Add recordAccessLevel

[MarinaNitze]

We have accessLevel to indicate whether the data a listing refers to is public (currently or potentially publicly available), restricted (available under certain circumstances), or private (never publicly available).

But what about indicating whether the metadata entry itself is public or private?

Agencies are required to maintain a complete data inventory listing -- of all public, restricted, and private datasets -- in an Enterprise Data Inventory. However, they are only required to make public those entries where accessLevel = public.

Some agencies are interested in including a select number of restricted and private datasets in their public data inventories. But, for a variety of good reasons, they may not want to include 100% of these listings in their public data inventory.

So under this proposal, all listings where accessLevel = public would ALWAYS have recordAccessLevel = public.

But for datasets where accessLevel = restricted || private, the metadata editor would have the option of making recordAccessLevel = public to include that listing in the public data inventory. Otherwise, it would be recordAccessLevel = private.

Agencies using a DMS could theoretically already have this option available with published or unpublished entries. This would include this as part of the common core metadata.

This is a proposed required field. (Yes, we could use logic on the Data.gov harvester side to set defaults, but since part of the purpose of data.jsons in a consistent location is for other developers and data sites to crawl these inventories, the JSONs should be as complete as possible in and of themselves.)

[gbinal]

Along the lines of my feedback for #93, I'd suggest this be optional if adopted.

[MarinaNitze]

@seanherron, can you clarify why you linked this from Pull Request #98? This refers to the access to the metadata itself, not the underlying data. Really more of a "published/not published" in the context of a DMS.

[seanherron]

@MarinaMartin There has been a general discussion of implementing this as a general "access constraint" type clause - covering both the access level and legal license behind it.

[MarinaNitze]

After extensive discussion, the idea of an additional field to specifically indicate whether a dataset record should be publicly displayed did not gain traction. Naturally, agencies can and should use their tools to indicate whether or not an individual entry from the enterprise inventory should be included in the public inventory. (All entries for public datasets must be included in the public inventory; this field was suggested in cases where an agency might want to publicly expose a "restricted public" or "non-public" entry.)

Closing without adding. Thanks for a healthy discussion.