Short answer: We haven't yet figured out the mapping between these two ways of modeling data responsibility yet. We probably should keep it simple for now and have 'owner' be Point of Contact, since that seems most general, and then revisit later.
Long answer: Thinking out loud: "Owner" was probably a temporary field there, since we are only recently/currently introducing any actual sense of ownership of data. So I think we should adjust the model to what makes sense. Meanwhile, there are two senses in which we will want layer data associated with users. These come from two very different sources: First, there is relationship between data and users that will determine security/permissions. This will let some users read, others edit the (meta)data, and so on. Second, there is the relationship as specified in the ISO document that ties the data to entities--Point of Contact, Metadata Provider. I think it would make sense if anybody with Manage permissions on data was listed as a Point of Contact (I think the metadata document schema supports multiple POCs) and maybe anybody with the ability to edit the metadata be listed as a Metadata Provider. But I'm not confident on that and I think any sophisticated relationship between user management and metadata is out of scope for 1.0 unless we find ourselves with time for it. (Though I think these exactly the hot features we should slate for 1.1) On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ariel Nunez <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi people, > > Currently the Layer model in GeoNode has a "owner" field that links it > to a user (with complete profile). The thing is that there are two > types of users in the layer metadata form: "Point of Contact" and > "Metadata Provider". > > The questions are: > > - Which of those fields corresponds to "Owner": POC or MetadataProvider? > - Are those two users related to the layer directly or is it more > like one is a "Geonode Manager" and the other is a "Layer Manager"? > - Should we ditch the owner attribute and make two fields: POC ad > MetadataProvider instead? > > Cheers, > Ariel. > -- Sebastian Benthall OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
