Structural metadata: Is the KI in PID records the canonical/unique location for PID metadata? Suppose it is dangerous to *only* have it there
Leads to a normalization problem - the authoritative version may reside elsewhere.
So: Is PID record info just a cache for the structural metadata?
How are the other metadata categories covered?
Another argument against the KI in PID records as authoritative source is that this causes the (existing) permissions issues when others need to change PID records.
Larry: difference between repositories and registries is merely one of function. Thus, combination into a single software (cordra) that can act as one or the other
Provide access to object vs. registering
Does not prescribe a specific viewpoint on digital object - metadata relations; fairly low level
Granularity: proposition of Handles is that they can be assigned at lower level than DOI. does not preclude collection-building. The finest level we see is the DTR use of PIDs - assigning them to lowest level of things such as integers, units..
Push for a consistent body of what comes back from a DOI
Reg agency push back: not a lot of metadata should be put in that was considered less useful
Profile: what kind of DOI was this? Enable a 2 step process.
Software for this built and worked, but did not catch up. Not necessary for RAs to do their business - 1-to-1 redirection was sufficient.
New push with LD, movie industry usage ...
What was the content of the profiles?
There was to be no minimal set, there would be several
Criteria for sorting out the profile contents:
Structural metadata perspective
Ulrichs notions: Workflow that ends with the decision-making, typing for yes-no-decisions - functional rather than semantic view
Does the combination of these give an answer to: is an object FAIR?
Can we make progress on these in the next weeks and put them up for comprehensive discussion at P10?