| 18 | | * (2) Discussion: |
| | 18 | * (2) Discussion: MC via Pre- vs. Post-Processing |
| | 19 | * Preprocessing: |
| | 20 | * problem: the incoming metadata might be changed significantly without knowledge (and consent) of the data providers |
| | 21 | * possible solution: curation reports sent to the data providers |
| | 22 | * Postprocessing: |
| | 23 | * could result in a hybrid strategy: |
| | 24 | 1. changes to the metadata only affect the presentation level; PID leads to the original data |
| | 25 | 2. in addition data providers will be informed about problems with and possible corrections of their MD which they would have to perform themselves |
| | 26 | * (3) Next steps: |
| | 27 | 1. VLO-Taskforce members finalize their document on facet definitions and fillings which is currently under preparation (till March 20, 2015) |
| | 28 | 2. facets will be implemented according to the specifications in that document |
| | 29 | 3. evaluation of the specifications based on the outcome |
| | 30 | 4. consultation with the MC-Taskforce on the results |
