Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow dataset networks to reject datasets to be linked #2657

Open
ahahn-gbif opened this issue Feb 25, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

Allow dataset networks to reject datasets to be linked #2657

ahahn-gbif opened this issue Feb 25, 2025 · 3 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@ahahn-gbif
Copy link
Contributor

The dataset network construct allows to link individual datasets across different publishers for joint presentation and access. This serves different scenarios:

  • networks collecting a set of datasets that is as complete as possible concerning the network theme for joint presentation and/or reporting
  • networks of collaborators, where datasets are added selectively based on their relevance to the more formal collaboration

In the first case, self-selecting network membership by the publisher of a dataset is desirable, to cast the net as widely as possible. In the second case, however, network membership is more closely curated, with the network deciding which datasets should belong to the network, and which ones should not.

The current IPT synchronization with the registry displays all available networks, and allows self-assignment for all of them. We are looking for a solution where a network (e.g. via a registry marker/tag) can opt for e.g. invisibility in the IPT UI, a rejection of network links, or some other mechanism that prevents dataset publishers to join a dataset to the network.

@mike-podolskiy90
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks Andrea!

I suppose a tag in the registry might solve it. Then I just exclude those tagged networks from the list.

@mike-podolskiy90 mike-podolskiy90 self-assigned this Feb 25, 2025
@mike-podolskiy90 mike-podolskiy90 added this to the 3.2 milestone Feb 25, 2025
@MattBlissett
Copy link
Member

Perhaps MachineTags on the network, stating which organizations are allowed to join the network.

@ahahn-gbif
Copy link
Contributor Author

MachineTag sounds right, but I suppose it would rather make the network invisible in certain contexts, to be managed by the network curator through the registry instead. The organization qualifier can be rather high-maintenance, as we often do not know in advance / are not in control, or the scope is fluid

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants