Changes between Version 55 and Version 56 of Bolsena2010


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 18, 2010, 9:56:52 AM (14 years ago)
Author:
mcoudert
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Bolsena2010

    v55 v56  
    3838 || 16 || ||Editor enhancement (XForms) ||GeoNetwork needs a range of metadata editors and the XForms Editor (from geonetworkui sandbox) should be available as part of this range. An XForms engine is an alternative technology that potentially hides details of HTML and JavaScript from developers. (The usefulness of the XForms editor will be determined to a large extent by how well it works across browsers and how responsive it is. What does the "potentially hides details" bit actually mean? That's just wishful thinking, and adding XForms means yet another complicated technology for developers to master. Justification/Action: Develop XForms interface as providing a user friendly interface with the flexibility to meet the needs of different users. How does it relate to [http://chiba.sourceforge.net Chiba]? || ||
    3939 || 17 || || Feedback / Enhancement  ||GeoNetwork needs a range of metadata editors and the ANZMet Lite (a wizard based editor available for download from [http://anzlicmet.bluenet.utas.edu.au here]) should be part of the toolkit. ANZMet Lite needs to be open sourced under (GPL) to be distributed with GeoNetwork. Comments: If the web interface were improved, the need for ANZMet Lite would be reduced.  There is a need for “offline” metadata creation when researchers or data collectors are not connected to the Internet – this is where ANZMet Lite has unique value. Why not improve the existing GeoNetwork editor (see geocat.ch editor, merge some of the features into the trunk)? Justification/Action: Add ANZMet Lite as a user friendly, Wizard based PC editing interface with the flexibility to meet the needs of different users. Simon Pigot has already added GeoNetwork upload/download to ANZMet Lite. || ||
    40  || 13 || || || || ||
    41  || 13 || || || || ||
    42  || 13 || || || || ||
    43  || 13 || || || || ||
    44  || 13 || || || || ||
    45  || 13 || || || || ||
     40 || 18 || ||API enhancements || GeoNetwork services and JavaScript API need to be documented so that the user interface can be replaced and/or the existing functionality reused or customized. A different user interface skin should be easy to apply. The new Jeeves test framework offers an opportunity to document the inputs and outputs of the services. Action/Justification: The existing JavaScript API (web/geonetwork/scripts/core) needs to be documented and extended – existing code that doesn’t use the API needs to be refactored. Note: !GeoNetwork xml services documentation exists in manual. || ||
     41 || 19 || || Code cleaning (client part)||The technologies that are used in the user interface are not homogenous: XSLT, HTML and !JavaScript are often mixed and hard to separate - this makes development and modification of the user interface difficult - but given the current architecture of !GeoNetwork, a complete separation into components based on implementation language is impossible. Action: Separate the HTML, XML and JavaScript from each other so that a skilled interface designer does not need to know all three technologies to change the interface. || ||
     42 || 20 || || XML fragment||Reusing fragments of metadata (XML) – “object reuse”. Fragments are implemented in various sandboxes. Metadata records can be composed from fragments using XLinks and there is an XLinks URL Resolver. Community action needs to be consolidated through the fragments proposal. Many organisations would like GeoNetwork to be able to harvest fragments from relational databases as they often generate full metadata records from relational databases using custom software. If the database information changes, these records then need to be re-harvested. Some organisations would also like to be able to edit the fragments in !GeoNetwork and return them to the database from which they were harvested. Action/Justification: Integrating fragments of metadata that are managed in an external system (i.e. relational database, authentication directory). There is a mechanism for implementation for metadata fragment harvesting from relational databases via a WFS in the BlueNetMEST sandbox. This work needs to be consolidated with work in the geocat.ch and geosource sandboxes and added to the trunk. This work should also be extended to allow metadata fragments in the relational database to be updated after editing in !GeoNetwork. Harvesting of fragments from authentication directories (eg. LDAP) should be added.  ||Partially done by Simon ? ||
     43 || 21 || || Metadata versioning  || !GeoNetwork needs some form of version control to track changes made to a metadata record over time. Action/Justification: This can be done inside the database without needing to externalise the metadata records. That way you can index and search on the old versions as well, if desired. Alternatively it could be done externally using perhaps a Java interface to subversion or through an interface to existing enterprise document management systems or perhaps using a different database approach for the documents eg. CouchDB. See also [http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/Versioning+WFS this] approach to versioning WFS content?|| ||
     44 || 22 || || Community || Some aspects of project planning for !GeoNetwork are not visible to those outside the project steering committee. Action: Continue to adopt and implement OSGeo best practise (e.g. GeoServer).|| ||
     45 || 23 || || || || ||
     46 || 24 || || || || ||
     47 || 25 || || || || ||
     48 || 26 || || || || ||
    4649
    4750 * While at it can we change the code so that you can save settings from the GUI even if not all expected settings are present in your database?
    4851
     52
     53----
     54== Comments ==
     55 
     56 * From 16 to XX : Topics extracted from Australia/New Zealand Community GeoNetwork Feedback
    4957
    5058 *
    … …  
    5462 *
    5563
    56 ----
    57 == Comments ==
    58  
    59  * From 16 to XX : Topics extracted from Australia/New Zealand Community GeoNetwork Feedback
    60 
    61 
    6264
    6365
    6466 *
    65 
    66  * GeoNetwork services and JavaScript API need to be documented so that the user interface can be replaced and/or the existing functionality reused or customized. A different user interface skin should be easy to apply. The new Jeeves test framework offers an opportunity to document the inputs and outputs of the services. Action/Justification: The existing JavaScript API (web/geonetwork/scripts/core) needs to be documented and extended – existing code that doesn’t use the API needs to be refactored.
    67 
    68 Note: !GeoNetwork xml services documentation exists in manual.
    69 
    70  * The technologies that are used in the user interface are not homogenous: XSLT, HTML and !JavaScript are often mixed and hard to separate - this makes development and modification of the user interface difficult - but given the current architecture of !GeoNetwork, a complete separation into components based on implementation language is impossible. Action: Separate the HTML, XML and JavaScript from each other so that a skilled interface designer does not need to know all three technologies to change the interface.
    71 
    72  * Reusing fragments of metadata (XML) – “object reuse”. Fragments are implemented in various sandboxes. Metadata records can be composed from fragments using XLinks and there is an XLinks URL Resolver. Community action needs to be consolidated through the fragments proposal. Many organisations would like GeoNetwork to be able to harvest fragments from relational databases as they often generate full metadata records from relational databases using custom software. If the database information changes, these records then need to be re-harvested. Some organisations would also like to be able to edit the fragments in !GeoNetwork and return them to the database from which they were harvested. Action/Justification: Integrating fragments of metadata that are managed in an external system (i.e. relational database, authentication directory). There is a mechanism for implementation for metadata fragment harvesting from relational databases via a WFS in the BlueNetMEST sandbox. This work needs to be consolidated with work in the geocat.ch and geosource sandboxes and added to the trunk. This work should also be extended to allow metadata fragments in the relational database to be updated after editing in !GeoNetwork. Harvesting of fragments from authentication directories (eg. LDAP) should be added.
    73 
    74  * !GeoNetwork needs some form of version control to track changes made to a metadata record over time. Action/Justification: This can be done inside the database without needing to externalise the metadata records. That way you can index and search on the old versions as well, if desired. Alternatively it could be done externally using perhaps a Java interface to subversion or through an interface to existing enterprise document management systems or perhaps using a different database approach for the documents eg. CouchDB.
    75 
    76 See also [http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/Versioning+WFS this] approach to versioning WFS content?
    77 
    78  * Some aspects of project planning for !GeoNetwork are not visible to those outside the project steering committee. Action: Continue to adopt and implement OSGeo best practise (e.g. GeoServer).
    7967
    8068 * Documentation for ‘Implementing !GeoNetwork into your organisation’ should be provided. Rather than changing the perspective of the current documentation from "how to" from "it does", perhaps you can have different documentation for different audiences. The “how to” section of the Trac is very useful. Action: As the “how to” section of the OSGeo !GeoNetwork trac site expands, it could be linked into the documentation.