Support primary vs supplemental designations for content files and supplemental preservation files

[eporter23]

Story

As a Preservation Curator, I want to accommodate Emory AIP categories (Content, Metadata, Supplemental Preservation Files) but also support derivative/master delineations within content files, so that we can accommodate primary/supplemental designations for content vs supplemental preservation files as well as delineating types of file usage

Acceptance Criteria

Use one or more of the following options to provide acceptance criteria.

Notes

Emory AIP specification delineates the following within a preservation object package:

Files are broken down into one of three top-level categories:

• Primary Content (displays to end users)
• Supplemental Content (displays to end users)
• Supplemental Preservation Files (display to Staff/Curate users only)

Metadata

• Actionable/indexed metadata such as Descriptive, Rights, Admin

Content files' binaries can be further broken out into derivative types (see #22):

• Preservation Master File
• Intermediate File (high resolution access copy)
• Service File (lower resolution/watermarked access copy)
• Thumbnail (as generated by ingest process)
• Extracted Text File
• Character Positioning Data
• Transcript File

Supplemental content files and supplemental preservation files are not anticipated to have multiple kinds of derivatives, only primary content files.

Links to Additional Information

Simplified top-level category structure PCDM Use Spec Emory AIP and FileSet outline Emory AIP specification Emory AIP components diagram

Checklist

• [ ] Item 1
• [ ] Item 2

Given/When/Then

• Given I am an authorized user with ability to create an object and I have the ability to edit all of the object's components
• When I deposit a complex digitized or reformatted object (such as a digitized book or digitized image)
• Then I can deposit different types of file derivatives (such as a TIFF with color bars and the same image without them) as part of the ingest process and sort them into the appropriate AIP category so that they then become accessible to end users or staff

[rotated8]

In laevigata, this is facetable, but not searchable. Is this correct for curate as well? More broadly, how should this property be indexed?

[tmiles2]

@eporter23 Can this epic be closed?

[eporter23]

@rotated8 I see there's an open comment you posted a while back about indexing - do you still need a response on this?

[rotated8]

Only if you want it changed from what is mentioned above.

[eporter23]

I hadn't considered indexing needs for this. It might be of interest to be to run reports on later so indexing it could be useful. If indexing can be added later without too much trouble this can wait. If it is recommended to set it up now, let's go ahead and index it.

[tmiles2]

@rotated8 Any thoughts on Emily comments above? We need some feedback before closing out this epic.

[eporter23]

@rotated8 @tmiles2 I'm going to close the epic out, but make a note to revisit indexing needs in a different release if needed.