►
From YouTube: 2018-10-09 : DSpace 7 Entities Working Group Meeting
B
Just
as
a
reminder
here
before
we
get
into
the
meeting,
though
of
our
sort
of
of
our
schedule,
let
me
bring
that
up
and
let
me
share
the
screen
here:
up
yeah
thanks
Mick
for
sharing
the
agenda
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
briefly.
Just
so
I
can
walk
through
a
couple
things
for
folks
on
who
watched
this
video
later.
B
So
this
is
still
a
work
in
progress
which
is
sort
of
expected
to
be,
but
I
just
want
to
kind
of
note
where
we,
where
our
timelines
sit,
because
the
main
goal
here
is
that
we
really
need
to
have
something:
that's
ready
for
review
from
the
committers
from
the
D
space,
7
team
and
everybody
else
involved
with
these
space
7.
Basically,
we
to
have
something:
that's
that,
let's
add
a
reviewable
state
by
late
November.
If
we
don't
meet
that
deadline,
then
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
get
this
moving
forward
in
2d
space.
Seven.
B
So
that's
just
sort
of
where
we
sit
with
what
we
need
to
achieve
and
as
we're
almost
sort
of
midway
towards
that
deadline,
we
started
in
in
September
we're
already
almost
at
mid
October.
We
really
need
to
start
to
speed
up
our
process
here
and
also
get
more
actual
developers
involved
and
get
get
more
into
the
code.
At
least
that's
sort
of
my
opinion
with
where
we
currently
sit.
Do
we
have
a
question
there
for
a
moment.
A
Tim
now
it's
not
a
question
just
to
add
something
here,
especially
related
to
your
last
sentence
or
adding
more
developers
just
to
share
with
a
group
that,
as
you
might
have
seen
yesterday,
was
official
eyes.
The
signing
of
the
mou
between
Duras
place
and
open
air,
and
one
of
the
outcome
of
this
MOU
in
one
of
the
idea,
is
for
open
air
to
provide
a
couple
of
developers
to
support
this
effort.
A
So,
and
the
idea
that
Tim
and
I
and
and
the
open
air
team
have
been
discussing
is
to
use
those
developers
for
this
very
working
group
to
support
the
anti
basis
effort,
especially
because
it's
very
related
to
compliance
here
with
the
new
open
air
guidelines,
so
I'm
I'm
in
contact
with
manola.
We
we
don't
have
I
mean
currently
I,
can't
share
more
info
about
when
those
two
new
developers
and
resources
and
support
will
join
because
I,
don't
know
hasn't
came
back
to
me
yet.
But
I
hope
we'll
have
some
news
by
your
next
meeting.
A
B
Ok,
so
that's
that's
where
we
sit
in
terms
of
our
deliverables
and
our
timelines,
so
jumping
back
here
to
our
agenda
for
today,
I
sort
of
split
the
meeting
in
half
we'll
see
how
long
each
of
these
discussions
takes.
But
but
the
goal
is
truce
to
start
to
map
out
where
we're
going
next
and
really
start
to
dig
in
here
a
little
bit
more
deeply
into
getting
towards
the
code
and
what
we
can
start
to
do
with
the
code
towards
implementation.
B
B
And
so
I'm,
assuming
everybody
had
a
chance
to
read
this.
These
are
it's
very
brief
in
terms
of
the
number
of
people
who
actually
submitted
submitted
feedback.
As
we
saw
right
away,
there
was
more
people
currently
leaning
towards
proposal,
one
one
person
in
the
proposal
to
side
leaning
that
way
and
one
person
undecided
after
reading
through
the
comments
here
and
everything
that's
been
provided
in
terms
of
feedback.
I
wanted
to
highlight
a
couple
things
in
terms
of
the
comments
that
we
received
so
first
off.
B
I
think
the
comments
themselves
really
came
from
one
two,
three
four,
essentially
five
institutions,
so
we
had
Indiana
University,
ETH
Zurich,
several
people
related
to
the
our
cap
project,
so
I'm
kind
of
lumping
them
a
little
bit
together
here,
Jordan
from
a
University
of
Trias,
tuesdaya,
I'm
horrible,
with
the
pronunciation
of
that
in
Alexander
as
well.
So
we've
had
five
different
people.
Five
different
institutions
basically
give
some
feedback.
B
B
Jordan,
provided
some
feedback
in
terms
of
proposal
two,
so
those
are
the
people
at
proposal,
one
with
the
three
main
t
three
main
institutions
around
proposal,
one
which
was
our
cap
Greg
from
ETH
and
Mark
Wood
from
Indiana
Jordan,
had
noted
that
he
felt
that
proposal
two
was
a
little
bit
of
an
easier
upgrade
process,
both
from
D
space
and
D
space
Chris.
So
that
was
his
sort
of
main
point
there
and
then
Alexander
L
note
was
the
one
who
was
who
noted
that
he's
on
the
fence
and
I
know
you're.
B
Here
Alexander's,
you
can
speak
to
this
a
little
bit
if
you
want,
but
noting
that
he
saw
both
sides
of
the
of
the
argument
here
in
terms
of
proposal.
One
versus
proposal
two,
but
from
reading
Alexander's
comments,
I
got
the
sense
that
you
might
have
a
slight
preference
towards
proposal,
one
just
because
you
were
you
like
the
by
deck
bi-directional
hard
relationships
concept
and
had
some
concerns
listed
in
here
around.
B
B
So
that's
a
I'm
gonna!
Stop
there
for
a
moment
to
see
if
I,
if
people
feel
felt
that
I
gave
that
a
fair,
fair
summary
from
what
I've
read.
Does
anybody
want
to
add
more
into
your
feedback
here?
I
know,
most
everybody
who
is
who
has
commented
on
this
document
is
in
this
meeting.
Would
you
like
to
clarify
anything
that
I've
said.
B
B
Looking
at
the
list
of
who's
all
here
see
if
there's
anybody
else
who
did
not
add
feedback.
Okay,
so
my
recommendation
out
of
all
of
this
to
be
honest
and
I,
want
to
hear
your
feedback
on
whether
or
not
you
you
agree
with
this.
My
recommendation
would
be
that,
based
on
the
feedback
given
here
and
based
on
on
all
of
the
the
good
thoughts
put
into
this
I
would
recommend.
B
We
start
to
move
forward
with
with
proposal
number
one
but
analyze
it
against
more
specific
use
cases,
and
so
what
I
mean
by
that
is
that
I
would
like
to
see
us
do
a
little
bit
of
a
deeper
dive
even
into
the
code
level,
into
the
the
database
structure
level,
concentrating
more
on
proposal
1
to
ensure
that
we
are
in
agreement
that
it's
going
to
meet
our
core
use
cases
because
I
know.
There's
we
had
a
lot
of
various
great
questions.
B
Great
comments
throughout
all
of
our
Google
Docs
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
kind
of
synthesize
those
comments
together
and
ensure
that
especially
the
areas
that
we
felt
were
possible
concerns
for
proposal,
one
that
we
can
find
a
way
around
those
concerns
and
that
we
can
find
find
a
solution
that
would
work
for
D
space
7.
What
that
does
mean
is
that
I
think
that
we
should
switch
our
trajectory
here.
My
opinion
is,
we
should
switch.
B
In
terms
of
that,
we
can
reuse
the
existing
authority
framework
and
see
if
we
can
actually
make
that
work,
but
because
of
the
because
of
all
concentration,
because
of
all
the
preference
for
proposal.
One
I
think
that
seems
like
that's
the
best
direction
for
everybody
here
in
this
can
in
this
group,
as
well
as
our
community
and
moving
forward
to
try
and
analyze
and
give
that
the
best
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
and
start
to
move
forward
with
with
use
cases
and
improve
out
that
this
is
going
to
meet
our
needs.
B
So
I've
said
a
lot
here
does.
Does
anybody
else
want
to
comment
on
that?
Anyone
have
disagreements
agreements
I'm,
especially
looking
towards
those
who
did
not
submit
proposals
first,
so
non
at
Meyer
non
non
for
science.
Anybody
else
want
to
give
feedback
into
that.
Do
you
feel
that
that's
the
correct
direction
for
now?
Do
you
have
any
other
alternate
proposals.
C
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anything
any
other
general
comments,
I
guess
on
anything
that
I've
said
here
well,
I
mean
do.
Is
there
anything
any
other
comments
that
anybody
wants
to
add,
including
at
Meijer
and
for
science
before
we
sort
of
close
up
this
initial
topic,
because
this
is
sort
of
topic
number
one
on
our
agenda.
B
You,
okay,
not
hearing
anything,
then
so.
I
think
what
I
would
on
my
personal
opinion
here,
and
so
the
the
next
steps
for
me
kind
of
moving
into
agenda
number
two
here
is
that
I
would
like
to
start
the
synthesize,
our
our
set
of
use
cases
around
what
we
want
to
achieve
in
D
space
7,
to
ensure
that
this
proposal
one
is
going
to
align
well
and
and
meet
those
use
cases
so
that
there's
no
no
major
concerns
or
sort
of
gotchas
or
anything
of
that
nature.
B
That
could
be
that
could
affect
our
ability
to
move
forward
with
with
proposal
number
one.
So
by
that,
but
I'd
kind
of
like
to
to
suggest
here
is
that
first
off
I
think
we
need
to.
We
need
to
get
a
sense
of
if
there's
further
information,
that
people
want
to
get
around
proposal
one
and
whether
it
will
meet
all
of
the
various
use
cases
that
we
that
we
want
to
achieve
in
D
space
7
and
also
start
to
define
those
use
cases
at
a
much
more
detailed
level.
B
So,
as
I
had
shared
after
last
meeting,
I
started
a
draft
up
to
initial
use
cases,
sort
of
a
use
case
in
a
user
story
around
around
what
I
think
might
be
best
to
concentrate
on
just
for
D
space
7.
These
are
not
final
by
any
means
and
I
think
there's
more
detail
that
we
really
should
be
adding
into
these
more
more
specifics
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
achieve
in
terms
of
the
relationships
restoring
especially
and
how
we
want
to
be
able
to
access
various
objects
within
these
use
cases.
B
But
but
my
proposal
was
to
try
and
concentrate
more
closely
on
two
specific
use
cases,
one
being
being
able
to
store.
Excuse
me
journal
volume
issue
articles,
so
this
is
sort
of
a
journal
hierarchy,
so
journals
have
specific
volumes.
Volumes
have
individual
issues,
issues
have
individual
are
goal,
and
that
provides
a
hierarchy
of
sort
of
entities
that
shows
off
that
we
can
manage
a
sort
of
hierarchy
of
entities
if
we
don't
like
this
use
case,
there's
other
ways
to
prove
out
the
hierarchy
use
case,
which
is
the
the
base
problem.
B
B
So.
These
are
the
two
high-level
use
cases
that
I
was
seen
as
potentially
most
important,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
from
you
all
to
see.
If,
if
you
agree
or
if
you'd
like
to
see
a
different
use
case,
I'd
like
to
try
and
really
keep
this
two
to
two-
maybe
three
max
four
D
space.
Seven.
So
we
can
really
concentrate
our
F
but
I'd
like
to
hear
feedback
on
what
you
think
was
would
be
most
useful.
B
E
B
Yeah
yeah,
so
I
agree
I,
see
that
as
part
of
those
sort
of
use
cases
and
questions,
I
I
think
we
should
enhance
the
user
story
here
and
I
admit.
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
add
all
of
that
in
there
into
the
user
story.
So
if
you
look
at
like
the
author
profile
user
story,
I
do
have
things
like
you
know.
B
This
person
has
six
different
names
that
they
published
under,
but
we
probably
should
also
add
different
sort
of
complexities
into
this
that
are
going
to
be
common
complexities
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
able
to
meet,
and
that's
the
purpose
of
this
user
story
here,
is
to
kind
of
give
us
something.
That's
a
little
bit
more
tangible
to
say:
okay,
let's
find
a
semi
complex
or
a
semi
common
use
case
or
scenario
that
is
going
to
pop
up
within
institutions
that
we
know
of
so
another
one
that
should
be
listed
here.
B
Your
other
comments
I
saw
that
as
two
comments
there
Andreea
but
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
your
your
other
comments,
I
think
was
around
the
fact
that
journal
the
journal
hierarchy
doesn't
really
relate
directly
to
authors,
whereas
an
organizational
hierarchy
would
direct
would
relate
a
little
bit
more
directly
to
the
author
use
case
and
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
that's
that's
accurate,
I
guess
I'd
ask,
and
maybe
it
is
maybe
we
do
need
this
to
make
three
use
cases
here.
B
B
F
I
think
I
would
like
to
keep
these
two,
at
least
because
it's
important
to
have
one
use
case.
That's
a
hierarchical
data
model.
Oh
no,
that's
a
graph
data
model.
So
that's
that's.
Why
I
like
these
two
use
cases
but
I,
think
it's
I
mean
the
way
that
Andre
also
formulated
it
I
think
it's
possible
to
extend
the
author
profile
use
case
to
include
a
second
entity
in
their
air.
That
is
the
organizational
unit.
So
it's
not
a
really
problem.
We
already
have
that
entity
in
our
prototype
implementation
anyway.
F
F
D
B
B
But
I
do
like
that
suggestion
that
we
could
potentially
treat
or
expand
the
author
profile
story
slightly
to
include
organizational
unit
relationships
or
some
sort
of
relationship
to
a
thing.
That
is
an
organization
and
not
worry
as
much
about
storing
the
organizational
hierarchy
as
a
separate
use
case,
because
we
can
prove
out
hierarchy
relationships
via
the
journal
use
case.
B
So
if
we
can
do
journals
well,
we
should
be
able
to
do
organizations
well,
but
we
need
to
have
that
sort
of
base
relationship
and
the
author
profile
does
that
make
sense
and
I
think
that
that's
what
I
heard
leave
and
say
I,
don't
know
what
you
would
think
about
that
draya's,
since
you
brought
this
up.
Does
that
seem
like
a
reasonable
way
to
deal
with
organizational
units
at
a
base
at
a
very
basic
level.
G
Excuse
me
before
Andre
answers.
This
question
I
would
like
to
underline
an
important
aspect
of
this
work
that,
unfortunately,
needs
to
be
done
very
quickly,
but
my
main
concern
is
from
the
architectural
point
of
view,
which
means
that
we
do
not
necessarily
need
to
solve
all
the
problems
that
we
erase
now
before
the
release
of
this
work.
But
we
need
to
address
them
in
a
way
that
architectural
II
they
can
be
solved
at
a
later
time.
And
what
I
mean
here
is
that
well,
dira
space
has
a
strong
partnerships
with.
G
Europe,
race,
open
air
and
I
think
also
core.
They
said
very
important
things
about
data
modelling
and
specifically
the
this
reef
model
for
Eric
Ries.
The
recommendations
for
repository
managers
with
open
air
and
the
next-generation
repositories,
recommendations
for
core
and
they
all
address
the
use
case
related
use
cases
related
to
the
research
domain.
But
our
experience
says
that
these
use
cases
are
pretty
very
good,
also
for
the
cultural
heritage
and
other
related
domains
that
may
exploit
the
maximum
potential
that
this
space
can
express.
B
Yes,
are
there
any
specific
examples
that
you
that
you're
wanting
to
highlight
there
cuz
I
agree
with
that
Suzanne
I
think
that's
the
the
overarching
goal
of
this
work
and
as
Mick
had
noted
earlier.
That's
part
of
the
reason
why
open
air
wants
to
get
involved
with
this
effort
and
provide
development
effort
is
to
make
sure
that
what
we
are
building
will
help
align
both
with
those
new
open
air
guidelines,
as
well
as
the
base
core
next-generation
repository
guidelines.
B
B
Okay,
yeah
yeah
I
mean
I
I,
agree
with
that
it
conceptually
I
think
I
would
I
would
ask
the
members
of
this
working
group
to
to
definitely
let
us
all
know
if
you
feel
that
our
direction
as
we're
moving
forward
with
this
becomes
somehow
not
aligned
with
next
generation
repositories
and
open
air,
but
but
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
overarching
goal
of
this.
This
effort
to
begin
with
so
I'm
hoping
that
our
alignment
has
been
from
the
beginning
and
I
kind
of
am
wanting
to
keep
that
alignment
in
place.
B
I
mean
as
there's
open
air
developers
get
involved,
that'll
be
part
of
their
role
as
well
to
make
sure
that
we're
kind
of
keeping
that
alignment,
but
but
yeah.
If
anybody
notices
anything
that
seems
out
of
alignment,
please
definitely
let
me
know
Oh
or
let
this
working
group
know
and
we
can
kind
of
analyze
those
as
we
go
forward.
B
E
E
Into
use
cases
is
not
necessary
to
stress
too
much
about
the
organization
structure,
so
we
can
expose
explore
to
theoretical
structure
on
to
journalist.
Kelly's
I
would
like
to
see
it
relation
between
entities
into
in
key
organization,
so
Auto
related
to
organization,
publication,
related
to
organization,
publication
order
and
organization
all
related
together.
This
is
the
key
point
for
me
so
how
to
deal
with
ternary
relationship
that
are
something
really
important.
Yeah.
B
I'd
like
to
I
agree
with
you,
Andrea
I
would
like
to
add
those
into
our
into
like
the
these
use
cases,
so
that
we're
more
more
specific
about
those
sort
of
edge
case.
Well,
maybe
not
edge
cases,
but
those
more
complex
cases
of
having
those
relationships
between
individual
publications
and
organizations,
as
well
as
publications
and
authors
and
and
making
sure
we're
able
to
deal
with
all
those,
because
those
are
things
we're
gonna
need
to
to
to
have
answers
for
or
plans
for,
at
the
very
least.
B
If
we're
not
able
to
build
it
all
entities
to
seven,
we
need
to
know
how
we
can
move
forward
with
that.
There's
those
concepts
so
I
I
can
work
to
add
some
of
those
in
here
Andreea
that
you'd
noted
I've
been
taking
a
couple
notes
here:
I'm
on
a
piece
of
paper
into
these
use
cases,
but
I
would
encourage
you
to
also
kind
of
add,
add
notes
throughout
this
document.
So
in
kind
of
in
hand,
these
use
cases
and
user
stories
to
ensure
that
we're
kind
of
meeting
all
those
complex
cases.
B
B
The
goal,
then,
would
be
that
as
we're
enhancing
these
use
cases
and
user
stories,
we're
going
to
do
a
deeper
dive
on
proposal,
one
to
ensure
that
we
can
get
alignment
with
what
we
want
to
achieve
out
of
these
use
cases
and
user
stories.
So
we
want
to
be
able
to
get
a
better
sense
of
of
how
we
would
achieve
these
more
complex
relationships
using
the
the
relationship
structure
in
in
proposal
number
one
and
we're
where
we
start
to
hit
any
complex.
B
These
are
where
we
need
to
enhance
it
or
improve
upon
it
or
anything
of
that
nature
and
also
I
think
along
the
lines
getting
a
better
sense
of
how
that
starts,
to
align
with
external
relationships,
which
are
what
authority
control
is,
is
things
to
it
like
Orkut
and
stuff
of
that
nature,
but
hopefully
that
will
start
to
solidify
more
as
we
go
through.
These
use
cases
walk
through
them
with
proposal
one
and
see
how
this
data
would
be
stored,
see
how
this
data
would
be
captured
and
ask
questions
as
we
go.
B
B
Okay,
so
our
concentration
will
be
on
these
use
cases
in
the
near
term
and
starting
to
look
at
proposal
one
with
those
use
cases
I
think
as
a
part
of
those
use
cases.
I
really
want
everybody
to
start
to
think
about
these
two
questions,
and
these
these
will
help
us
actually
inform
those
use
cases.
So
is
there
especially
the
second
one,
I
guess
what
further
information
do
you
do?
B
You
want
to
see
or
understand,
especially
around
proposal
number
one
for
before
dspace
seven,
so
with
that
information,
I,
think
the
questions
that
you
have
really
can
help
us
to
enhance
and
and
the
use
cases
and
make
sure
that
the
stories
are
how
we
want
them
to
be
for
dspace
seven,
so
we're
making
sure
that
the
the
actual
implementation
will
meet
will
meet
those
use
cases
and
also
answer
your
questions.
At
the
same
time,
the
other
thing
I
did
want
to
note
here.
B
Our
group
is
still
I
mean
we're
not
the
hugest
group.
We're
mostly
not
not
a
whole
lot
of
institutions
represented
here,
but
the
other
thing
that
I
do
want
to
note
here
is
that
we're
talking
about
we've
been
talking
about
these
these
proposals
very
much
as
institution
based
for
some
time.
So
we've
been
talking
about
proposal
almost
built
at
about
Myra
posle,
two
came
out
of
for
science.
B
So
it
should
not
be
all
based
at
at
Meijer.
It
should
not
be
built
entirely
at
at
Meijer.
I
would
like
to
find
a
way
for
us
to
start
to
get
that
code
in
a
more
centralized
area
so
that
we
can
all
start
to
play
with
it
more
and
get.
It
starts
even
review
some
of
that
code
and
give
feedback
into
that
code,
because
I'll
just
remind
everybody
with
dspace
7.
B
Our
development
process
has
changed
a
little
bit
from
the
past
in
terms
of
how
we've
been
accepting
pull
requests
coming
in
the
door,
how
work
has
been
developed
well
with
dspace
7?
We
still
have
individual
per
requests.
Individual
features
built
it
at
individual
institutions,
of
course,
so
things
have
been
built
at
for
science
at
admire
and
different
institutions.
B
B
If
we
don't
start
working
together,
basically
right
away
I'm
trying
to
find
ways
to
to
get
that
feedback
in
matter,
I
know
that
one
last
recommendation,
too,
is
that,
along
the
way
we've
been
trying
to
also
split
split
code
up
into
smaller
chunks
as
best
we
can
I
know
that's
going
to
be
hard
throughout
this
process.
But
but
another
thing
with
these
base,
seven
has
been
been
attempting
to
do
these
code
reviews
and
a
little
bit
smaller
pull
requests
as
small
as
we
can
make
them
I
realize.
H
H
F
B
Yep
understood,
I
think
what
I'm
talking
about
is
getting
it
into
an
even
easier
place
for
other
people
to
help
develop
on.
So
that
would
reply
to
me.
We
need
to
get
it
out
of
the
at
my
repository
and
put
it
potentially
in
a
more
centralized
place.
It's
still
fine
about
Myra
wants
to
continue
to
add
additional
work
on
it,
but
it
at
least
would
allow
us
to
get
more
developers
involved
more
easily
than
having
to
have
everybody
develop
against
the
admire
repository.
If
that
makes
sense,
I'm
Andre
I
think
you
had
a
point.
E
Yes,
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
we
shot
the
same
gambit
approach,
because
now
we
are
saying
that
we
go
forward
with
proposal
1.
We
make
a
community
effort
to
check
that
proposal
meet
the
actual
requirements,
but
we
can
not
match
anything
also
if
it's
technically
merged
ball
until
we
reach
a
minimal
set
of
features
that
make
the
contribution
complete.
E
So
we
need
to
agree
about
which
is
the
minimal
set
of
feature,
because
we
cannot
start
to
merge
something
that
wore
compile
is
without
error,
and
we
discover
later
that
we
have
blocking
issues
during
the
submission
or
another
specific
feature.
So
this
can
only
be
included
when
it's
consistent
in
term
of
functionality.
We
need
to
have
presentation
which
you
have
submission.
E
We
don't
need
to
have
alter
funny
thing
that
we
want
to
implement
on
to
display
and
so
on,
but
we
need
to
be
sure
that
structure
is
stable
and
will
be
here
with
not
make
something
in
this
place.
Seven
and
change
dramatically
in
this
place,
eight
and
so
on.
So
we
need
to
have
something-
maybe
a
limited
to
be
extended
in
space
eight,
but
I
don't
want
to
have
anything
in
the
space,
seven
that
would
be
changing
dramatically
in
the
space.
E
B
Yeah
I
agree
Adria.
We
are
on
the
same
page
with
that.
That's
actually
why
I
was
suggesting.
We
would
want
to
do
this
work
in
a
separate
branch
of
the
D
space
code
base,
I'd
like
to
move
it
into
a
centralized
location,
but
I
do
not
want
to
move
it
right
on
to
our
master
latest
D
space,
seven
work
because
it's
not
been
vetted.
We
need
to
do
the
code
review
process.
B
We
need
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
D
space
7
standards
in
terms
of
what
we've
been
reviewing
for
you,
know,
unit
tests,
integration
tests,
Java
Docs.
All
that
stuff
is
in
place
before
we
put
it
into
the
display.
Seven
code
base
would
be
treated
like
any
other
pull
requests
coming
in
2d
space,
seven
I'm.
B
The
only
difference
that
I
see
here
is
that,
rather
than
it
being
one
massive
pull
request
coming
from
the
at
Myer
repository,
I
would
really
like
to
see
this
move
into
a
centralized
place
so
that
we
can
work
together
on
it
and
and
learn
from
it
like
you're,
saying
and
start
to
document
it
so
that
we,
when
that
pull
request
time
comes.
Hopefully
it's
a
collaboration
of
three
four
five
ten
different
developers.
I,
don't
know
how
many
it
would
be,
and
preferably
more
of
them
not
from
at
Mayer,
so
that
we
have
other
folks
involved.
B
Who
can
help
us
document
it?
Who
can
you
can
help
us
prove
out
the
use
cases
that
we're
documenting
and
then
that
should
very
well
make
that
final
review
process
of
actually
merging
it
over
to
master
a
much
more
cleaner
process,
because
we've
worked
through
this
all
along
because
we're
feeling
more
confident
at
that
point
in
time
with
the
direction
and
then
it's
right
direction,
4d,
space,
7,
that
that
seems
like
the
direction.
That's
the
direction
I'm
proposing
essentially
does
that
make
more
sense
to
everyone.
B
And
are
there
other
to
contribute
into
this
because
I
think
we
really
need
more
people.
I
won't
be
able
to
do
this
myself
as
well,
but
I'd
want
to
contribute
I'd
like
to
see
other
institutions
step
up
here,
because
that's
what
this
working
group
is
about
is
trying
to
move
this
effort
forward
together.
F
F
B
F
F
D
I
B
B
B
You
and
I'm
going
to
call
out
specific
names
here,
actually,
because
we
have
other
institutions
who
haven't
spoken
up
so
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
from
roberto,
alexander
and
paolo
being
from
three
different
institutions
that
are
not
at
meyer
or
for
science
to
see.
If
any
of
you
can
contribute
into
this
with
developer
help.
B
The
I
I
think
that's
that's
perfectly
reasonable.
Everybody
is
trying
to
get
up
to
speed
on
D
space
Evan.
Besides
the
D
space,
17
examiner,
so
I
think
we've
got
plenty
of
resources
to
help
train
people
up
on
D
space
Evan.
We
also
do
have
ongoing
and
regular
development
sprints,
which
are
great
learning
opportunities
for
D
space
Evan.
Since
a
lot
of
this
work
will
be
on
the
back
end,
initially
at
least
with
the
REST
API
I.
Think
you're
gonna
find
that
not
much
has
changed
on
that
back.
Yes,.
C
B
J
J
B
A
B
But
the
demeaning
is
recording,
so
you
go
back
and
listen
to
it
as
well,
but
but
as
a
quick
summary,
our
our
goal
right
now
is
that
because
there's
so
many
people,
leaning
towards
proposal
number
one
we're
going
to
do
a
little
bit
of
a
deeper
dive
on
proposal
number
one.
Okay,.
B
At
our
at
our
to
use
cases
and
user
stories
that
we're
going
to
enhance
after
this
meeting,
so
we
I'm
asking
for
folks
to
enhance
the
the
two
main
user
stories
in
use
case
so
that
we
can
make
sure
we
meet
those
in
time.
4D,
space,
7
and
as
part
of
that.
So
the
next
stage
here
is
that
in
that
deeper
dive
on
proposal,
1
and
meeting
those
use
cases
I'm
asking
for
the
the
code
for
proposal
1
to
move
into
a
centralized
location
to
allow
us
to
start
to
work
on
that
together.
B
So
we
can
start
to
analyze
it
more
easily
in
the
central
location
fix
bugs,
enhance
it
as
we're
looking
at
those
use
cases
and
work
together
more
as
a
development
team,
and
so
I
was
kind
of
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
what
the
people
might
be
willing
to
to
be
active
in
that
development
work
and
help
out
the
at
Maier
team
and
myself
to
move
that
forward
in
the
coming
months.
Here,
I.
B
B
B
Excuse
me
I
think
that
pretty
much
wraps
up
the
main
things
that
I
wanted
to
say
here,
but
I
guess
I
can
summarize
where
we're
at
so
I
I
do
have
our
next
meeting
already
on
the
calendar
first
off
and
it's
listed
on
the
agenda
it'll
be
in
two
weeks
on
Tuesday
October
23rd.
At
the
same
time,
we're
going
to
meet
every
two
weeks
until
the
work
is
complete.
If
we
need
to
have
a
meeting
in
between
those
two
week
meetings,
we
can
always
do
a
map
more
ad
hoc
meeting.
B
But
in
the
meantime,
before
our
next
meeting,
I
would
like
to
see
us
first
off.
We
need
to
get
that
code
into
a
centralized
location.
Of
course,
please
at
Meijer
and
I
can
work
with
you
on
that
on
where
we
can
place
that,
so
that
everybody
can
start
to
contribute
on
to
that.
The
other
thing
is
I
would
like
to
see
everyone
start
to
analyze
the
use
cases
document,
so
that
is
I'll
link
this
into
our
slack
channel
again.
B
That
way,
we
can
start
to
provide
some
early
feedback
into
the
code
process
and
see
see
how
this
starts
to
align
with
our
use
cases
and
assumptions
and
I
think
those
are
the
the
main
top
the
main
things
that
I
have
for
the
next
two
weeks.
Was
there
anything
that
I
overlooked
or
anything
else
that
folks
want
to
bring
up
here.
F
F
Those
kind
of
things
that
they're
a
dyke
I
could
like
list
five
or
six
more
of
those?
But
there
are
some
topics
that
have
not
been
raised.
That
can
also
use
some
discussion
of
the
group
and
have
nothing
to
do
with
either
proposal,
but
are
just
choices
of
whether
or
not
we
think
we
should
support
them
now
or
in
the
future.
F
Another
thing
is
how
to
deal
with
the
collections
and
communities,
and
you
know
what
our
vision
for
the
future
is
for
those
and
how
we
deal
with
those
in
relation
to
empties.
So
those
are
also
things
we
shouldn't
forget
because
they
could
have
an
impact
on
the
design
on
earlier
on
in
the
architecture,
then
I
had
one
detail:
question
which
I
hope
doesn't
spark
discussion
about.
F
One
of
the
use
cases
in
the
one
for
author
profiles-
Jim,
you
wrote-
is
he
worried
that
was
exactly
an
author
profile
page
must
be
able
to
display
a
virtual
metadata
from
associated
works.
For
example,
named
variants
of
the
author
should
be
pulled
from
The
Associated
works
as
virtual
metadata,
and
we
kind
of
saw
that
the
other
way
around,
like
a
named
variant,
is
a
property
of
the
author
entity
like
you've
published
under
two
or
three
names.
F
B
Written
it
in
a
way
that
was
kind
of
more
specific,
but
but
these
are
things
that
we
should
write
into
the
use
cases
in
a
more
generic
way.
Just
noting
that
author,
you
know
the
name
variants
need
to
be
associated
with
you
know
if
you
use
Gene
Smith
on
one
article
and
J
F
Smith
on
another
article,
we
need
to
know
which
articles
which
in
which
name
variant
you
used,
but
how
that
relationship
is
stored
underneath
doesn't
really
as
much
matter.
It's
just
that.
B
You
need
to
be
able
to
provide
that
use
case
so
and
I
think
that,
also
to
your
initial
question
around
a
lot
of
these
internal
discussions,
you're
having
I
would
like
to
see
most
of
those
get
answered
through
use
cases
and
users
store
in
a
user
story.
That's
why
I'm
going
in
this
direction,
because
I
think
that
that
is
going
to
provide
us.
Those
touch
points
to
say:
okay,
in
this
particular
use
case,
we're
talking
about
the
author
being
able
to
manage
this
relationship.
Can
we
do
that
in
time
for
D
space
7?
B
Or
do
we
just
need
to
delay
that
for
D
space
8
or
what
would
that
look
like,
because
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
talk
to
it,
a
very
specific
user
story
or
user
use
case
when
we're
making
those
decisions?
Otherwise
it's
very
difficult
for
me
to
get
my
mind
around
those
decisions
so
as
much
as
possible.
B
Please
add
those
into
the
use
cases
and
user
stories
where
they
are
not
possible,
like
in
the
terms
of
communities
and
collection,
best
practices,
I
think
that
needs
to
start
as
sort
of
like
basic
documentation
around
how
we're
going
to
deal
with
entities
and
how
they're
stored
so
maybe
drafting
those
concepts
up
in
a
wiki
page
that
can
eventually
become
the
documentation
is
useful.
So
we
have
that
touch
point.
So
that's
kind
of
how
I
would
deal
with
both
of
those
two
things
sure.
F
And
the
permissions
one
for
permissions
on
entities
are
actually
like
the
last
two
bullet
points
of
your
author
profile
users
story.
That's
part
that
discussion,
because
there
you
see
the
altar
should
be
allowed
to
link
her
unlink
claimer
unclean
works
story
right,
visitor
prokovich.
That's
where
that
yeah.
B
So
I
think
we
should.
We
should
have
a
discussion
around
that
yeah
to
see
whether
we
can
make
that
happen
for
D
space
seven,
but
I
did
specifically
write
that
in
there,
because
I
thought
that
would
spark
discussion
and
that's
part
of
the
purpose
of
these
use
cases
and
use
your
story
is
to
spark
those
those
questions
and
to
analyze
the
prototype
to
make
sure
it's
going
to
meet
these
needs.
Ok,
so
we're
over
time
here,
I'm
gonna
have
to
close
this
up.
It's
been
a
very
good
discussion
today.
B
I
think
we've
got
a
good
direction
for
the
next
couple
weeks.
Again
we'll
move
forward
with
a
with
wet
a
it's
that
I'm
gonna
ping,
those
of
you
who
want
to
contribute
more
at
the
code
level.
Once
we
have
this
code
into
a
centralized
place,
we
can
start
to
review
that
and
enhance
that
and
then
we'll
meet
again
in
two
weeks.
In
the
meantime,
we'll
talk
on
slack.
If
you
have
any
questions
there,
anything
not
clear.
Let
me
know
on
slack
and
we'll
get
this
recording
posted
and
the
very
new
for
user.