Changes between Version 84 and Version 85 of Bolsena2010

Timestamp:

Jun 11, 2010, 3:59:07 AM (14 years ago)

Author:

Fxp

Comment:

--

Bolsena2010

@@ -45 +45 @@
  ||12 || 2 #233 ||Code Refactoring || The class {{{DataManager.java}}} and its sister {{{XMLSerializer.java}}} are in particularly bad shape, in my opinion. There are literally dozens of public methods that all do more or less the same thing. Of course it's not clearly documented why they are all there or when to use which. Would it be too drastic to propose that we keep 1 single public method for each of the functions ''createMetadata'', ''updateMetadata'', ''validateMetadata'', etc. ? || heikki: 1 | jose: critical || Make the Java doc first ||
  ||  || 2 || || REST services and provide a Jeeves JSON outputs || || || 
- || 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]? || heikki: 3 || || No integration planned for the time being. No more work in the sandbox ?  ||
+ || 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]? || heikki: 3 || No integration planned for the time being. No more work in the sandbox ?  ||
  || 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. || heikki: 4 || Documentation for option to add an editor ||
  || 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. || heikki: 2 || ||
- || 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. || heikki: 4 | jose: major ||
- || 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 ? ||
+ || 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. || heikki: 4 | jose: major || ||
+ || 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 ? || ||
  || 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?|| heikki: 3 || Nice to have ||
  || 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).|| heikki: 2 || Developper mailing list, IRC, trac ||