kitodo / kitodo-production

Kitodo.Production is a workflow management tool for mass digitization and is part of the Kitodo Digital Library Suite.
http://www.kitodo.org/software/kitodoproduction/
GNU General Public License v3.0
64 stars 63 forks source link

Hierarchy migration: toplevel-processes without properties #4271

Closed andre-hohmann closed 2 years ago

andre-hohmann commented 3 years ago

Problem

After the migration of serial publications (hierarchy migration), the created processes for the toplevel-processes, as for example: periodical, multivolume, ... have no properties (template properties, workpiece properties, ...).

The processes of PeriodicalVolume and Monograph have these properties after the migration.

Solution

The toplevel-processes should have properties after the migration, like the other processes.

See also: #4267, #4268, #4269, #4270

henning-gerhardt commented 3 years ago

Just guessing: this new top level hierarchy processes are created in an other way at hierarchy migration then normal top level hierarchy processes by import. So this information needed for properties are not existing and can not be added on migration. Question still remain: from where should this property data come? Maybe even this properties are not needed any more and should be removed - see comments in #3482 .

andre-hohmann commented 3 years ago

Maybe it is then not a bug. However, it should be clear to everyone, that there is different content in the properties of toplevel-processes, ..., which could lead to incomplete queries. The toplevel-processes which are created in Kitodo.Production have at least workpiece properties.

matthias-ronge commented 3 years ago

In version 3, properties are considered eliminated. They still exist internally because they are used in the Switzerland project, so they could not be removed yet. However, they should be removed as far as possible. Instead, the corresponding metadata should be displayed or changed here. See #3156 and #3335

andre-hohmann commented 2 years ago

I close the issue, because it turned out that the initial declared bug is not a bug. I add the "documentation" label in case of similar questions.