This ticket concerns a proposed enhancement to metadata fields across all work types except Conference Item. It relates to the Source metadata field that is described in Hyku documentation as "An identifier for a related resource from which the described resource is derived, in whole or in part."
One of our consortium members notes that the Source metadata field is the best place for his institution to put the title of a parent work that contains the child work being described. Example use cases would be uploading a Published Work that is a book chapter, so the book title goes in the Source field. Or, uploading a Journal Article, putting the periodical title in the Source field is much clearer to users than putting the title in the Part field (because the field label "part" is not meaningful to them).
He has suggested that a partner field be added to go along with the Source field wherever it is available. This would be an optional "Source Type" drop down that allows DCMI type terms to be added to clarify the Source metadata. The Source Type field would operate the same as the current Resource type list. Exact terms to be added to the Source field TBD. We would start with at least the existing DCMI terms available in the Resource type list.
This ticket concerns a proposed enhancement to metadata fields across all work types except Conference Item. It relates to the Source metadata field that is described in Hyku documentation as "An identifier for a related resource from which the described resource is derived, in whole or in part."
One of our consortium members notes that the Source metadata field is the best place for his institution to put the title of a parent work that contains the child work being described. Example use cases would be uploading a Published Work that is a book chapter, so the book title goes in the Source field. Or, uploading a Journal Article, putting the periodical title in the Source field is much clearer to users than putting the title in the Part field (because the field label "part" is not meaningful to them).
He has suggested that a partner field be added to go along with the Source field wherever it is available. This would be an optional "Source Type" drop down that allows DCMI type terms to be added to clarify the Source metadata. The Source Type field would operate the same as the current Resource type list. Exact terms to be added to the Source field TBD. We would start with at least the existing DCMI terms available in the Resource type list.