This PR adds a transform for Christian Brothers University's content. They currently are adding everything to one set - p15916coll1
What's new?
An in-depth description of the intended changes made by this PR. Technical details and possible side effects.
Added transform to do X
Remove transform to do y
Modified transform to do x
Could this change impact any other transforms?
How should this be tested?
A description of what steps someone could take to:
Does the transform validate in Oxygen using the Saxon 8.7 processor
Using sample XML code cbu_test.txt, does the pull request doe what is intended
If you run a full Schema validation on the feed the transform(s) applies to(using Variety.js and DLTN Metadata QA), does every record have:
a titleInfo/title
a location/url
an accessCondition
a provider name
Additional Notes:
Talking with Kay and Deborah at CBU, they wanted two rights values to appear. They are comfortable with me adding "Copyright Not Evaluated" for everything, but they also wanted to have a local rights statement with contact information for the archive. Looking at DPLA's rights documentation and at our sets for Rhodes, it looks like this local statement
should go in accessCondition[@type="local rights statement"]. Please double check my logic on this to confirm that both will show up in DPLA. I believe the two statements are not in conflict.
GitHub Issue: 267 Jira Issue: DPLA-263
What does this Pull Request do?
This PR adds a transform for Christian Brothers University's content. They currently are adding everything to one set - p15916coll1
What's new?
An in-depth description of the intended changes made by this PR. Technical details and possible side effects.
How should this be tested?
A description of what steps someone could take to:
Additional Notes:
Talking with Kay and Deborah at CBU, they wanted two rights values to appear. They are comfortable with me adding "Copyright Not Evaluated" for everything, but they also wanted to have a local rights statement with contact information for the archive. Looking at DPLA's rights documentation and at our sets for Rhodes, it looks like this local statement should go in accessCondition[@type="local rights statement"]. Please double check my logic on this to confirm that both will show up in DPLA. I believe the two statements are not in conflict.
Interested parties
@CanOfBees @markpbaggett