Question: harvesting managed vs. all resource records

[Gretchen Greene]

To expand a little on the concept of verificationLevel,  while it was
not suggested as a schema dependent attribute originally the idea was
that it would be along the lines of the stamping.  

A set of score values initially proposed (again, I don't know of any
group that has implemented these to date) were simple int to represent 0
- base, 1 - XSLT type VOResource/schema validation, 2- auto 'invoke'
service w/Response Ok, 3 - human review of Metadata.

Even if the registries have unique internal scoring method,  it would be
good to standardize at some 'level' for minimum consistency with the
assignment value meaning.  I think it would be worthwhile to consider
how to include this as part of schema extension or whatever,  especially
if we are now discussing resource harvesting between multiple registries
with variable publishing sources.  The number of schema metadata fields
for inter-registry curation/exchange is increasing and one more
simplistic "stamp" dare I say might be all that is needed in many cases.

-Gretchen


---------------------------
Ray's comment...


In addtion to these attributes, we have discussed adding an attribute 
called verificationLevel to aid with registry curation.  The value would

be assigned to a resource record by a registry to indicate quality of
the 
resource metadata (not the resource itself).  Registries would set their

own standards for what earns the highest quality rating; thus, they
would 
feel free to override the value that might already be in there when the 
value is harvested.  

These attributes are the only place where values can differ across 
registries (really, only status and verificationLevel).  A harvestedFrom

added to these attributes.  The rest of the record--that is, the 
information held in the Resource type's child elements--should NOT be 
changed by anyone other than the original publisher.