I will be posting a weekly roundup of everything that happens outside the mailing lists to keep people informed of the wider discussion. If you have any comments on how this should look, or what should be included, please let me know. (lucy [dot] chambers [at] okfn [dot] org)
From the Community Meeting:
(a) Whether to rebrand CKAN.net or the CKAN software. – For the time being, no decisions have been reached. For the time being, people should make the distinction explicit in posts and discussions unless conversations relate both to software and CKAN.net.
(b) CKAN FAQ – In order to clarify the above, from the original CKAN FAQ were born 3 FAQs.:
(1) The CKAN.net FAQ
(2) CKAN Software FAQ
(3) Managing Data Packages – a contributor’s guide
From the CKAN Team Meeting:
(a) Forms refactor (package done, end bits of group. Next step: harvesting. Then the data.gov.uk one.)
(b) UKLP stands for the UK Location Programme it is a multi-million pound initiative to get geospatial data searchable by location on the data.gov.uk site. OKF successfully delivered Discovery Metadata harvesting on 14th March and we got the first data publishers using the system last week. By the 9th May we had over 600 datasets harvested into data.gov.uk. A new release is planned for the end of May. We hope to be rolling out the same geo-spatial and catalogue-interoperability functionality for CKAN itself before too long so that others can make use of it too.
(c) Data Catalog Interoperability Meeting update:
(d) The CREP proposal was accepted and we have two CREPs in progress already:
(e) The CKAN Storage system has been rewritten – ready to use now.
Ongoing discussion from the Mailing Lists:
(a) [ckan-dev] It is important to have a list of installed CKANs and preferably an admin contact, check-in proposal: (chain beginning: Here )
- This discussion is ongoing. Will try and resolve asap.
bniemannsr: I have tried to collaborate with OASIS E-Gov, CKAN, SEMIC.EU Web Site& ADMS Community, ePractice, and UDEF for this SEMIC.EU presentation
Resolution: We agreed that once we had our “minimum interoperable subset” spec we’d get back to him to compare with him about a phase 2.