Add inactive state to Object Status Property list

[mjgiarlo]

After some discussion in the Hydra community -- https://groups.google.com/d/topic/hydra-tech/2P2CCrk4LaU/discussion -- we're thinking this new state might be used as an initial state in deposit workflows where mediation must occur to "publish" an object, or could also possibly be used to "withdraw" an object without deleting it or marking it for deletion. This also achieves parity with the three object states provided by Fedora 3.

[awoods]

Thanks, @mjgiarlo. We will discuss on the Thurs tech call:
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/2016-05-19+-+Fedora+Tech+Meeting

This seems like a constructive addition.
..and should also motivate: https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/FCREPO-1403

[ajs6f]

I'm not really against this addition right now, but note that nothing is preventing Hydra from using whatever value it wants in that position. I'd like to clean a lot of this kind of workflow-specific modeling out of this ontology and leave it to evolve in communities centered on specific workflow-implementing systems.

[awoods]

The objState vocabulary is confined to defining exactly that, object states.
It is helpful to have a consistent, published vocabulary for these types of resource workflow properties.
@ajs6f, what would be your ideal pattern for making that happen if using objState is not ideal?

[ajs6f]

I'm saying we do not need one in the core project. There are lots of things that would be "helpful". We don't need to do all of them.

[acoburn]

Wouldn't this vocab be a good candidate for fcrepo4-exts?

[ajs6f]

-exts would be better than here. The question is: into what namespace is it published?

[whikloj]

The fact that anyone could publish their own ontology with any statuses they like, all they need is to say it has a type http://fedora.info/definitions/1/0/access/ResourceStatus means this doesn't need to be in the core ontology.

But I'm not really against it either.

[awoods]

@acoburn: I was thinking the same thing.
@ajs6f: The current namespace of objState is: http://fedora.info/definitions/1/0/access/objState
..although some of the terms should be redefined under that namespace:
https://github.com/fcrepo4/ontology/blob/master/objState.rdf#L32
https://github.com/fcrepo4/ontology/blob/master/objState.rdf#L37
etc

[mjgiarlo]

To clarify my intent: if we're publishing an ontology for fcrepo object states and it already includes two of the three states that came with earlier fcrepo versions, I'd sure love the third to be included also (since there are use cases for it).

I'm ambivalent re: the namespace or where this ontology lives, and will happily go along with what y'all conclude.