Version 2 (modified by lawrence, 15 years ago) (diff)


Discussion about MOLES issues and priorities


  • Initial Version, BNL, reporting a discussion between BNL and KON. Based on ndgmetadata1.2.5

Issues on the Table

(Will eventually be a list of tickets)

  1. The CoatHanger?
  2. Granules
  3. Stub-B Schema


Work is underway to modularise MOLES so that components can be used in the MOLES schema itself and in the stub-B schema. (Need some details. What is involved? Saved for another day).

The CoatHanger?

Issue CH1: how do we import material into MOLES? It turns out we already have the dgMetadataDescriptionType: which should occur in each moles record, although it doesn't form part of one of the major entities (Activity, Data Production Tool, Observation Station, Deployment, Data Entity). The descriptionSection would seem to be a useful adendum to each of these in their own right (possibly instead of making it part of the overall description, since we see this additional information being additional attribute(s) of the entities).

To consider: Making a descriptionSection part of each of the major entities, allowing a stub-b to include this information for each of the first order entities in a natural way.

Issue CH2: The Online Reference type No image "dgOnlineReferenceType" attached to MolesDiscussion should evolve towards something that exploits xlink, so that we can indicate whether one expects to insert the linked object, point to the linked object, or render the remote object, and insert it ...

Issue CH3: Provide a suggested mechanism of exploiting xlink to do this. (A proposal should be a schema fragment which includes a controlled vocabulary for the attributes of the xlink, recognising that we will be on the bleeding edge here and some future changes in our technology may be necessary).