►
From YouTube: 2018-01-19 Meeting of the DSpace Entities Working Group
A
Okay,
sorry,
sorry
for
this
delay,
I
was
just
trying
to
record
this
session.
I
was
welcoming
well
to
our
fourth
meeting
and
I,
prepared
some
slides
just
a
quick
overview.
What
we
have
been
that
then,
since
our
first
meeting,
so
you
know
in
our
first
meeting,
we
talked
about
the
the
motivation
that
to
bring
us
all
here
and
and
I
think
I
speak
for
for
you
all,
because
you
are
here
and
interested
in
in
speaking
about
this
topic.
A
Then
we
approach
this
space
crease
and
we
saw
how
it
how
it
can
can
manage
the
the
outers
and
then
afterwards
we
we
saw
the
installation
and
configuration
and
sign
up
some
examples
from
also
this
base
crease.
At
the
end
of
that
meeting,
we
we
we
concluded
that
this
base
crease
is
very
powerful,
but
still
as
it
brings
some
complexity.
A
So,
on
our
last
meeting,
we
we
defined
that
we
need
to
do
two
to
set
a
minimum
data
model
for
entities
and
try
to
see
if
this
base
crease
can
answer
to
that.
This
space
that
data
model-
and
this
is
our
topic
for
today-
and
we
have
prepared
a
document
with
I-
think
it's
not
the
minimum
data
model,
but
quite
extensive.
What
is
an
extensive
one?
I
would
like
to
hear
from
you
for
what
do
you
think
about
it
and
we
defined
five
entities?
A
A
Projects
with
with
separated
projects
from
funding,
because
we
understand
that
they
aren't
the
same
thing,
because
you
can
have
projects
that
have
no
funding
and
when
you
are
funding
you
can
have
people
or
publications
that
are
funded
in
sums
in
some
sense
for
each
one
of
one.
For
each
of
one
of
these,
for
each
the
entity
we
define
fields.
A
A
A
B
Thanks
Paula
and
thank
you
to
you
and
the
team
for
bringing
getting
together
both
this
the
presentation
here,
as
well
as
the
document
itself
I'll
mention
that
I
I
just
reviewed
the
document
this
morning,
I
hadn't
had
much
time
up
until
now.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
detail
there.
I
don't
want
to
get
into
the
Nitty
Gritty
fields
there,
but
but
I
think.
B
My
first
question
would
be
whether
or
not
this
is
the
bare
minimum
of
what
we
think
would
be
a
minimum
dspace
entity's
data
model,
because
I'd
challenge,
whether
that's
true
I,
can
see
the
point
in
having
all
of
these
various
entities
for
some
institutions,
especially
institutions
that
want
to
run
dspace
much
more
like
a
Chris
system,
which
is
an
use
case.
That
I
think
we
should
be
supporting
in
the
future,
but
but
for
those
that
don't
want
to
have
a
full
fledge
Chris
system.
B
C
C
What
I'm
missing,
of
course,
are
some
small
details
of
example.
Applications
there
a
lot
of
other
metadata
fields.
We
need
to
think
that's
totally
clear
to
everyone
of
us,
but
that
stuff
that
always
will
be
like
this
and
the
retargeting
dspace
by
allowing
people
to
at
local
fields
to
to
Zelly
space
installation.
So
as
far
as
I've
seen
it
now
I
think
that's
fine
for
me
and
thanks
for
the
work
I.
D
Think
one
of
the
questions
here
that
that
was
not
addressed
is
that
I
mean
D.
Space
Icarus
has
the
opportunity
to
configure
which
entities
you
like
configure,
which
relationships
exist
between
entities
and
configure
which
fields
you
have
per
entity,
and
here
what
we
see
now
everything
is
more
fixed
and
I.
D
Think
the
good
discussion
would
be
is
how
much
of
this
do
we
want
to
make
configurable,
so
you've
defined
the
entities
or
relationships
in
their
fields
and
the
complexity
that
is
involved
with
these
basic
risk
comes
from
its
flexibility
of
being
able
to
configure
all
three
levels,
their
entities,
relationships
and
fields.
How
far
do
we
want
to
go
in
terms
of
configurability
and
how
much
complexity
do
we
want
to
introduce
I.
D
E
E
E
E
This
is
why
we
end
with
an
extension
of
this
page
crease
that
is
not
bound
to
any
specific
data
model.
So,
from
my
perspective,
one
simplification
could
be
to
say
we
want
to
have
a
configuration
of
this
base
crease
after
box.
It
is
exactly
kiss
that
model
and
we
should
tease
that
a
more
the
left
of
box.
We
Creason
name
that
basic,
that
an
order
for
Chris
like
system
and
maybe
tomorrow
we
will
create
a
new
data
model.
That
is
an
extension
or
is
something
completely
different
for
another
use
case.
E
B
Yet,
and
just
to
clarify
Andrea
thanks
for
that
that
that
a
comment
as
well
and
clarify
what
I
was
pointing
at
it
was
what
Andrea
was
was
talking
through.
Is
that
I
see
the
need
for
more
entities
in
D
space?
Yes,
I
think
everybody
definitely
needs
every
D
space
user
could
benefit
from
having
people
entity,
for
example,
I
think
that's
an
obvious
one
that
needs
to
be
in
the
data
model
and
I
think
that
comes
along
with
perhaps
even
an
organization
entity.
B
If
you
are
wanting
to
use
these
space
more
like
a
Chris
like
system
like
Andre,
is
pointing
out,
but
if
you're
wanted
to
use
D
space
more
like
an
institutional
repository
or
a
data
repository
or
things
of
that
nature,
you
may
or
may
not
get
use
out
of
those.
So
that
does
bring
up
to
mind
the
question
of
like
Pascal
mentioned.
B
We
could
just
include
them
by
default
for
everybody
and
yes,
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
the
e
space
has
the
people
don't
use
necessarily
depending
on
your
use
case,
but
there
is
also
the
opportunity
here
to
to
think
a
little
bit
more
about
whether
or
not
these
are
included
out
of
the
box,
whether
they
are
extensions
or
whether,
as
Leoben
was
pointed
out,
we
do
something
along
the
lines
of
how
DS
based
Chris
currently
works.
Are
certain
entities?
B
D
That
I
might
I
definitely
agree
with
that,
like
what
I
was
trying
to
to
get
to
is
say,
for
example,
I'm
just,
for
example,
right
now
making
a
proposed
like
that.
Each
entity
has
properties
that
are
fixed
relationships
that
are
fixed
and
you
can
add
extra
properties
for
any
entity.
That's
there
and
you
can
define
extra
relationships,
for
example.
B
Whether
they're,
some
of
the
same
people
are
not
support,
specific
extensions
where
they'd
be
much
more
knowledgeable
on
the
Chris
extension
or
whatever
other
extensions
you
wanted
to
have
there,
but
but
I
do
agree
that
I
I,
like
the
sense
of
keeping
the
core
code
as
streamlined
as
we
can
and
allow
for
that
sort
of
a
prints
model.
That
Andrea
mentioned
where
you
could
have
various
extensions
on
that
core
code.
A
As
a
team,
as
we
spoke
in
meeting
regarding
I,
think
you
display
seven
anger,
I
can't
I,
don't
quite
remember
what
was
the
the
topic
of
that
meeting,
but
but
I
said
that
we
we
were
going
through
a
project
that
we
are.
We
are
using
this
base
five
and
we
are
extending
it
to
have
support
for
the
the
outdoors
entities
entity
and-
and
we
are
in
to
manage
to
do
that-
we
had
to
change.
I
am
speaking
about
this
base.
Five,
we
choose
that
version.
Perhaps
perhaps
in
the
version
six
it
were.
A
A
We
all
think
we
need
entities,
we
don't
know
exactly
what
entities
should
be
in
the
core
or
which
properties
should
be
in
the
core,
but
I
think
we
all
agree
that
we
need
entities
and
I
think
we
shouldn't
change
the
core
or
the
core
should
be
prepared
to
anyone
who
wants
to
have
their
own
entities
to
do
that
without
changing
the
display
score.
But
what
do
you
think
ready.
B
B
A
A
B
I
think
it's
more
of
a
model
that
is
D
space
Chris
like
in
that
you
could
extend
it
with
new
entities
without
having
to
go
in
and
change
the
underlying
database
structure
or
or
change
java
code,
but
those
new
entity,
and
there
may
be
some
entities
that
could
be
turned
on
in
some
way
that
that
are
not
necessarily
out
of
the
box.
But
you
could
turn
them
on
in
an
extension.
A
B
I
think
that's
the
plan
all
along.
Nobody
wants
D
space
Chris
to
be
a
fork.
We
all
see
it
is
either
a
distribution
or
an
extension
or
add-on
where
you
would
install
D
space
and
that
you
could
easily
almost
like
turn
on
the
Chris
extensions
within
the
admin
user
interface
or
something
which
would
pull
down
and
install
specific
entities
into
your
system,
so
that,
and
maybe
some
extra
files
or
reviews
that
would
allow
you
to
then
use
your
system
with
this
extra
feature.
B
F
F
So
for
me,
it's
not
only
we'll
be
able
to
create
a
better
space,
but
also
simplify
the
management
of
the
repositories
for
the
repository
manager
and,
for
example,
in
our
context,
at
national
level,
which
creates
our
own
version
of
the
space
bases
on
configurations.
There's
a
non
specific
input
forms
based
on
specific
standards.
We
reuse
based
on
specific
configuration
for
extending
away,
pmh,
etc,
and
with
that
we
are
able
to
have
totally
compliant
this
space
repository.
F
So
I
think
this
idea
of
having
a
chord
space
and
distribution
for
different
components
or
escapes
of
the
space
can
be
useful
to
solve
the
problem
that
we
have
now.
That
is
one
code
for
different
displaced
possibilities
regarding
what
we
will
do
with
the
repository,
and
we
also
also
this
problem
of
having
something
that
is
very
focused
on
a
particular
use
case.
B
Yeah
and
I
agree
with
everything
you
just
said:
Jose
I
think
that's,
that's
the
that
opinion
is
shared
as
well.
That
I
think
that
moving
towards
this
idea
of
a
core
with
those
distributions
just
the
way
to
to
kind
of
meet
all
these
various
use
cases
without
bloating
the
dspace
code-based,
so
much
that
it
becomes
difficult
to
maintain
and
manage
so
so
I
agree,
I,
think
Andreea!
You
were
about
to
say
something
there
or
someone
else
saw
somebody.
D
Else,
mute
yeah.
The
question
is
it's
not
so
much
what
you
know
what
we
want
to
achieve,
because
I
think
everybody
wants
entities.
Everybody
wants
a
core
that
you
can
extend
with
distributions.
The
question
is:
how
do
we
do
it
and
that's
why
Andrea
gave
a
very
good
presentation
last
time
and
gave
an
example
of
how
that
can
be
achieved
and
I
mean
I.
D
Besides
an
item
that
can
belong
to
a
collection
or
a
bit
stream
that
belongs
to
an
item,
and
how
do
we
define
those
relationships
which
ones
do
we
build
in
which
ones
do
we
make
configurable
and
how
are
they
configurable?
How
do
the
relationships
get
expressed?
How
does
the
system
deal
with
that
and
I
think
one
of
the
proposals
last
time
we
talked
course
just
to
take
two
or
one
entity,
and
just
you
know
really
go
into
those
details.
B
Yeah
yeah
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
Levin
and
I
think
that
my
response
to
that
my
personal
opinion,
I
guess
here-
is
that
I
would
want
to
look
specifically
at
bringing
people
and
organizations
more
into
the
core
and
look
at
how
we
would
build
those
relationships
to
the
existing
data
model
because
I
feel
those
those
are
used
in
almost
every
use
case,
that
someone
is
going
to
use
D
space
and
people
more
than
organizations,
but
I
think
both
could
could
come
in
two
core
and
then
potentially
then
look
at.
B
Is
there
a
way
to
build
our
data
model
that
could
allow
an
easy
way
to
extend
to
support
projects
and
funding
without
necessarily
bringing
those
into
the
core,
but
allowing
them
to
be
almost
turned
on
or
extended
into
the
the
the
D
space
data
model
without
having
to
do
database
level
changes
or
code
changes.
Yeah.
D
D
E
Unfortunately,
I'm
not
sure
that
there
is
a
mid
step.
This
pace
right
now
is
something
with
accepted
model
and
this
base.
Crease
is
the
next
step
where
you
have
a
flexible
data
model
and
I.
Don't
think
that
exists
anything
in
the
middle
to
be
more
clear
if
we
have
a
person
entity
in
the
space,
but
it
don't
have
the
flexibility
to
link
a
community
or
had
rich
attribute
to
this
new
entity.
E
It
will
will
end
for
us
to
be
impossible
to
implement
some
use
case,
some
customization,
that
user
want,
so
it
will
become
more
complicated
than
not
the
now
so
when
we
need
to
create
a
new
flavor
of
the
space.
If
we
start
from
the
space
crease,
it
is
easy
to
create
creased,
glam
and
other
flavor.
But
if
you
want
to
start
from
the
space
anytime,
you
need
to
repeat
the
same
to
same
thing.
That
is
the
same
that
also
you
have
recently
developed,
for
extension,
to
create
a
new
entity
in
the
semantic
layer.
E
So,
if
you
add
just
one
entity
or
queue
and
your
time
entity,
this
don't
change,
it
is
not
really
important.
So
what
we
are
saying
now
that
we
really
need
to
have
the
ability
to
create
new
attribute
and
creating
your
relation
and
create
new
entities,
because
in
the
last
time
here,
I
never
see
the
the
same
data
model
that
applied
to
all
the
University.
E
For
some
university,
it
is
crucial
to
have
information
about
teaching
activities,
supervisor
places,
courses
and
other
information,
also
in
Interpol
story.
So
it
is
not
a
crease
is
not
a
repository,
but
this
is
important
and
if
we
need
to
implement
experiment
as
an
an
extension
also,
if
we
implement
a
plug-in
system,
one
in
space
like
WordPress
or
Drupal,
if
we
need
to
implement
in
in
our
plugin
the
logic
to
to
have
an
extendable
data
model
is
begin
become
huge.
E
B
I'm
I'm
talking
about
it,
an
analysis
aspect
right
now,
so
I'm
not
talking
about
release
by
release
I
mean
that
the
first
thing
that
we
should
be
analyzing
is
we
need
to
analyze.
How
would
we
bring
people
and
organizations
into
the
core?
What
would
that
look
like?
How
would
we
define
those
relationships
with
the
existing
data
model?
And
how
does
these
base
Chris
do
that?
B
So
I
want
to
analyze
that
and
then
we
know
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
have
extensions
to
support
projects
and
funding
those
extension
extended
and
new
entities
should
not
be
an
external
add-on.
Those
should
be
part
of
the
core
as
well.
That
ability
to
extend
and
create
new
entities
should
be
part
of
the
core
as
well.
So
then
we
need
to
figure
out.
How
could
we
add
that
sort
of
extend
ability
into
the
core
look
howdy
space
Chris?
B
E
We
are
converging
about
the
opinion,
but
my
war
here
is
too
difficult,
er
into
the
tail
breaking.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
once
we
figure
out?
How
do
you
introduce
people
in
an
extendable
way?
We
have
done
99%
of
work
to
a
quarter
staff
that
are
important
in
a
space
Chris
in
the
space
okay.
So
this
this
is
on
the
only
point.
So
if
you
look
to
this
base
Chris,
there
are
several
layer
of
functionality
in
it.
E
For
instance,
extendable
data
model,
for
me,
is
the
most
important
and
is
what
we
are
talking
about
now.
Another
layer
is
the
administrative
user,
interface
and
I
said
we
can
discuss
about
that.
This
can
go
later.
It
can
be
also
something
that
we
don't
want
to
have.
So
it
is
not
necessary
to
have
a
user
interface
to
to
manage
the
model,
but
the
model
is
the
core
is
what
we
need
to
put
inside.
If
we
are
able
to
do
that
in
a
flexible
way
for
just
another
entity,
we
have
done
for
all
three
entities.
D
Yes,
I
was
proposing.
Is
that
you
know
we
do
the
we
add
people,
an
organization
and
like
this
is
a
phased
approach
right
like
because
you
have
the
experience
with
how
to
make
it
extensible,
but
not
everyone
in
this
group
does
and
that's
how
this
whole
in
a
working
group
has
started
that
that
people
didn't
understand
how
these
phase
Chris.
Does
it
exactly
and
and
we're
not
sure
about
how
far
we
should
go
with
certain
things.
D
So,
if
we
first
implement
and
organizations
and
exactly
like
Tim
said
not
per
se
in
a
separate
release
of
D
space,
but
like
as
a
first
step
towards
an
extensible
data
model
and
first
really
think
about
okay,
how
should
we
define
relationships
between
entities
in
this
phase?
How
should
we
add
a
new
entity
without
having
to
worry
about
implementing
the
configurability
and
then
later
on
thinking
about
okay,
we
now
have
a
D
space
with
two
extra
entities.
How
can
we
take
this
implementation
that
we're
happy
about?
D
How
can
we
take
this
to
the
next
step
and
make
this
entirely
configurable,
where
you
can
configure
the
entities
or
relationships
and
the
properties?
And
maybe,
in
the
first
step
we
could
already
look
at
how
to
configure
the
properties,
and
maybe
there
are
relationships
but
wait
with
how
the
entities
should
be
configured
so
it
you
can
take
a
little
bit
of
a
step
approach
and
I
understand
that
in
your
head.
This
is
already
clear
because
you
have
the
D
space
quests
implementation
there,
but
I.
A
D
Pascal
here
you
can
click
understood
what
my
point
was
is
to
look
at
one
particular
entity
implemented
more
as
hard-coded
until
we've
looked
at
all
the
the
problem
areas
that
are
involved
in
that
like,
for
example,
if
you
create
people,
do
you
add
people
to
search?
If
you
have
a
search
for
items?
How
do
you
then
relate
it
to
people?
How
do
you
show
those
people
having
them?
Look
at
the
items
that
are
associated
to
those
people?
Will
we
have
different
types
of
people?
D
How
many
properties
do
we
need
to
have
as
the
standard
style
of
properties?
How
many
do
we
want
to
be
configurable
or
extendable?
How
can
we
make
the
the
relationships
between
people
and
organizations
or
items
and
organizations
directly
or
the
relation
between
item
and
organization's
only
through
people
and
etc,
etc?
So
there
are
a
bunch
of
things
to
to
think
about
there
and,
of
course,
I
have
I'm
aware
that
Andrea
already
has
that
has
done
that
exercise
in
the
last.
D
C
B
Yeah,
so
so,
if
I
can
jump
in
here,
I
agree.
I
agree
with
this
to
a
point,
although
I'm
not
convinced
fully
of
the
implementation
part
of
this
so
I
agree,
I
think
we
do
need
to
go
through
this
exercise
that
lieven
laid
out
and
I
think
it
does
align.
I
think
I
also
agree
that
we
don't
all
have
the
understanding
that
Andrea
has
with
how
this.
How
these
race
course
is
built,
however,
I'm
not
yet
convinced
that
we
actually
need
to
implement
anything.
B
B
D
B
I
think
the
worry
that
I
have
is
that
so
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
I
would
like
to
come
to
an
area,
though,
where
we
can
actually
make
a
knowledgeable
decision
on
they're.
Not
what
for
science
has
in
dspace.
Chris
is
good
enough.
I
don't
want
to
throw
it
completely
aside
and
start
working
on
something
completely
different.
That
takes
us
two
to
three
years
to
realize.
Oh,
this
is
not
going
in
the
direction
we
think
it
should
be
going
and
we
should
have
used
D
space
Chris.
B
All
along
I
would
rather
see
if
we
could
come
to
that
conclusion
and
make
the
mistakes
that
allow
us
to
analyze
that
code
much
more
rapidly,
so
that
we
aren't
building
something
in
parallel
that
has
already
built.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
I
think
that's
where,
where
I'm
trying
to
come
from
that
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
to
do
it
all
in
code,
but
we
definitely
need
to
dig
a
lot
deeper
and
start
to
analyze
and
reaaargh
attack
D
space
at
least
conceptually.
E
Yes,
I
agree
with
your
points
from
our
perspective,
it
could
be
useful,
interesting
to
work
on
to
this
place
that
a
model
to
go
more
close
to
the
space
Chris
data
model
to
make
the
space
cycle
more
similar
to
Chris
entities
but
on
the
other
side,
I
see
sorry
to
say
that.
But
it
is
worse
off
time
essentially
for
us
to
redo
the
same,
all
the
same
step
that
we
have
done
it
in
more
than
10
year.
So
well,.
D
D
B
Correct
yeah
so
so
kind
of
picking
off
chunks
of
it
so
yeah,
starting
with
like
people.
How
would
we
implement
this
in
indie
space?
How
does
these
base
Chris
currently
do
this?
Do
we
see
any
gaps
and
how
that
would
work
and
then
moving
on
from
there
and
to
various
other
entities
and
building
more
of
a
planning
document
and
or
an
architectural
document
of
this
is
the
future
architecture
of
DS
based.
B
These
are
the
various
options
of
how
we
could
implement
this,
and-
and
hopefully
we
that
would
help
us
all
come
to
much
more
of
a
consensus
around.
Is
the
D
space
Chris
way
a
better
way
of
starting
of
getting
started
and
actually
doing
this
in
code?
Or
do
we
see
larger
flaws
along
this
process
that
maybe
we
can
grab
some
of
the
D
space
Crisco?
But
we
really
need
to
rebuild
a
lot
of
this,
because
I
am
totally
unclear
in
my
head
as
to
which
direction
is
correct.
At
this
point,
yeah.
D
And
I
mean
also,
as
Andrea
just
pointed
out,
like
I
mean
the
per
entity.
Space
data
model
I
mean
even
if,
let's
say
we
would
add
hard
coded
people
and
organizations
and
then
make
it
extendable.
That's
still
like
the
same
thing
as
keeping
what
we
have
now
with
items
communities
collections
and
then
extending
people
and
projects
and
whatever
that's
what
dspace
chris
now
has
and
I
think.
What
andrea
is
also
trying
to
say
is
that
that
existing
data
model
should
also
be
flexible,
and
we
should
not
just
keep
that
as
fixed
and.
B
Correct
yeah,
yeah
I
agree
with
that,
so
we
should
analyze
the
item
data
model,
especially
and
and
see
if
it
really
aligns
well
with
the
publication's
or
works
that
we're
kind
of
talking
starting
to
talk
about
here
and
whether
there
are
ways
that
data
model
itself
needs
to
be
changed
or
improved.
So
I
I
see.
E
Two
may
to
measure
of
flavor
into
the
space
that
a
model
right
now
it
is
the
absence
of
type
in
the
property.
So
all
the
information
in
the
item
are
just
string,
and
this
makes
several
limitation
when
you
need
to
to
store
some
kind
of
information,
but
also
to
link
to
create
relation,
because
you
want
to
have
some
integrity
or
cable
to
to
point
to
the
other
entity
and
the
other
limit
is
the
flood
model
to
flood
metadata.
So
you
are
not
able
to
to
store
any
nested
information.
E
This
is
the
region
reason
why
we
don't
have
created
the
researcher
or
the
organization
are
just
a
new
space.
Object
is
dynamic
metadata
because
we
already
have
metadata
for
all
that.
Allow
you
great
flexibility
in
term
of
property
that
you
can
attach
to
entities
if
you
create
a
write,
a
new
Java
class
that
is
an
extension
of
a
displaced
object.
You
have
a
new
entity
ant.
Is
the
entity
can
have
any
property
that
you
want?
This
is
what
we
already
have
into
this
base
code
base.
A
But
but
sometimes
you
need
to
do
some
changes
in
that
core
to
to
make
it
more
flexible
or
to
adjust
to
your
needs.
Specific
needs.
Dd-Did,
you
add
those
needs
in
in
when
you
start
and
implemented
this
dispatch.
Chris
do
you
need
to
do
you
have
add
the
need
to
change
the
the
source
code
display
source
code
in
this
base?
Chris?
Yes,.
E
If
you
look
to
the
search
or
browse
or
or
the
functionality
built
on
top
of
this
base
object,
they
are
only
partially
genetic
for
displaced
object,
but
a
more
tailored
to
this
base
item
or
community
or
collection
was
my
regard.
To
do
that,
we
find
that
it
was
tricky
to
have
some
data
stored
in
the
ROM
type.
So
we
need
to
have
a
date
and
it
was
much
more
convenient
to
have
really
a
database
than
have
a
string
any
time
fight
against
long
Bertram.
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
Unfortunately,
I
got
a
go
here
shortly
as
well,
so
we
probably
need
to
wrap
this
up
and
figure
out
when
the
next
meeting
is
and
and
and
how
we
want
to
dig
deeper
into
this.
These
ideas
of
what
needs
to
be
added
into
the
core,
that's
missing
and
how
we
can
start
to
plan
out
an
architect
help,
people
and
organizations
and
other
entities
would
be
would
be
supported
in
the
core.