## Action
= Action Validator =
## The persons assigned to the action
 Assigned:: KFC+ABR
## The persons that previously worked on this action
 Prev assigned::
## The tasks from the WBS that are adressed by this action
 Tasks adressed:: [[TaskA.4]], [[TaskC.3]]
## The time estimated for this action, Use the format Xmd, to indicate the number of man-days estimated
 Time estimated:: not done
## The time used for this action so far. Same format as Time estimated
 Time used:: 0md
## The priority of this action. 1-9
 Priority:: 2
## The status of this action, legal values are 'Not described', 'Not started', 'In progress' and 'Finished'
 Status:: Description in progress
## The iteration that this actions belongs to
 Iteration:: 14
## Notes about this action, that should be viewable on other pages
 Notes::
## Detailed description of wanted output from the work to be carried out.
## E.g. Implement a utility class for writing data to a disk. The data must be base64 encoded before being written.

== Problem ==
We need to write a webservice, that given a pid, applies the an XML schema validator to each datastream with a schema, and an OWL Lite validator for an OWL document containing the Content Model ontology and the RELS-EXT datastream from the object (with the fedora-model:hasModel property replaced with rdf:type).

Code exists, that given an object finds the correct Schema for each datastream, and generates the correct Ontology from the Content Model of an object. This code needs to be reviewed.

TODO: Should we validate CONTENT datastreams?

We need to hook fedora-APIM methods to do the following:
 * Fail on any modifying call on active objects, except if the call invalidates them
 * Apply validation code when an object is set to valid
 * Apply validation code on ingest, unless ingested object is inactive [TODO: Should we simply inactivate the ingested object(by modifying the XML) for ease of code, and simply reactivate it?]

We probably need to massage the output of the validators, as well.

== Notes ==


== Checklist For Working On An Action ==
The Life Cycle of an Action:

 * ''Assign people for action definition'': Done at start of iteration status meeting. Fill out '''Assigned'''
 * ''Define the action'': Describe information about what is to be done and how. Fill out '''Tasks Addressed''' and '''Time Estimated'''.
 * ''Review the definition'': Get another project group member to review the action definition, and update it.
 * ''Assign people for action implementation'': Done by project manager, usually the same persons who wrote the definition. Fill out '''Assigned''' and '''Prev assigned''' if new persons are assigned.
 * ''Implement the action'': See details below
 * ''Review the action'': Get another project group member to review what is implemented (code and documentation), and update it.
 * ''Finish the action'': Change the status to "Finished" and update the "time used" field on the action page.
Please make sure that you address the below issues, when working on an action:

 * Update the state of the action to "In Progress" when you start working on it.
 * Check if the tasks addressed by this action have their status set to "In Progress". If that is not the case, then change the state of them.
 * Keep track of how much time that has been spent working on the action. If it addresses more than one task, then make a note on the action page about how much of the elapsed time that has been spent on the individual tasks. '''Hint:''' Continually updating the "Time used" field will make it easier for you.
 * Update the "Progress History" and documentation pages of each task addressed by this action when appropriate. This depends on the situation, but in general, the task pages should hold all important related information about the work done, experiences gathered, identified requirements and so on.