This document describes an XML encoding standard for IVOA Resource Metadata, referred to as VOResource. This schema is primarily intended to support interoperable registries used for discovering resources; however, any application that needs to describe resources may use this schema. In this document, we define the types and elements that make up the schema as representations of metadata terms defined in the IVOA standard, Resource Metadata for the Virtual Observatory [Hanisch et al. 2004]. We also describe the general model for the schema and explain how it may be extended to add new metadata terms and describe more specific types of resources.

No abstract

VODataService refers to an XML encoding standard for a specialized extension of the IVOA Resource Metadata that is useful for describing data collections and the services that access them. It is defined as an extension of the core resource metadata encoding standard known as VOResource ] using XML Schema. The specialized resource types defined by the VODataService schema allow one to describe how the data VODataService (Recommendation)

Data platforms represent a new paradigm for carrying out health research. In the platform model, datasets are pooled for remote access and analysis, so novel insights for developing better stratified and/or personalised medicine approaches can be derived from their integration. If the integration of diverse datasets enables development of more accurate risk indicators, prognostic factors, or better treatments and interventions, this obviates the need for the sharing and reuse of data; and a platform-based approach is an appropriate model for facilitating this. Platform-based approaches thus require new thinking about consent. Here we defend an approach to meeting this challenge within the data platform model, grounded in: the notion of ‘reasonable expectations’ for the reuse of data; Waldron’s account of ‘integrity’ as a heuristic for managing disagreement about the ethical permissibility of the approach; and the element of the social contract that emphasises the importance of public engagement in embedding new norms of research consistent with changing technological realities. While a social contract approach may sound appealing, however, it is incoherent in the context at hand. We defend a way forward guided by that part of the social contract which requires public approval for the proposal and argue that we have moral reasons to endorse a wider presumption of data reuse. However, we show that the relationship in question is not recognisably contractual and that the social contract approach is therefore misleading in this context. We conclude stating four requirements on which the legitimacy of our proposal rests.