►
From YouTube: 2018-12-18 : DSpace 7 Entities Working Group Meeting
A
Okay,
we're
now
recording
welcome
all,
as
I
noted
in
in
slack
it'll
be
our
last
meeting,
of
course,
of
2018
and
we'll
talk
about
when
we
want
to
do
our
first
meeting
of
2019
near
the
end
of
this
agenda
here.
But
let's
see
to
get
us
started
here
that
I
did
want
to
do
a
quick
sort
of
review
of
where
we
sit
and
what
our
deadlines
are.
A
So
that's
still
the
goals
we're
looking
for
here,
obviously
to
get
to
a
a
preview
release
in
late
January
early
February.
We
really
need
to
get
things
merged
in
and
ready
to
go
at
least
two
weeks
in
advance,
so
the
D
space
7
team.
Last
we
talked
on
Thursday
of
last
week.
We've
talked
about
that
our
our
tentative
deadline,
if
we
wanted
to
get
say
a
preview
release
out
at
the
very
end
of
January
on
January
31st,
then
we'd
be
talking
about
getting
everything
merged
and
ready
to
go
by
January
17th.
A
Basically,
that's
kind
of
like
our
first
first
goal
we
would
have
to
hit
is
trying
to
have
everything
ready
to
go
by
January
17th.
So
we
have
two
weeks
to
kind
of
prep
stuff
up,
get
the
release
ready
to
go
and
and
get
everything
announced
and
all
that.
So
that
would
be
the
same
for
this
entities
effort
and
by
getting
things
ready
to
go
for
entities
that
means
we'd
have
to
have
stuff
ready
to
go
on
master,
not
just
on
our
configurable
entities.
A
A
Okay,
not
hearing
anything
in
that
case,
let's
go
ahead
and
jump
into
the
second
topic
on
the
agenda
and
let
me
go
ahead
and
share
my
screen
just
because
it'll
probably
be
easier
to
to
go
through
these
together.
Just
a
moment
here,
let's
see
lost
my
big
window
there
we
are
okay.
My
screen
should
be
coming
up
here
shortly,.
A
And
let
me
go
ahead
and
bump
up
the
font
here.
Just
a
little
bit
move
this
out
of
the
way.
Okay,
so
I've
listed
here
all
of
the
pour
requests
that
were
open
as
of
yesterday
I,
don't
know
if
there's
been
any
new
ones
out
of.
If
there
are,
we
can
bring
them
up
at
the
end.
So
here's
what
we
kind
of
sit
in
terms
of
things
that
are
open
and
it's
doing
that
review
process.
We
still,
of
course,
have
the
angular
user
interface
pull
request.
A
B
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
the
angular
PR
and
then
I
have
a
total
of
five
pull
requests
on
the
rest
side.
So
I
think
the
best
usage
of
our
time
here
might
be
to
just
sort
of
dive
into
each
of
these
briefly
and
get
a
quick
status
update
and
see
if
there's
any,
that
are
ready
to
merge
or
if
we
can
identify
individuals
who
can
kind
of
help
bring
these
forward
and
get
them
ready
to
merge
as
quickly
as
possible.
A
Okay:
let's
go
ahead
and
open
up
there,
just
open
it
up
a
new
tab
here,
okay,
so
we
have
our
angular
pull
request,
which
I
know
I
had
done
a
code
review
of
a
while
back
and
all
of
the
issues
that
I
had
had
noted
have
already
been
resolved
along
the
way
here,
other
than
one
about
just
kind
of
minor
refactoring,
but
that's
something
we
can
take
on
later
on.
I
know
that
last
week
we
had
talked
about
this
and
Paulo
I
know
you've
added
a
little
bit
of
comments
into
here.
A
A
C
Hello,
hey
Paula,
hey
I,
think
admire
and
even
been
art.
They
did
an
amazing
job
doing
this
work
so
far,
I
just
had
some
minor
comments
here
to
this
code.
I
think
we,
it
would
be
a
benefit
if
we
packed
the
the
items
or
entities
in
the
same
tree
structure,
but
beside
that
I
think
we
should
have
set
this
pull
request
you
we
have
other
things
to
tell
that
to
to
this
work
already
done.
C
C
A
That
okay,
yeah
I,
can
understand
that.
That
might
be
something
that
art
might
have
more
comments
on.
I
know
he's
not
here
today,
but
but
that's
something
we
could
bring
up
in
the
D
space
7
meeting
our
next
ones
tomorrow.
Actually,
if
he's,
if,
unless
Bennett
leaving,
you
want
to
pass
that
along
to
see.
If
our
does
any
comments
on
the
structure
here,
yeah.
B
D
A
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
skip
down
to
the
rest,
API
pull
request.
If
that's
all
right
leave
it
I
know
there
was
another
angular
pull
request
that
you
said
was
opened
up.
However,
it's
since
its
brand
new
I,
don't
think
anybody's
had
a
chance
to
review
that
and
I'd
like
to
get
an
update
on
the
ones
that
others
have
reviewed
first.
So
we
can
loop
back
to
that.
A
Okay,
so
these
are
the
these
are
the
order
approximately
that
they's
were
opened
up
in.
So
let's
look
at
the
CSV
import
on
the
rest
side
of
things
and
I
know
that
this
is
one
that
both
Paulo
and
I
can't
seem
to
grab
my
scroll
bar
here.
There
we
go
both
Paulo
and
I,
had
done
some
reviews
on
and
then
has
been
taking
in
each
of
the
changes
into
account
and
kind
of
adding
in
some
additional
enhancements
and
fixes.
A
So,
as
a
the
very
last
status
I
know,
we
were
having
Travis
build
issues
on
this
for
a
while.
That's
been
cleaned
up,
as
of
yesterday.
I
gave
this
another
quick
review
yesterday
and
added
a
couple
quick
notes
into
here.
The
main
one
that
I
think
is
outstanding,
which
I
agree
with
Ben
on
is
that
I
noted
that
the
new
integration
test
does
a
lot
of
messing
around
with
objects
itself,
so
it
kind
of
creates
objects
itself
and
destroys
them.
A
It
self
cleans
everything
up
itself,
whereas
if
we
used
a
tool
that
we
built
for
all
the
other
integration
tests,
the
abstract
builder
tool-
this
can
all
be
automated.
So
we
can
actually
remove
a
ton
of
the
code
out
of
this
integration
test
and
Ben
and
noted
here
that
we
could
do
this
as
a
follow
up,
PR
and
I.
Think
that's
perfectly
reasonable.
A
I
just
noticed
that
the
integration
test
is
much
larger
than
it
really
needs
to
be,
but
I
guess
is
there
any
other
comments
or
questions
on
this
I'm,
the
only
one
that
gave
it
a
thumbs
up
so
far,
I'm,
not
sure
if
there's
anything
outstanding
from
Paulo
or
or
or
Alexander.
Anyone
else
that
we
need
to
be
concerned
about
with
the
CSV
import,
I.
C
A
C
A
Metadata
so
that
can
be
resolved
so
I
think
both
of
your
two
comments-
yeah
I
forgot
to
resolve
these
yesterday.
Both
of
them
have
been
cleaned
up
here,
Paolo,
but
if
you
wanted
to
give
it
a
last
look,
you
are
more
than
welcome
to
do
so.
I
just
like
to
get
this
reviewed
again
quickly,
so
that
we
can
kind
of
move
this
forward
and
merge
it
if
it's
ready
to
go
okay.
A
A
A
Thank
you,
Paolo,
see,
I,
think
this
is
a
to
go
as
far
as
the
the
integration
test
goes.
I
can
create
a
JIRA
ticket
to
track
this,
because
I
think
it's
important
to
clean
up
just
because
it's
it's
going
to
get
messy
and
might
step
on
other
integration
tests
the
way
it's
currently
implemented,
but
but
for
now
it's
it's
fine
enough
to
merge
and
we
can
create
a
follow-up
PR.
A
A
A
Somewhere
down
here,
in
any
case
this,
this
has
been.
This
includes
the
same
code
as
that
first
PR.
So
it's
important
to
get
that
first
PR
merged
first,
because
some
of
the
same
changes
are
in
here,
but
it's
been
updated
recently
to
kind
of
clean
up.
Let's
clean
up
the
issues
that
were
noted
by
Alexander
and
and
Paulo
around
the
interface
of
the
virtual
bean
and
whether
or
not
it
can
have
multiple
values
so
I
know,
there's
been
some
er
factoring
here
recently.
That
Ben
has
noted
in
terms
of
the
updates.
A
So
I
did
review
this
as
of
yesterday
and
I
added
some
more
comments
which
were
all
fixed
immediately
and
I,
just
reviewed
it
again
35
minutes
ago,
and
all
of
my
comments
were
just
related
to
Java
Docs
that
were
missing,
but
I
would
appreciate
someone
else
giving
this
a
look,
especially
since
Paulo
and
Alexander.
Both
you
had
commented
on
the
initial
implementation,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
don't
have
any
concerns
about
how
it's
been
refactored.
A
You
Thank
You
Alexander,
so
I
think
this
is
about
ready
to
go
as
well.
I
think
it's
just
a
matter
of
getting
that
that
final
review
from
from
from
you
Alexander
and
then
we
can
go
ahead
and
get
this
merged.
It's
just
important.
We
do
we
merged
to
two
six,
nine,
the
CSV
one
first
and
then
this
one's
second
just
because
they
include
some
of
the
same
commits
here.
A
A
A
Could
you
go
ahead
and
just
give
a
thumbs
up
approval
I
would
appreciate
just
being,
let's
be
honest
and
and/or
document
these
within
the
pull
requests
themselves.
So
you
can
go
in
and
do
the
review
changes
here
and
do
a
proof.
You
don't
even
have
to
add
a
comment.
But
if
you
do
review
pages
approve,
then
that
gives
me
the
note
that
it's
good
to
go
and
that
way
I
will
go
ahead
and
and
merge
it
right
away,
but
I
definitely
appreciate
doing
the
reviews
on
the
pull
request.
A
A
Okay,
okay,
so
that's
go
ahead.
Did
you
everything
else
to
say
Paulo?
No,
no,
okay,
okay!
So
that's
the
first
three,
so
I
think
those
are.
Those
are
looking
good.
The
fourth
one
here
was
one
that
I
I
tried
to
review
and
got
quite
confused.
I
will
admit
it.
So
this
was
our
replacing
the
term
entity
throughout
the
codebase
which
I
know
I
had
I
talked
about
trying
to
replace
it
with
item
or
item
relationship
and
as
I
started
to
review.
This
I
got
very
confused
by
the
terminology.
A
I
will
admit
because
we
were,
there
were
plurals
in
some
areas
where
it's
item
relationships,
type
and
item
relationships,
util
and
then
singulars
and
other
areas,
item
relationship,
type
service,
item,
relationship,
type,
do
a
dao,
and
so
that's
kind
of,
like
the
terminology
got
really
wonky.
And/Or.
Weird,
I
guess
is
the
better
word
for
it
and
I
had
difficulty
understanding
the
code
with
the
new
terminology.
So
I'm
just
wondering
I
guess
I
was
rethinking
in
my
mind
how
we
can
rename
these
appropriately
without
coming
up
with
these
very
odd,
singular,
x'
and
plurals.
A
That
don't
make
much
sense,
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
a
chance
to
look
at
this,
but
I'm
just
gonna
note
that
it
gets
very
some
of
the
objects
and
the
the
terminology
here
gets
very
weird.
So
we
end
up
with
things
like
a
pram
called
relation
item
relationships
util,
which
does
not
make
much
sense.
It
used
to
be
just
a
relation
entity,
but
we
noted
that
the
entity
object
is
not
a
real
object.
A
A
So
I
don't
know
if
this
is
something
we
can
resolve
today,
but
but
I
would
encourage
others
to
take
a
look
at
this
and
see
if
there's
a
way,
we
can
rename
these
classes
to
make
more
sense
and
also
either
standardize
on
all
singular
all
plural
so
that
we
don't
have
relationships
in
some
area
and
relationship
in
other
areas.
I.
E
Think
Jenny
everything
to
be
singular
instead
of
having
singular
and
plural
mixed,
would
be
a
simple
thing
to
do,
but
coming
up
with
names
without
using
concept
and
the
TM.
This
is
indeed
sometimes
hard
and
I
can
see
some
examples
in
here
that
that's
what
we
can
use
a
simpler
name,
especially
in
the
word
relationship,
occurs
twice
in
the
parameter
that
shouldn't
happen,
something
with
Bachelor
placing
names,
but
it
is
complicated
to
find
good
names
for
some
some
of
the
classes
and
some
of
the
problems.
A
So
yeah
I
don't
know
that
I
have
a
resolution
to
this
either
I
think
it's
just
something
that
I'll
think
more
on
in
the
coming
days
here
and
see
if
I
can
come
up
with
anything
and
I
encourage
others
to
also
take
a
look
at
this,
and
it
does
look
like
that.
Maybe
some
of
this
was
batch
for
place
where
some
of
these
variables
get
really
odd
names
and
and
there's
some
other
oddities
throughout
the
code
as
I
was
reviewing
it.
That
just
seems
a
little
odd.
B
B
Everybody
keeps
using
entities
outside
of
this
context.
I
mean
I'm
afraid
that
that
dead
word
is
already
a
bit
too
established
actually
and
I
won.
You
were
saying
this
I
was
actually
thinking
like.
Maybe
you
know,
we
have
already
lost
the
opportunity
of
finding
a
different
name,
because
everybody
keeps
referring
to
that
outside
of
this
meaning.
A
Yes,
I
had
and
I
still
think
that
the
name
entity
here
is
very
misleading,
because
entity
is
not
an
object
that
that's
something
that
market
pointed
out
in
a
past
meeting.
We
try
and
use
it
as
an
actual
D
space
object,
but
it's
not
the
way.
It's
implemented,
it's
more
of
a
wrapper
around
an
item
in
its
relationship,
which
is
probably
why
the
name
item
relationship
came
about
throughout
this.
A
B
A
I
totally
get
that
yeah
that
that's
I
don't
think
this
is
a
high
priority
change
in
the
code
base.
I'm
not
worried
about
getting
this
in
ASAP
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
the
Tut
the
this
in
this
meeting,
so
that
we
all
had
a
chance
to
look
at
this
and
see
the
fact
that
these
these
names
are
very
the
name.
A
A
A
So
yeah
folks
have
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
this
and
just
get
us
just
even
add
into
this
PR.
What
other
possible
ways
of
wordiness
seem
reasonable
to
you,
then
I
can
kind
of
do
the
same
on
my
end
and
we
can
bring
this
back
at
a
future
meeting
and
come
to
a
final
decision.
So
there's
no
rush
on
moving
this
pull
request
forward.
I
mean
we
can
leave
it,
as
is
until
we
come
up
with
a
decision
on
how
to
move
it
forward.
A
A
A
That'd
be
very
useful
if
it's,
if
it's
a,
if
it's
at
all
useful,
we
could
even
create
an
entity's
branch
on
the
rest
contract
project.
Just
like
we've
done
with
both
the
angular
project
and
the
main
D
space
D
space
project,
we
can
create
a
configurable
entity's
branch
there
and
start
adding
brest
contract
directly
into
there.
If
that's
the
easiest
place
to
add
it,
I
just
like
to
get
us
started
with
it
soon,
rather
than
doing
it
all
at
the
last
minute.
A
A
A
So
it
seems,
like
we've
got
a
pretty
good
plan,
then,
for
everything
listed
here,
the
angular
UI
PR
as
long
as
our
well
everybody
every
everyone,
except
for
number,
four,
in
terms
of
that's
more
of
a
brainstorming
thing
which
we'll
set
aside
for
now
until
we
can
come
up
with
a
better
term,
but
the
other
ones
are
all
all
seem
to
have
a
plan
forward,
and
hopefully
we
can
get
most,
if
not
all,
of
these
merged.
This
week,
since
several
are
already
to
merge
and
several
are
almost
ready
to
merge,
I.
B
Did
talk
with
art
briefly,
while
you
were
going
over
the
other
pull
requests
and
he
commented
that
that
seemed
comment
from
Paulo
had
also
been
made
by
you
Tim
paste
niche,
that's
the
link,
you
can
go
to
it
directly
and
arts
feedback
on
that
was
that
he
sticks
with
what
he
said
there.
He
said
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
it's
a
bunch
of
moving
and
renaming
files,
so
I
prefer
to
do
so
in
a
follow
up
or
request.
That's
though,
the
last
point
I
was.
A
Right,
yeah,
okay,
that's
for
me,
yeah
I,
forgot
I
had
added
that
in
there.
So
it
is
it's
yeah.
It's
pretty
similar
to
what
you
had.
You
had
noted
Paulo,
essentially
angular's
this
concept
of
modules,
where
you
can
package
up
related
components
into
a
module,
and
so
if
we
had
a
module
per
item
type
or
entity,
then
you
can
kind
of
just
drop
those
modules
in
and
it
also
groups
together,
they're
related
components.
So
yeah.
That
is
the
same
concept.
I
forgot
about
that
completely
yeah.
C
A
A
B
It's
a
little
more
than
just
this
page,
it's
also
on
the
simple
item
page
for
the
articles
themselves.
So
this
adds
for
metadata
to
the
articles
related
to
the
article
okay
and
then
builds
this
search
component
with
a
predefined
filter.
That
says
everything
with
if
you
click
on
the
first
one,
for
example,
you'll
see
the
first
one
being
what
my
first.
A
B
Okay
and
then
go
into
the
so
you
see
on
the
simple
item
page
here
that
now
journal
title
and
journal
Isis,
then,
which
is
metadata
from
a
third-level
relation
great
shown
here.
And
if
you
go
to
the
full
item
page,
you
can
see
the
at
the
bottom,
the
relationship
that
has
been
added
in
the
virtual
metadata.
The
relation
is
Journal
of
publication,
the
second
to
last.
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
And
I
do
want
to
double
check
if
this
is
since
it
does
have
123
commits
I
think
this
is
including
the
entirety
of
all
of
the
initial
pull
requests.
The
initial
entities,
one
yeah,
so
it's
probably
the
just
the
last
few
commits
this
is
five
thousand
five
hundred
eighty
two
lines
by
2007
62.
So
it's
probably
just
the
last
few
commits
here
that
are
different
and
that
neat
review
the.
B
A
Okay,
I'll
update
that
then,
okay,
so
we'll
go
ahead.
I'll
get
this
reviewed
as
well
this
week
and
we'll
see
if
we
can
move
this
forward
shortly
after
merging
our
main
entities,
PR,
which
will
be
ready
to
go
shortly,
fantastic,
any
other
updates
on
any
other
pull
requests
that
I'm.
That
I
missed
I.
Think
that's
it,
but
is
there
anything
else
we
need
to
review
in
terms
of
work?
That's
ready
to
go
already.
B
Not
at
the
moment
we
did
have
something
else
that
we
were
working
on,
but
we're
we,
let's
say,
stumbled
upon
a
discussion
point,
but
we
haven't
discussed
it
internally
either.
So
we
also
want
to
wrap
our
heads
around
it
a
little
bit
more.
We
had
some
preliminary
discussion
earlier
today,
but
we
we
haven't
gotten
to
an
agreement
on
our
site
yet
because
normally
I
don't
know.
B
If
you
remember
from
our
last
meeting
the
display
of
relations
section
in
the
Google
Doc
that
we
had
uh-huh,
where
the
way
that
relations
are
displayed
on
an
item
page
can
be
configured
to
be
dependent
on
how
many
relations
there
are
for
an
item.
So
let's
say,
if
you
have
more
than
ten,
you
would
serve
a
search
component.
If
you
have
between
zero
and
five,
it
would
just
be
a
comma-separated
list
if
you
had
between
five
and
10.
So
it's
a
so,
but
there
we
were
discussing
like
you
know.
B
That
means
that
it
could
happen
that
you
have
three
search
components
in
one
page
and
on
a
usability
level.
I
mean
it
works,
but
on
a
usability
level,
that's
probably
not
the
best
thing
to
do
and
yeah.
We
were
having
discussions
about
how
to
deal
with
that
and
we
did
do
a
comparison
with
defaced
Chris.
How
dare
dealing
with
it
but
yeah
we
don't
I
mean
we
could
go
into
that
discussion.
This
meeting
and
the
what's
coming
next
I,
don't
know
if
you'll
have
time
for
that.
B
A
It
sounds
like
a
bigger
discussion,
possibly
but
yeah,
if
you
yeah,
if
there's
anything
any
way,
we
can
help
dig
into
this
between
this
meeting
in
our
next
meeting
or
we
can
bring
it
to
the
next
meeting.
One
of
those
two
it
seems
like,
but
I
guess
at
this
point,
the
based
on
our
current
timelines
I'd
recommend
us
trying
to
keep
it
relatively
simple
for
the
preview
release.
There's
always
the
opportunity
to
enhance
things
after
the
preview
release,
but
I
don't
want
us
to
overthink
and
over
engineer
any
of
this
in
the
preview.
A
B
That
was
also
what
I
said
earlier
today
is
that
you
prefer
to
have
like
the
code
would
be
good,
but
we
could
comment
and
say,
look
from
usability
standpoint,
we'll
still
review
and
improve
this
right
yeah,
but
we'll
have
that
pretty
next
meeting
I
will
discuss
it
at
that
time.
Okay,
different
options:
okay,.
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
along
into
these
we're
kind
of
already
getting
into
these.
These
last
two
somewhat
go
together
in
terms
of
that
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
can
kind
of
keep
things
moving
along
here
over
the
coming
weeks,
since
I
know,
folks
will
be
heading
off
to
holiday
and
I
specifically,
will
be
out
starting
later
this
week,
so
I
only
have
today
and
tomorrow
that
I'm
in
the
office
I
will
do
as
many
reviews
as
I
can
in
that
time.
A
But
if
I
don't
get
something
done
today
or
tomorrow,
it's
not
going
to
happen
until
January
third,
because
I'm
going
to
be
completely
out
going
kind
of
offline
as
best
I
can
during
that
time
period,
but
I
guess
the
the
thing
I
wanted
to
ask.
This
group
is
just
kind
of
what
are
our
next
plans
in
terms
of
what
what
do
we
need
to?
A
What
do
we
see
coming
next,
I
think
we've
already
kind
of
assigned
some
reviews
and
re
reviews
in
terms
of
the
upcoming
pull
requests,
but
it'd,
be
kind
of
kind
of
would
be
good
to
kind
of
talk
through
the
coming
weeks.
What
everybody's
schedule
is
and
how
we
can
just
kind
of
keep
things
moving
along
as
well
as
I'd
really
like
to
hear,
especially
from
at
Meijer
and
everybody
else
as
well,
how
we
feel
about
the
preview
release
schedule.
There
is
an
opportunity
tomorrow.
A
The
steering
group
meeting
meets
one
last
time
for
2018.
So
if
we
feel
concern
in
any
way
with
the
preview
release
schedule,
we
can
talk
with
them
about
it.
If
we
still
feel
like
everything's
on
schedule,
we're
good
to
go,
and
we
feel
that
January
17th
sort
of
soft
deadline
for
getting
everything
ready
by
that
date
is
still
good.
A
B
So
it
may
be
I'll
start
from
our
side.
So
from
our
side
we
do
have
some
important
project
deadlines
in
January,
but
that
shouldn't
be
a
huge
problem.
What
do
we
think
that
still
really
would
need
to
be
done
before
we
can
incorporate
this
properly
into
the
preview
release?
Is
the
thing
I
mentioned
two
minutes
ago:
the
display
of
relations
like
being
able
to
properly
define
what
should
be
shown
as
a
search
component,
what,
as
a
page
of
a
list,
what
as
a
comma-separated
list,
etc
and
mixing
those
in
one
item
page.
B
So
that's
one
thing
and
the
second
one
is
also
related
to
how
entities,
sorry,
how
item
types
are
shown
and
that
is
mixing
plain
text,
metadata
values
with
entities
in
one
metadata
field.
For
example,
if
you
have
an
author
authors
list,
so
a
number
of
authors
for
a
publication
where
two
are
plain
text
metadata
and
two
are
entities
to
have
them
display
properly.
B
So
that
you
know
they're
all,
for
example,
in
a
comma-separated
list,
but
that
the
two
ones
that
are
entities
are
clickable
and
link
you
through
to
the
to
their
person
page
or
profile
page.
However,
you
want
to
call
it,
so
those
are
two
things
that
are
that
we
think
that
definitely
need
to
be
added
for
the
preview
release
for
both
of
them.
There
is
a
first
version
of
the
rest
api
ready,
but
Ben
hasn't
gotten
around
to
review
it
yet,
but
that
should
be
able
that
should
be
doable.
B
B
B
Yet
it's
the
only
way
you
can
do
it
is
through
the
CSV,
which
is
probably
okay
for
the
preview
release
and
I'm,
quite
certain
that
it's
not
feasible
anymore,
to
create
a
UI
component
to
be
able
to
either
add
relationships
at
or
delete
or
edit
relationships
in
either
the
admin
added
item
or
in
the
submission.
So
but
that's
I
think
the
main
missing
piece
at
this
moment,
but
we
could
table
that
for
the
beta
and
just
have
that
be
part
of
the
marketing
and
say
look
for
enough
for
now.
B
You
can
only
use
CSV
import
to
create
these
relationships,
but
a
facility
will
be
added
to
those
two
places
to
a
submission
on
the
admin
edit
item
I.
Don't
think
it's
worth
postponing
the
preview
release
for
especially
since
we
don't
have
I
mean
we
have
a
timeline
for
the
submission,
but
since
it's
been
postponed
quite
a
few
times,
I
would
err
on
the
side
of
caution
right.
B
B
A
B
A
C
B
A
So
right
now,
we've
been
working
on
code
in
a
separate
branch,
a
shared
branch
but
a
separate
branch,
and
in
order
for
it
to
get
into
the
preview
release,
it
needs
to
be
in
the
same
branch
that
do
you.
Space
7
team
is
working
on
so
at
the
point
that
this
all
goes
to
the
master
branches.
That
is
the
point
that
these
two
working
groups
probably
should
merge
or
be
in
very
close
communication.
A
It's
possible.
We
still
might
want
to
keep
them
somewhat
separate
if
we
just
have
way
too
much
to
discuss
in
a
single
meeting
just
to
allow
us
to
have
concentration,
concentrate
a
discussion
on
entities
specifically,
but
the
two
groups
members
would
be
much
more
overlapping
at
that
point.
If
that
makes.
B
Sense,
yeah,
because
at
that
moment,
when
you
know
we're
going
into
the
submission,
that's
also
the
work
that
for
science
had
been
working
on,
so
it
would
be
good
to
have
them
in
the
discussion
as
well.
I,
don't
know
if
they're
not
participating
in
the
entities
working
group
by
choice
or
by
the
fact
that
they
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
that.
I'm.
A
But,
okay,
so
back
to
topics
here,
I
want
to
mention
a
couple
things
real,
quick,
so
I
think
these
three
things
that
you
listed
need
to
go
the
D
space,
7
spreadsheet,
just
to
keep
us
honest,
and
we
can
work
from
that
spreadsheet
I
can
create
a
separate
section
specific
to
entities
right
now.
I
think
entities
is
all
just
one
line.
A
We
can
start
to
break
that
out
a
little
bit
more
because
that'll
be
more
useful
both
to
us,
as
well
as
to
the
D
space
7
team,
as
we
get
these
groups
working
closer
together.
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
note
here
is
that,
in
terms
of
the
three
things
you
mentioned,
the
display
of
relations,
the
mixing
of
plain
text
and
entities,
as
well
as
the
managing
relationships
and
the
UI.
A
For
me,
the
highest
priority
for
preview
should
be
the
mixing
of
plain
text
and
entities
just
because
I
think
without
that
things
are
just
gonna,
look
really
weird.
The
display
of
relations
I,
don't
see
as
I
see
it
as
being
a
usability
issue,
but
it's
not
super
high
priority
and
I
think
we
could
get
away
with
just
always
displaying
it
as
a
page
of
a
list
or
something
like
that,
and
not
really
worry
too
much,
and
the
managing
relationships
in
the
UI
we
already
mentioned
is
too
dependent
on
other
things.
B
My
opinion
glad
to
hear
that,
because
that
corresponds
completely
with
what
we
had
here.
So
that
was
our
number
one.
Priority
was
the
mixing
text,
values
with
entities
or
sorryi'm
types,
and
the
second
one
was
second
one
was
actually
relations.
Add
edit
delete
permissions
so
that
at
least
that's
ready
to
be
able
to
build
a
submission
or
admin
at
its
feature.
So
yeah.
A
That
makes
sense,
and
once
I
get
this
section
added
to
this,
the
spreadsheet
I
would
encourage
you,
leaving
if
you
wanted
to
go
in
and
enhance
it
with.
What
you
know
is
coming
that
would
be
useful
or
pass
pass.
Your
list
to
me
and
I
can
add
it
in
there
either
way,
but
I'll
work
on
that
before
I
head
out
to
the
holidays.
Ok,.
A
E
B
E
A
C
A
C
E
A
Okay,
so
so
I
think
the
last
thing
that
I
think
we're
pretty
good.
We
know
what's
coming
next,
we
talked
about
we're
going
to
get
that
move
this
into
the
spreadsheet
a
little
bit
more
and
I'll
I'll
start
doing
that
this
week
as
well,
and
do
we
still
feel
pretty
good
about
the
preview
release
schedule
I,
provided
that
everything
else
stays
on
track?
C
A
Yes,
yeah
I
agree
that
there
are
some
discussion
points
there
that
we've
specifically
tabled
for
after
the
preview
release,
so
yeah
I
agree.
We
would
get
back
to
those
right
after
the
preview
release
is
complete.
I,
don't
know
if
we'll
be
ready
to
get
back
into
them
in
the
next
meeting,
but
we
can
jump.
C
A
And
that's
actually
the
next
topic
that
I
had
here
as
well.
In
terms
of
when
we
want
to
meet
next,
we
could
do
either
January,
8th
or
I
think
currently
we're
on
the
schedule
for
January
15th,
just
because
I
set
it
up
every
two
weeks
and
that's
four
weeks
out,
but
we
could
move
it
forward
a
week
to
January
eighth
and
do
every
two
weeks
starting
January
8th.
It's
kind
of
up
to
all
your
schedules.
B
A
A
B
Have
input
for
the
marketing
group
I
think
that's
something
we
should
discuss
tomorrow
as
well
Tim.
What
if
they
ask
you
for
an
update
on
these
space,
7
and
then
T's
and
such
we
should
I
mean
for
the
preview
release.
It's
not
only
important
that
we
have
the
code
ready
and
in
a
good
stage,
but
also
that
the
marketing
group
is
ready
with
all
of
their
communications.
To
properly
put
the
word
out.
A
Yes,
yeah
I'm,
assuming
that
will
be
the
case
as
well.
The
marketing
group
to
my
understanding
has
not
really
been
re-established
yet,
so
this
might
be
more
of
a
discussion
that
we
need
to
bring
to
the
steering
group
tomorrow
to
get
a
sense
of
what
their
current
status
is
and
when
they
are
meeting
to
discuss
marketing
of
the
preview
release,
because,
yes,
I,
would
assume
that
either
you
or
myself
or
whomever
from
this
group
should
kind
of
liaison
with
that
marketing
group
and
help
them
get
the
terminology
and
wording
right
around
the
entities
features
and.
B
I
mean
we
have
quite
a
bit
of
good
documentation,
I
think
into
google
dogs,
but
it's
probably
too
technical
to
be
able
to
filter
out.
What
are
the
key
points
that
we
wants
them
to
highlight,
and
things
like
that,
so
we
I
would
say,
bring
it
up
tomorrow
in
the
steering
meeting
and
then
in
the
first
meeting,
January
8th.
A
B
A
He
was
helping
push
that
along
a
little
bit
more
yes,
so
it's
possible
that
it's
currently
sitting
in
an
unknown
state
and
we
need
to
push
on
that
and
get
steering
to
help
us
move
that
and
establish
it.
But
but
I
agree.
We
can
bring
that
up
in
the
steering
meeting
tomorrow
and
then
add
it
to
our
agenda
for
January,
but.
B
Yeah
I
mean
in
any
case
it
will
have
to
have
have
to
happen
that
we
need
to
provide
some.
You
know
summary,
maybe
a
few
like
templates,
slides
or
things
like
that.
That
explains
what
we
did
and
give
some
links
and
examples
to
the
prototype,
and
things
like
that
that
can
then
later
on
be
replaced
by
a
live
or
by
it
by
a
Juris
space
based
demo.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a.
A
Plan
I,
don't
know
if
we'll
be
able
to
achieve
a
derby
space
demo
by
preview
release
I,
think
that
would
be
a
plan
for
say
once
we
get
to
beta,
because
that's
around
the
time
beta
would
be
when,
when
I
did
anticipate,
we'd
have
more
of
an
actual
sort
of
test.
Athan
like
a
community
test
Athan
and
those
community
tests,
a
Thon's
tend
to
be
on
our
our
own.
The
Duras
based
sort
of
hosted
demo
server,
so
I
think
that's
more
of
a
beta
activity.
I
think
the
preview
activity,
it's
still
okay.
B
A
Yep
yeah,
so
so,
in
any
case,
the
action
here
I
think
is
we
bring
this
to
the
steering
meeting
get
a
sense
of
when
the
marketing
group
is
is
meeting
it's
possible.
We
could
just
have
several
of
us
join
one
of
the
marketing
group
meetings
in
January
to
talk
specifically
about
entities
with
them
rather
than
having
to
try
and
brainstorm
at
all
within
our
own
entities
meetings,
but
we'll
see
how
this
kind
of
works
out
based
on
the.
B
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we're
I
think
we're
ready
to
wrap
up
today.
I
will
get
the
the
next
meeting
on
the
schedule,
then
for
January
8th
at
the
same
time,
Tuesday
January,
8th,
we'll
we'll
talk
about
the
update
that
day
around
the
marketing
of
the
preview
release
and
whether
or
not
will
either
discuss
it
that
day
or
whether
we'll
have
those
of
us
interested
from
this
meeting
join
a
future
marketing
meeting.
A
Well,
we'll
see
what
that
that
turns
out
to
be,
but
I'll
add
that
to
the
agenda
and
in
the
meantime,
of
course,
before
the
holidays
here
help
out
with
with
some
reviews,
please,
of
course
we
get
all
these
things
merged
this
week
that
are
currently
open
or
most
of
them
and
we'll
take
it
from
there
and
I.
Think
that's
I
think
that's!
Basically
it
yeah.