Change labels for "Published/Unpublished" in Authorities

[jenniferward]

In the Authorities, “Unpublished” doesn’t mean “Unpublished” it means “Now you can merge”. This differs from Sources, where "unpublished/published" has an effect on what gets pushed to the public platforms.

The terms are confusing in Authorities for users. The terms in authorities should be changed to reflect the actual function. This should not affect Sources at all!

"Published" is the term that is visible on almost all records.

Wrong suggestions first:

• Merger/Mergee
• Keep this record / Delete this record
• Reunificator / Reunificatee
• Der Titelzumbeibehaltende / Der Titelzumumhängende

Maybe just Published / To be merged?

[MFalletta]

What is meant by "Der Titelzumbeibehaltende / Der Titelzumumhängende"?

I suggest: Der beizubehaltende Titel / Der umzuhängende Titel

[jenniferward]

Just a bad joke ;-)

[xhero]

I vote for "Der Titelzumbeibehaltende / Der Titelzumumhängende" as the label ;)

[ahankinson]

Is it worth exploring whether this is actually the right place for this marker, or if it should be in its own place? A “merge control” section of the record?

[xhero]

Well it is kinda of a hack in the first place to use wf_stage for merging..

[jenniferward]

And it's really "relinking" not merging (for actual merging, see the fairy tale I wrote here: https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/issues/1259)

[Docudoctor]

No comment. 😁

Am Mi., 12. Juni 2024 um 13:20 Uhr schrieb jenniferward < @.***>:

And it's really "relinking" not merging (for actual merging, see the fairy tale I wrote here: #1259 https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/issues/1259)

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/issues/1600#issuecomment-2162758465, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGNBE4U55BYA6BQZCPHX6FTZHAVJBAVCNFSM6AAAAABJGA4VB6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNRSG42TQNBWGU . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[fjorba]

We have began to work on merging authority records. Our workflow is surely different from yours, but also, we have been bitten by the fact that the merge only works if in the table the id column is labeled RISM ID. It turns out that we are not RISM, so this is one of the things that we have customized, via translation files. That's why we cannot use the official Muscat merge tool. Plus, we think that it requires more steps than we are used to in our current (locally developed) Invenio merge tool.

We have been doing some brainstorming and we have a provisional convention that, for the time being, allows us to mark records for merging. Imagine that there is a bad record 4321 that we want to be merged into the good record 1234. What we do is to write in the comments box of the good record box +4321. This convention also allows that in a single step more than one bad records are merged in a good one, writing more than one +recid. It is also very simple to verifiy the right syntax of those messages (only one or more groups of + and digits). It permits also know who did the merge (or the petition to merge it) and even keep track of it, if necessary. At this moment the merge is done in batch using a cron job (not finished yet), but it could be done right in the moment using some of the Rails hooks when writing the comment.

This convention allows that any person, with or without the rights to merge records, can spot and mark a duplicated record to merged (the more eyes, the better). We haven't finished yet our roles-and-permisions layout, but the idea is that if a person without the rights writes this mark, then the right person reviews it and repeats (copy & paste) or not, the same comment and this one is the one that is performed, and both are deleted (for the time being, only archived).

[fjorba]

Having said that, in our case, the existence of statuses for authority records is still useful. For example, at this moment, our bad records, after being merged, are put into Delete state. And we were also brainstorming about finding a good use of those statuses, like Published for those that have been verified (for example, our Faculties and Departments, and our Faculty staff), and Unpublished for those not verified. So yes, those statuses are important for us.

So, Validated and Not validated could work also for you?

[jenniferward]

Since only editors can merge, the published/unpublished options (or whatever it will be called) should not be accessible to catalogers.