This talk will outline the Surfliner code base, describe the GitLab monolithic source repository, and discuss the reasons behind choosing this model of source control management. It will include background on the systems and workflows used by the UC San Diego and UC Santa Barbara teams that make managing and working productively with a single repository feasible, in addition to a psychomachia-style discussion of the advantages and trade-offs of this approach. The 'Related URL' below links to a video recording of the session. The video has closed captioning. and A presentation given at Samvera Connect 2020 On-line described thus
A proposal for a presentation given at the Open Repositories conference in 2015 held in Indianapolis described thus, One of the many successes of the Hydra community is the fundamental notion from which its name is derived—the concept of many interfaces (“heads”) over top of a single repository (the “body”). The recent release of Fedora 4, with its internal RDF-centric model, has spurred efforts for a community-wide model of collections and works, such that the heads can be sure that the body will behave as they expect it to. That model has been designed and vetted by the Hydra community, and its architecture and initial implementations will be presented in this paper. [Note, and the subject of this proposal has since become known as the 'Portland Common Data Model'.]
Keyword:
Community, Data model, Resource Description Framework (RDF), Hydra, Portland Common Data Model (PCDM), Open Repositories 2015, and Fedora
Subject:
Hydra Project
Creator:
Stroop, Jon, Sanderson, Rob, and Cowles, Esmé
Contributor:
University of California San Diego, Princeton University, and Stanford University
As most Hyrax adopters know, Hyrax offers a basic set of metadata properties that it assigns to each new work type. Most adopters will extend that set, to a greater or lesser degree, adding new properties, defining vocabularies and terms lists, and setting other constraints and requirements. Adding new metadata is a complicated process in Hyrax, and there are various ways in which developers have worked to streamline things (eg. scooby snacks, dog biscuits and archetypes). But before we even get to customising a Hyrax application, metadata librarians and developers must collaborate on specifying the metadata requirements. With no community machine-readable approach to defining those requirements, misunderstandings are common, and can be costly. With a machine-readable specification for metadata, metadata librarians could accurately specify requirements and developers could validate and codify those into applications. That’s where the Machine-readable Metadata Modeling Specification (M3) steps in. The specification is the output of the M3 Working Group and is nearing its version 1.0 release. This presentation will provide a walkthrough of the specification, show how to construct and validate a new M3 profile, and illustrate the benefits of M3 for both metadata specialists and developers. and A presentation at Samvera Connect 2019 described thus