Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

status field for controlled vocabulary tables #140

Open
smrgeoinfo opened this issue Jun 28, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

status field for controlled vocabulary tables #140

smrgeoinfo opened this issue Jun 28, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@smrgeoinfo
Copy link

One of the use cases we'd like to implement is to support community driven data loading via templates or XML/JSON/YAML web services. In this scenario, its quite likely that some input records are going to show up with terms that are not from the 'official controlled vocabularies'; instead of rejecting such data, we'd like to accept it, and mark the new terms with a status like 'submitted' or 'proposed' so that a data manager could review them and either accept (add to CV) reject as inappropriate, or map to an appropriate existing term. This would require a 'status' field in all controlled vocabulary tables.

@horsburgh
Copy link
Member

@smrgeoinfo - The current ODM2 schema does not specify where CV terms have to come from. You could use any vocabulary. Of course, terms should exist in the CV table in the database before they can be used in the corresponding metadata field, but we intended from the beginning that some users of ODM2 might want to use their own vocabulary terms. The database administrator has to decide which terms get added and which don't.

With respect to a "status" field in the schema - I would prefer to not add this to the ODM2 schema. We already have the ODM2 vocabulary management system at http://vocabulary.odm2.org. We are encouraging users to add their terms there where they can be reviewed and accepted/rejected. I don't think we want to add vocabulary management to the general schema that everyone starts with.

With respect to the use case you describe, wouldn't you want to stage the entire dataset (subject to approval by a data manager) and not just the vocabulary terms? So, you might have a separate place and process for moderating vocabulary terms and for moderating the data submitted by users that is separate from your production database - e.g., the submitted data doesn't go into the production database until the terms and data have been approved?

@emiliom
Copy link
Member

emiliom commented Jun 30, 2017

Just adding that I completely agree with Jeff's comments on the use of both the ODM2 vocabulary management system, and a staging/loading vs production databases arrangement.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants