Dear colleagues,I would like to add a few comments, hoping to further clarify the points in Francisco’s email that we think should be addressed when discussing the metadata structure to associate to the DOIs assigned by GLIS.a) accurate identification of the PGRFA being assigned a DOI is the first obvious need we have. A good metadata description will allow GLIS to perform automatic checks and flag, as potential duplicates, PGRFA that have the same values in all or some of the metadata fields. Which ones this fields are will be one of the discussion topics
b) a good metadata description will allow users to query GLIS using any of the metadata fields (e.g. the Accession Number or the genus/species) and receive a lista of one or more PGRFA together with their DOIsc) as already mentioned during W1 and W2, PGRFA are not standing still, they change and interact over time. We need to find a way to model such changes and interactions
d) allowing users to associate new targets (e.g. URLs for websites or DOIs for publications) to existing PGRFA is considered an important feature of GLIS. This way, the landing page of any PGRFA registered in GLIS will list all destinations where additional information on the PGRFA can be located. Such destinations can be further specified through some simple metadata attributes to indicate, for instance, that they provide details on C&E data, offer DNA sequencing information, point to publications and so on. This applies to responses to client applications as well
e) one of the design principles of GLIS is the preservation of existing identifiers. We do not want organisations to abandon their own identifiers, them being Accession Numbers, DarwinCore triplets or LSIDs, UUIDs, ARKs or else. Therefore, we need a way to allocate such existing identifiers in the metadata description
f) We would like to identify a metadata description that can be easily converted into different formats to make it accessible to the widest range of client applications
On 10 Mar 2015, at 10:41, Lopez, Francisco (AGDT) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Dear colleagues,We are now opening discussion for week 3 about the metadata structure associated to each DOI to build a functional Global Information System. Again, let us focus the discussion on PGRFA only at this stage. The purpose of such metadata structure is to assist users and client applications to:
a) identify the PGRFA being registered with each new DOI (This week we can detailed the scope of the identifiers);
b) search for PGRFA during a discovery operation;
c) model PGRFA interactions through a minimum set of relation operators (This point was already anticipated during Week 1);
>>Datacite provides a set of relational operators [3], and it may be necessary to use these in the "official" DOI metadata. However, a richer set of relations could be had through biological ontologies under development, such as the Relations Ontology [4]d) allow the registration of multiple targets associated to each DOI;>>If I understand correctly, this seems like a resolution issue, which should already be well worked out by the DOI foundation.e) allow for association of existing identifiers. These can be local or global, permanent or not, but are commonly used by the entity owner to refer to the PGRFA like the “accession number”, for example, as discussed during the previous weeks.
>>See response to Marco's point d above.f) be expressed in a metadata format that can be (or already is) mapped to some widely accepted standard such as RDF, DWC, Crop Ontology and so on.>>These are very different types of standards. DWC is available as RDF, and CO (being an ontology) should be able to be expressed as RDF.
Conversion among formats is fairly straightforward, however, and it is more important to focus on the content of the metadata (i.e. what elements are required or recommended). Content should look to existing repositories like Biosamples [5], MIxS [6], and DWC. Note that MIxS is not currently well oriented toward plant material (other than as a source for metagenomes), but some community discussion are underway to create a plant genomes extension.Many of you already mentioned that the Multi-Crop Passport Descriptors V.2 could be a good starting point, but that there is the need for some extension in terms of relational operators, so we can further elaborate on this.
>>I think that a new standard for plant material will be necessary (see my comment above) that combines elements of the Passport and MIxS.
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