---++ Datasource Metadata Proposal Two One of the outcomes from the BerlinProtocolMeeting was to define a "provider" only as the software installation that could serve as an umbrella for one or more datasources. This definition is of little value. However, there's a more important definition for that term if we want to give proper credits to institutions that are somehow involved with the existing networks: "A provider is an entity (institution or person) responsible for running one or more instances of a data sharing service." Therefore, a provider in this case is a role associated to a person or an institution. We could easily think about other roles that would deserve credit as well: host and data owner for example. For now on let's consider two different concepts: provider entities and provider software. To correctly support the provider entity definition and other possible roles in metadata responses there are some challenges that we need to consider: * The same provider entity could be associated with one or more provider software (remember the [[http://splink.cria.org.br/architecture?criaLANG=en][speciesLink]] case with the regional servers approach). * The same entity could play more than one role (usually a provider entity is also the host) in a service instance. * The same service instance could be "provided" by more than one entity (although that's not usual, we could think about a joint between institutions that would be co-responsible for setting up and maintaining one or more services). * Other networks could need different roles that we're not being able to anticipate. Another missing point from the meeting was how to deal with multi-lingual metadata elements. To address all these issues we have a new metadata proposal where: * Each datasource service could have a list of related entities. * Each related entity could play one or more role at the same time. * Role values would not be defined by the protocol (networks would need to agree on the values and rely on software configurators to enforce their content). * Each entity would have an associated Global Unique Identifier (GUID). Such identifier could be any type of string, although we would recommend it to be also a URL address pointing to an XML representation of the entity metadata. GUIDs would enable identification of entities across different service instances. * Language aware elements would carry an xml:lang attribute. Open issues: * Metadata structure could be an extension from [[http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/][DublinCore]]. * Should we include physical address for the entities? ---+++++ Sample request
---+++++ Sample response
http://www.myorganization.org/provider/wrapper.php?res=ORG ??? specimen This resource contains specimen records of birds from all over the world bird, specimen ??? pt_BR how to reference and give credits IPR stuff http://www.tdwg.org/dwc/2.0/darwincore.xsd http://www.tdwg.org/ext/curatorial/0.1/c.xsd http://www.someorganization.org/mydata.xml Biodiversity Informatics Institute Instituto de Informática para Biodiversidade ORG http://www.someorganization.org/mylogo.gif provider host Cool organization http://www.someorganization.org/ Someone Boss person1@someorganization.org +111 11 111111 Someone else Sysadmin person2@someorganization.org +111 11 111112 http://dept.ins.org/mydata.xml Department of Zoology - Institute X Departamento de Zoologia - Instituto X XZ http://www.ins.org/dept.gif owner Cool department http://dept.ins.org/ Someone Curator person1@dept.ins.org +111 11 333333