to stick as much as possible to Fedora CMA and the new developments coming out from Fedora
    • questioning why eSciDoc is "hiding" Fedora (besides more complex security model, support for aggregations and object graphs)
    • example: OAI-PMH had to be re-worked (eSciDoc have more requirements on set definition and specific version of objects, not last versions, but released versions)
  • CModels describe the semantic of instances (textual, context information, content category, metadata profile etc.)
    • semantic defined as meaning of objects of certain CModel
    • semantic is described with a certain formal structure
    • semantic is described by syntax such as XSD, Schematron, RDF etc.
  • Define type-specific methods
    • all agreed there can be type-specific methods even though not always clear where/how
    • discussion on Resource (Object manager) handler
    • at end agreed that type-specific methods are not necessarily equal to Fedora disseminators (can be defined by users of the CModel i.e. for purpose of certain solution)
    • Container handler is convenient even though it is apparently clear Items are very similar to containers
  • independent from the implementation
    • CModels should not contain implementation specific details
    • why?
      • E.g. CLARIN
    • can contain link to e.g. WSDL, REST interface (as contracts for type-specific operations)
    • Shall we go for WSDL, other description?
    • resource behaves as a service (with contracts for it's own specific operations)
  • interoperable
    • related to Implementation non-specific
    • MRA: CMX
  • inheritance from CModels
  • CModels define the behavior of Services (search, Relations, technical metadata-extraction)
  • metadata profiles
  • allowed relations
  • life-cycle (status-transitions, initial status)
  • CModel is versioned
  • Templates
  • File formats