This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.
Conference Call Meeting Notes
Meeting of CI, BSP and WS leads on Content Interoperability Standards for Bamboo Phase One
4:00-5:00 pm Central, December 9, 2010.
Bamboo conference call participants:
Jonathan Smith (NU)
Bob Taylor (NU)
Tim Cole (UIUC)
Steve Masover (UCB)
Bruce Barton (UW-Madison)
1. Content Interoperability Standards
* There was discussion whether during Bamboo Phase One the Bamboo Services team and CI developers should support multiple content/interoperability standards [for access to content] or, instead, just one. There seemed to be general consensus among the participants on the call that we should hew to one remediation/interoperability standard for exposing content.
* The role of standards
(SMITH) It is important to be clear about how the standards might be used for interoperability. The idea is to create multiple connectors that map whatever we may find in the wild to a standard transport and content formats. Tools would be developed to consume the standard format. The goal is to avoid a many-to-many situation where we end up having to develop connectors for each combination of repositories and consumers.
* New vs established standards for content interchange
(SMITH) The down-side of CMIS is that it is so new, tools and systems that can consume it are not yet common. I am not sure there is a simple answer to this. I would rather expose content via standards-based web services (which CMIS specifies), than target simple but non-standard services (JCR). In the long time, if well designed, the more standardized approach should win out.
* Degrees of standardization
(SMITH) We discussed the problem of standard containers (like CMIS, JCR etc) and the problem of mapping formats and categories. There is really important work to be done in attacking the problem of semantic standardization and can be done nicely for certain constrained content types such as dates and times, geographic location, etc. In many cases these problems are very challenging.
On the other hand content is stored in a great many places using different containers, so there is still work to be done in just providing access.
2. Closer Look at Specific Methodologies and Standards for Bamboo Phase One
* Discussion of the Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) standard. Using CMIS for Bamboo seems do-able during the next few years. But are CMIS implementations defined well enough during 2011 to support our Bamboo efforts?
* SWORD (Simple Web-services Offering Repository Deposit) and SWORD 2 tools have significant momentum in the UK with JISC support. Tim suggested that SWORD 2 offers valuable ability to get something done in the short time period of Phase One.
* CMIS looks like a good long-term solution. But CMIS would probably take much more effort to implement into Bamboo Phase One than would SWORD 2 and/or JCR. And it might not be as stable a solution during Phase One as would be the case with JCR or SWSORD 2.
* A simple format for tools to consume (such as Atom Pub)
(SMITH) There is a strong argument for this approach. We would support interoperability by providing both a full-featured container format that supports access to all of the detailed properties of content objects (without translating standard vocabularies and content formats), and at the same time provide a light-weight, more controlled format that could be used to provide enough information to be consumed by tools such as news readers, image browsers, navigation, etc.
(SMITH) Two variations on this theme:
- JCR-Connect uses a simple object model accessed via REST-ful services that provides JCR, JSON, and JPA representations. There is an advantage to an object-oriented approach: you can add new features and detail by subclassing. The JCR-Connect default content model, while simple, is pretty sophisticated in that it can support such things as image annotation and timeline annotation.
- On the other hand there are a lot of existing tools that can consume Atom, RSS2, and HTML, epub, etc. If you target some of those you can use a huge number of existing tools. It sounds as if SWORD is taking this approach.
* Discussion of the JCR Content Model and how that fits with Bamboo architecture plans, Bamboo plans for use of Java.
3. Current NU Work with JCR (this Mellon grant work on interoperability just completed)
* Current NU work with Repository JCR connectors. (1) Fedora. (2) XTF .
XTF work opens door for use of California Digital Library collections in Bamboo Phase One.
* Curent NU work with Client connectors.
* Most NU work with JCR has been with image content. Will this work apply easily to Bamboo Phase One text content?
* CMIS speaks HTTP services rather than Java.
* One might think of the Northwestern JCR work as using JCR as a bus.
4. General Discussion
* Transition from making content accessible è to problems of making content semantically operable (harder)
* It might make sense, and might be most economical in terms of limited development time in Bamboo Phase One, to use JCR connectors for Phase One Bamboo. Then, wait until there are some clear advantages to implementing CMIS for Bamboo. What would be the migration costs in the future, of a migration from JCR to CMIS???
* (MASOVER) We will declare victory if we solve a few cases of (repository and applications) content interoperability for Phase One.
* Hydra/hydrangea is ruby rails/flat// way to get Fedora repository interoperability.
5. Next Steps, particularly in preparation for the January 26-28 meetings in Berkeley
* The conference call group decided we will conduct one (maybe two) "deep dive" conference calls in January, leading up to the F2F meetings in Berkeley. Each of these conference calls in January will include wider invitations (than the December 9 conference call) for other Bamboo Partners to join the conversation. Taylor will post Doodle polls on the project wiki on December 22 for determining best days/times in January for these upcoming conference calls conducted by CI, but including BSP and WS teams.
* If these two calls are as successful as we hope in forming consensus, we (NU,UIUC, WI, UCB) will bring a set of recommended development plans to the F2F Berkeley meetings for work on content interoperability services during Q2, Q3 and Q4 of the Project. Work in Berkeley would include syncing and aligning these proposed work plans with other Bamboo work groups. And make sure we are realistically aligned with the top collections candidates that are identified at the F2F meetings.