search

gbif / portal-feedback

User feedback for the GBIF API, website and published data. You can ask questions here. 🗨❓
30 stars 16 forks source link

Connect datasets from GBIF affiliate? #1737

Open kcopas opened 5 years ago

kcopas commented 5 years ago

Just noticing that the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna affiliate page shows them as having zero datasets, but they actually have the 69 of them as their publisher page shows.

This is a similar problem to the one we had some time ago with Plazi's participant page, which @timrobertson100 fixed rather easily, I think. Hoping it might be equally trivial here.

dnoesgaard commented 5 years ago

I believe replacing the endorsing participant (currently Participant Node Managers Committee) with Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (https://www.gbif.org/participant/371) would solve this...

ManonGros commented 5 years ago

Should we update the endorsing participant even if Head of delegation: Pending?

timhirsch commented 5 years ago

Affiliates do not have heads of delegation as they are not participants, so really this field should not exist.

ahahn-gbif commented 5 years ago

On the technical level it is trivial - it just requires re-linking from the endorsing Participant Node Managers' Committee (PNMC) to the other CAFF node in the registry. Where it is less trivial is that we have a very formal set of procedures around endorsements (which this is), which forbid us to just link up publishers to Nodes as seems to make best sense.

If we want to take the endorsement workflow seriously, I would suggest that the formally correct way forward would be to contact the endorsing PNMC members with our suggestion to re-link this publisher to the CAFF Associate Participant, copying the representative of CAFF in the communication, and ask whether this would give anybody reason for concern, and wait whether we receive the ok on that. Sound ok?

ahahn-gbif commented 5 years ago

Adding: the endorsement is done by the Node Manager, not the Head of Delegation.

ahahn-gbif commented 5 years ago

Another question on endorsement formalities: is an Affiliate Participant even allowed to endorse publishers, formally speaking? Remember that the linking of publishers to Nodes in the present situation is to document the formal procedures of endorsement, not to reflect institutional liaison and data contribution. If we want to walk away from that, it would require a more official agreement with our Nodes, we cannot just ignore it.

timhirsch commented 5 years ago

On the last point the answer is that there are no formal rules about the status of affiliates (they are NOT participants), and we only introduced the endorsing role for the particular case of IOC/OBIS for pragmatic reasons. I agree that we should get this tidied up and documented somewhere, which is best done through discussion with the NSG. I will make sure to introduce it as an additional component of a discussion of endorsement we are due to have anyway in the upcoming NSG meeting on 8 Feb.

ManonGros commented 3 years ago

@timhirsch were you able to raise affiliate endorsement status with NSG? This doesn't seem like a data content issue any more, should I close it?

timhirsch commented 3 years ago

Apologies that I let this one slip in 2019. Since CAFF is the only relevant example besides OBIS, I still think the most pragmatic option is to assign them the same endorsing rights as an affiliate, but I agree we should get an ok from the NSG as suggested earlier by @ahahn-gbif . There is an NSG meeting today and I can try to raise it although it's quite a crowded agenda so can't guarantee there will be time. @ManonGros could you re-assign this to me so I can follow up, and I will keep you informed so you can re-assign the endorsement to CAFF once it is settled?

ManonGros commented 3 years ago

Thanks @timhirsch! sounds good, ping me when needed.