Differentiation of serial and monograph via KBART publication_type

[darupp]

• No selection of package type "journal" vs. "e-book"
• Check for each record field "publication_type" if "serial" or "monograph"
• Check if lines with other or no types exist - error message (KBART validation)
• enrichment via ZDB or EZB only for "serial" type
• field highlighting depends on publication type (see #171)

[philboeselager]

Having removed both, the data type UI option and all its logic behind, I'm realizing that there is no such obligatory data field as publication_type ...strange enough.

Hence, I would suggest to change the goal / DoD to:

• Add third option for data types: "mixed"
• Add text input for column name of publication type that has to be set when "mixed" is chosen.

This replaces the first bullet point from above. The other 4 points remain the same:

• Check for each record field "publication_type" if "serial" or "monograph"
• Check if lines with other or no types exist - error message (KBART validation)
• enrichment via ZDB or EZB only for "serial" type
• field highlighting depends on publication type (see #171)

@darupp Do you agree?

[philboeselager]

Thinking further... if there is no Kbart default field such as publication_type, we would also have to do one of the following:

• enable users to define the exact wording and spelling for a) serials / journals and b) monographs / books (add further text inputs)
• or pre-define this wording and render it in the UI, giving users the task to set the wording in their Kbart files

and show an error message on different wording occuring either way.

[darupp]

As in the KBART recommended practice 2014, _publicationtype is not optional, but obligatory (See https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/16900/RP-9-2014_KBART.pdf Chapter 6.6.18). Therefore, I would suggest no manual selection, but known error message for missing column when _publicationtype is missing.