Dear Colleagues,

While institution code, accession number and genus may be sufficient to disambiguate entities, I think the minimum metadata required should perhaps be more than what is required for disambiguation. The whole system that uses PUIDs is also supposed to serve the purposes of discovery and reuse of information about PGRFAs. For this more metadata is necessary, such as the type of resource and the location of the resource (a physical location for material resources or UIR for digital ones). Even more metadata is important, but cannot necessarily be required if it is not know. Although only "required" and "optional" categories can be specified from a machine point of view, I think it is important from the start to build a culture of "very strongly recommended" or "required if known" metadata for reusability. Much of this is already captured in existing standards such as MCPD and other sources that have already been mentioned.

Ramona

------------------------------------------------------
Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D.
Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona
Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona
Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Alercia, Adriana (Bioversity) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Gerardo and all,

Thanks for the useful table. Basically, I think that INSTCODE:ACCENUM are enough to 'identify' material among genebanks. If need be, to reconfirm the uniqueness of the material, GENUS might be added. This just in case that some genebank may have added the same ACCENUM to different accessions - but I doubt this is feasible.

Having these two fields will help to build on them with all the rest of 'optional' but valuable descriptors and can re-confirm the uniqueness of the PGRFA material.

Kind regards,
Adriana


-----Original Message-----
From: Global Information System on PGRFA [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francione, Gerardo (AGDT)
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Metadata fields

Dear colleagues,

I have compiled the attached table summarising the proposals received so far for your review.

Adriana, can you please check the mandatory/optional status of the fields you propose to add?

We thank you for contributing to the discussion and look forward to receiving more valuable comments on this important matter.

Thank you,
Regards,


Gerardo Francione
Treaty Secretariat



########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the GLIS-PGRFA-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=GLIS-PGRFA-L&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the GLIS-PGRFA-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=GLIS-PGRFA-L&A=1



To unsubscribe from the GLIS-PGRFA-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=GLIS-PGRFA-L&A=1