more guide tweaks; not a full review/rewrite

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 26 deletions

diff --git a/guide/src/roadmap.md b/guide/src/roadmap.md
index 745380f9..c4cc6a98 100644
--- a/guide/src/roadmap.md
+++ b/guide/src/roadmap.md
@@ -1,20 +1,11 @@
 # Roadmap
 
-Major unimplemented features (as of September 2018) include:
+Core unimplemented features (as of February 2019) include:
 
-- backend "soundness" work to ensure corrupt data model states aren't reachable
-  via the API
-- authentication and account creation
 - rate-limiting and spam/abuse mitigation
-- "automated update" bots to consume metadata feeds (as opposed to one-time
-  bulk imports)
 - actual entity creation, editing, deleting through the web interface
-- updating the search index in near-real-time following editgroup merges. In
-  particular, the cache invalidation problem is tricky for some relationships
-  (eg, updating all releases if a container is updated)
 
-Once a reasonable degree of schema and API stability is attained, contributions
-would be helpful to implement:
+Contributions would be helpful to implement:
 
 - import (bulk and/or continuous updates) for more metadata sources
 - better handling of work/release distinction in, eg, search results and
@@ -23,23 +14,19 @@ would be helpful to implement:
 - matching improvements, eg, for references (citations), contributions
   (authorship), work grouping, and file/release matching
 - internationalization of the web interface (translation to multiple languages)
-- review of design for accessibility
-- better handling of non-PDF file formats
+- accessibility review of user interface
 
 Longer term projects could include:
 
 - full-text search over release files
 - bi-directional synchronization with other user-editable catalogs, such as
   Wikidata
-- better representation of multi-file objects such as websites and datasets
 - alternate/enhanced backend to store full edit history without overloading
   traditional relational database
 
 ## Known Issues
 
-Too many right now, but this section will be populated soon.
-
-- changelog index may have gaps due to postgresql sequence and transaction
+- changelog index may have gaps due to PostgreSQL sequence and transaction
   roll-back behavior
 
 ## Unresolved Questions
@@ -48,22 +35,19 @@ How to handle translations of, eg, titles and author names? To be clear, not
 translations of works (which are just separate releases), these are more like
 aliases or "originally known as".
 
-Are bi-directional links a schema anti-pattern? Eg, should "work" point to a
-"primary release" (which itself points back to the work)?
-
-Should `identifier` and `citation` be their own entities, referencing other
-entities by UUID instead of by revision? Not sure if this would increase or
-decrease database resource utilization.
+Should external identifers be made generic? Eg, instead of having `arxiv_id` as
+a column, have a table of arbitary identifers, with either an `extid_type` or
+just use a prefix like `arxiv:someid`.
 
 Should contributor/author affiliation and contact information be retained? It
 could be very useful for disambiguation, but we don't want to build a huge
-database for spammers or "innovative" start-up marketing.
+database for "marketing" and other spam.
 
 Can general-purpose SQL databases like Postgres or MySQL scale well enough to
 hold several tables with billions of entity revisions? Right from the start
 there are hundreds of millions of works and releases, many of which having
 dozens of citations, many authors, and many identifiers, and then we'll have
-potentially dozens of edits for each of these, which multiply out to `1e8 * 2e1
+potentially dozens of edits for each of these. This multiplies out to `1e8 * 2e1
 * 2e1 = 4e10`, or 40 billion rows in the citation table. If each row was 32
 bytes on average (uncompressed, not including index size), that would be 1.3
 TByte on its own, larger than common SSD disks. I do think a transactional SQL
@@ -74,7 +58,7 @@ primary database, as user interfaces could rely on secondary read-only search
 engines for more complex queries and views.
 
 There is a tension between focus and scope creep. If a central database like
-fatcat doesn't support enough fields and metadata, then it will not be possible
+Fatcat doesn't support enough fields and metadata, then it will not be possible
 to completely import other corpuses, and this becomes "yet another" partial
 bibliographic database. On the other hand, accepting arbitrary data leads to
 other problems: sparseness increases (we have more "partial" data), potential