mbjones
commented
6 years ago Original Redmine Comment Author Name: Hannu Saarenmaa (Hannu Saarenmaa) Original Date: 2010-04-27T10:24:26Z
I would be curious to hear what is the status of these developments now? We are very much looking for them.
My view on the issues is to offer a simple solution first and then see if more functionality is really needed. So, use both Metacat and OAI-PMH protocols in parallel. The latter would have a just a public read-only interface, while actions that require authentication or updates would have to be performed via Metacat protocol. For point 3) on change detection, only serve the latest and not intermediate versions.
Author Name: Matt Jones (Matt Jones) Original Redmine Issue: 3835, https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/3835 Original Date: 2009-02-23 Original Assignee: Duane Costa
Metacat's current harvest mechanism works well but is a proprietary system. The Dryad project has proposed to implement an OAI-PMH compliant harvest susbstem for Metacat in order to allow Metacat to interact more effectively with other systems that implement this protocol. This is a tracking bug for the design and implementation of this feature. Other more detailed bugs will be filed for specific tasks. It would be useful if the final system allowed Metacat to act as both an OAI-PMH Data Provider and as an OAI-PMH Service Provider, allowing us to both serve and harvest documents from OAI-PMH servers.
Some issues to consider and discuss: 1) lack of record authorization mechanisms in OAI-PMH. Metacat currently allows harvest with access controls on harvested records. Reverting to a purely OAI-PMH system would eliminate this capability that is used by many of our harvest clients (especially for data, but somewhat for metadata as well). So the design needs to consider a hybrid that allows both public records to be exposed through OAI-PMH and restricted records to be exposed through a protocol like Metacat's that supports access control. What is our design goal here?
2) A corollary of (1) is how to determine who is allowed to update a given record. Does OAI-PMH assume providers always originate from a constant URL endpoint in order to get around authenticating data providers? This is probably not reasonable for even short periods of time (a few years). A number of sites change domain names over short period of times, and the harvester needs to be able to adjust to these changes, update endpoints, and still handle record replacement. Maybe this is a non-issue if PMH allows provider endpoints to be updated.
3) Date-based change detection in OAI-PMH versus GUID-based versioning in metacat. How should these be reconciled? If a PMH harvest occurs every ten days, but a metadata document is revised three times in that interval, does OAI-PMH only get the most recent version? How are the other versions archived and made accessible over time?
4) Data objects. The Metacat harvester allows one to transfer objects of any type, which is used to harvest both metadata objects of various formats (e.g., EML and FGDC) as well as the associated data objects. Each of these objects has their own unique identifier. How would this be handled under OAI-PMH?
A nice background set of slides is here: http://www.oaforum.org/otherfiles/berl_oai-tutorial_e.ppt