GEC11InstMeasWorkingSession: 072811Zurawski_instance1.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--
Based on http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/GEC11InstMeasWorkingSession/072511_ver0.2.1_MDOD_DataModel.txt
-->

<measurement_data_object_descriptor>
  
  <identifiers>
  
    <!-- only one primary allowed -->
    <identifier rank="primary" 
                type="urn | variable | key | token" 
                source="holderid_1" 
                value="text | urn [better...]" />
    <!-- or the following, with no attributes ... 
    <identifier>
      <rank>primary</rank>
      <type>urn | variable | key | token</type>
      <source>holderid_1</source>
      <value>text | urn [better...]</value>
    </identifier>
    -->
    
    <!-- many secondaries ? -->    
    <identifier rank="secondary"
                type="urn | variable | key | token" 
                source="holderid_1" 
                value="text | urn [better...]" />
       
    <title>text</title>
    <abstract>text</abstract>
    <subject>text</subject>
    <keywords>text</keywords>
    <annotation>
      <user_id>text</user_id>
      <date_time>text</date_time>
        <!-- ISO Date prefered -->
      <entry>text</entry>
    </annotation>    

    <!--
    JZ 7/27
    
    Comments: 
    
    - The 'identifiers' enclosing element doesn't seem necessary to me.  I
      suppose if it will always contain all identifiers (primary and secondary),
      otherwise these could live at the top level and be referenced by ID (all of the 
      other elements would then be put inside of each/some of the ids)
    - I would rename the 'value' of the priamry identifier object 'id' instead
    - Will the secondary's ever be seperated from the primary?  If so we need 
      'id' and 'idRef' constructs to act as pointers
    - use a well specified date type    
    -->  
       
  </identifiers>


  
  <descriptors>

    <!--
    JZ 7/27
    
    Comments: 
    
     - Right off the bat I am not sure about a single 'descriptor' based on the
       contents.  There probably should be multiple descriptors, one for each of
       the data types (e.g. the target/category would change).  
     - Does the location make sense in here?  Seems like it would be better in
       the holder, unless we misunderstand what the holder is...
     - What is the 'level' exactly?
     - 'object_type' wasn't well liked.  Service Type instead?  describing ways
        to access (in some cases), not data formats  
           
    -->      
                 
    <descriptor level="1" 
                object_type="meas_data_collection | meas_data_flow | meas_data_directory | meas_data_file | meas_data_database | meas_data_service_portal | meas_data_service_GUI">
                                                
      <!-- or the following, with no attributes ... 
      <level>1</level>
      <object_type>meas_data_collection | meas_data_flow | meas_data_directory | meas_data_file | meas_data_database | meas_data_service_portal | meas_data_service_GUI</object_type>
      -->
      
      <collection_geographic_location>text</collection_geographic_location>
      <!-- Would rather see this end up in the location element -->
 
      <collection_start_date_time>numerical</collection_start_date_time>
      <collection_end_date_time>numerical</collection_end_date_time>
      <!-- would a lifetime make more sense here? -->

      <project_id>text</project_id>
      <slice_id>text</slice_id>
      <experiment_id>text</experiment_id>
      <run_id>text</run_id>
      <!-- all of these are geni related, I would favor some grouping, e.g.
      
      <geni project_id="" slice_id="" experiment_id="" run_id="" />
      -->

      <target>text</target>
      <!-- similar to pS subject, would argue this is a lot more complex than just text -->
      
      <category>
        <parameters>
          <parameter>text</parameter>
          <parameter>text</parameter>
        </parameters>
      </category>
      <!-- simlar to pS eventType, would rather see it be:

      <categories>
        <category>text</category>
      </categories>
      -->
      

      <object_size>numerical</object_size>
      <flow_rate>numerical</flow_rate>

      <object_format>perfSONAR_API|OML_DB|GUI|etc</object_format>
      <interpretation_method></interpretation_method>
                                                                                                                                
      <encryption>yes|no</encryption>   
      <encryption_method></encryption_method>

      <!-- I would claim the prior 6 are heavily related to the 'object_type', this would beg for us to have different 'dialects' of descriptor.  E.g. if you are a certain type, you have special elements.  -->

      <locator>
        <view>global|per_association|within_holder</view>
                <holder>holderid_n</holder>
                <type>path|url|other</type>
                <value>text</value>
                <access_method>text</access_method>
      </locator>

      <!-- I am not really sure this is the right place for this.  I wold envison that this is more related to the holder ... so it would make more sense to do the following:
      
        <descriptor>
          <holder idRef="holder1"
        </descriptor>

        <holder>
          <location>
            <view />
            <type />
            
            etc...
            
          </location>
        </holder>            
       -->
                      
      <annotation>
        <user_id>text</user_id>
        <date_time>text</date_time>
          <!-- ISO Date prefered -->
        <entry>text</entry>
      </annotation>  

      <!--
      Do we need this here?  I guess it doesn't hurt ... maybe this beggs for a special top annotation object?
      -->

      <descriptors_nextleveldown>
        <descriptor level="2">
        <!-- -->
        </descriptor>
                <!-- ... -->
      </descriptors_nextleveldown>
 
      <!--
      I am struggling with what this is.  I am assuming its to enforce some sort of layering of descripors, but I am not sure that makes sense.  I would imagine that descriptors are all at the same 'level' (e.g. see my earlier comment about needning more than one)
      -->

    </descriptor>
    
  </descriptors>
  
  <holders>

    <!--
    JZ 7/27
    
    Comments: 
    -->  
        
    <holder id="holderid_1" order="1">                  
      <!-- or the following, with no attributes ... 
      <id>holderid_1</id>      
      <order>1</order>          
      -->

      <domain>geni.net</domain>         
      <subdomain>holder_1.org</subdomain>               

      <!-- maybe these make sense as a urn? -->

      <slice_id>text</slice_id> 
      <user_id>text</user_id>
      <!-- all of these are geni related, I would favor some grouping, e.g.
      
      <geni user_id="" slice_id="" />
      
      project_id, experiment_id and run_id don't seem to be here ...
      -->

      <contact>
        <type>email|url|other</type>
        <value>text</value>
      </contact>  
      
      <!-- This can be bolstered with a more complete 'service level' description from the perfsONAR world, would have some of the 'location' stuff from descriptor (see proposal above) -->

      <collection>yes|inherited</collection>
      <collection_policy></collection_policy>
                                                        
      <anonymization>yes|yes_inherited|not_required</anonymization>
      <anonymization_method></anonymization_method>     
      
      <sharing>allowed|allowed_inherited|not_allowed</sharing>
      <sharing_policy></sharing_policy>
                                                        
      <disposal>specified|specified_inherited|not_specified</disposal>
      <disposal_policy></disposal_policy>       
      
      <!-- all 8 of these are 'policy' related, mayeb we need a special policy element to enclose them all?
      
      <policy>
        ...
      </policy>
      
       -->
        
      <transaction>
        <transaction_id>text</transaction_id>
        <transaction_type>collected|received|returned|registered|modified|shared|assigned|etc.</transaction_type>
        <transaction_date_time>text</transaction_date_time>
        <transaction_info></transaction_info>           
                                                                        
        <annotation>
          <user_id>text</user_id>
          <date_time>text</date_time>
            <!-- ISO Date prefered -->
          <entry>text</entry>
        </annotation>  
                                                                        
      </transaction>
      
      <!-- I don't disagree that this is an imporant thing ... I am not sure this is a first class citizen in the MDOD though.  I am thinking of this as 'data' really.  Here is my crazy idea:
      
       - A service that tracks the tranactions (e.g. it would be a 'log MA' or something similar
      
       - That service registers with an LS just like any other
       
       - We can describe the specific service that this MDOD cares aboubt:
       
       
       <transaction>
         <contact> etc. etc. </contact>
       </transaction>
       -->
      

    </holder>
  
  </holders>
  
</measurement_data_object_descriptor>