inclusion of a status metadata properties in ogcapi-records geojson

opengeospatial / ogcapi-records

An open standard for the discovery of geospatial resources on the Web.

https://ogcapi.ogc.org/records

Other

59 stars 28 forks source link

inclusion of a status metadata properties in ogcapi-records geojson #186

Closed pvgenuchten closed 1 year ago

pvgenuchten commented 1 year ago

Suggestion to add a status property on the recordgeojson model and as queryable

status, for example populated from the [https://wiki.esipfed.org/ISO_19115_and_19115-2_CodeList_Dictionaries#MD_ProgressCode](iso codelist progress code) is relevant to filter archived resources from ongoing and planned

pvretano commented 1 year ago

What is the status referring to? The status of the record or the status of resource? The concensus of the SWG members is that it refers to the status of the resource.
Should be include this in the core? The use case seems sounds but the criteria might be ... "is this information that almost ever record would have"? If not then it should not be in the core. In the Dutch case, it is a required element.

Probably need more feedback.

pvgenuchten commented 1 year ago

The status refers to the dataset, good question though, also the metadata record itself can go through a draft/published workflow.

Status in other standards

schema.org/Dataset advertises this property as https://schema.org/creativeWorkStatus
dcat uses https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/#Property:resource_status
datacite does not have a status, but it has a wide range of date-types indicating when the resource passed a lifecycle step

The last option is interesting, because you can derive the current status from the last lifecycle step which occurred.

Looking forward to hear view from others.

kalxas commented 1 year ago

This is a use case that I have seen in practice. In my case, I defined a custom "status" property with a supporting codelist in the record properties. I am not sure if it should be added to core.

pvretano commented 1 year ago

28-NOV-2022: The life cycle vocabulary is a bit of a sticking point since different organizations might have different lifecycle processes and thus different life cycle vocabularies. As such, it is not clear to the SWG if this should be part of the "core". We will leave this issue open for a bit longer to gather more feedback.

pvretano commented 1 year ago

31-MAR-2023: No further feedback.