search

sciencehistory / chf-sufia

sufia-based hydra app
Other
9 stars 4 forks source link

New Metadata field: Source #999

Closed catlu closed 6 years ago

catlu commented 6 years ago

Free text field, located after Exhibition and before Series Arrangement on metadata entry form, and then after Collection and before Series on record view page. (Since the Source field conveys both intellectual and physical information, I think it could fit in the description section too if anyone feels strongly about that. I just thought it made the most sense here with our metadata.) Non-repeatable.

URI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source

Usage text for metadata entry form: "For standalone digitization from a larger work, use for the name of the work from which the described material is derived. Can be left blank if the digital object is related to its parent work in the repository."

@jrochkind Not sure how much extra work it would be, but if you could add this field to the Batch edit, I could probably tackle the 300+ records faster!

jrochkind commented 6 years ago

I think it may make sense to include it in the top section instead of the "physical location" section, perhaps even very prominent similar to the "Part of" sub-head?

catlu commented 6 years ago

That's not a bad idea--it is serving the same function as the "Part of" subheading, just without the parent work link.

catlu commented 6 years ago

In fact if we want to make the field read on the user side as "From" or "Part of" instead of Source, it might be easier to understand.

jrochkind commented 6 years ago

Maybe exactly like the current Part of, but without being a hyperlink since there's nothing to link to.

jrochkind commented 6 years ago

@catlu I can't figure out how to make it non-repeatable at the moment. Sufia really wants everything to be repeatable. Some of our existing things that we made non-repeatable -- I can't quite figure out how they were done plus some of them are buggy (we have existing issues filed on certain fields being not editable or deletable, this is related).

How disastrous is it if it's repeatable? But maybe editors just don't repeat it.

catlu commented 6 years ago

@jrochkind not disastrous, really. I can probably keep an eye out at the content level (I do that with most things right now anyway, so not a big deal).