sfarnel
commented
8 years ago I think I see what has happened in this case.
In old ERA isVersionOf (Citation for Previous Publication) was not repeatable in the deposit form except for theses.
In new ERA the deposit form, which is used for everything but theses, was made to be like the old ERA deposit form and not allow multiple instances of this element.
When theses that did have multiple cases were transformed for migration, the multiple instances were maintained. In migration it looks like they have been concatenated so that the system will accept them based on conformance to the model.
From the strict metadata point of view, separate triples for for each instance would be ideal, although concatenation into a single one is ok with some character as a separator.
We could generate a count using the transformed foxml of how many items are affected (it will be all ETDs) to get a sense of the issue.
@leahvanderjagt @weiweishi @pbinkley @anayram what do you think?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mariana Paredes-Olea < notifications@github.com> wrote:
While testing oai I found that the field dcterms:isVersionOf, which is repeatable in old ERA/thesisdeposit, is not repeatable in new ERA.
@weiweishi https://github.com/weiweishi @pbinkley https://github.com/pbinkley do you know if the data was concatenated into a single field in Fedora (which would require adding to the list of audit changes) or if it is only a problem with the way data is presented in the public view form?
Example: the item below comes with multiple isVersionOf fields but data is lumped into a single field. https://plano.library.ualberta.ca/files/dn39x2787
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ualbertalib/HydraNorth/issues/1037
Sharon Farnel Metadata Coordinator University of Alberta Libraries sharon.farnel@ualberta.ca 780-492-3685
leahvanderjagt
anayram
While testing oai I found that the field dcterms:isVersionOf, which is repeatable in old ERA/thesisdeposit, is not repeatable in new ERA.
@weiweishi @pbinkley do you know if the data was concatenated into a single field in Fedora (which would require adding to the list of audit changes) or if it is only a problem with the way data is presented in the public view form?
Example: the item below comes with multiple isVersionOf fields but data is lumped into a single field. https://plano.library.ualberta.ca/files/dn39x2787