[
https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-164?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=19040#action_19040
]
Tim Donohue commented on DS-164:
--------------------------------
The DSpace Developers discussed this issue again along with DCAT's comments on
Feb 16, 2011.
The general consensus seems to be the following:
* This is a complex task, and we may need to break this up into several steps.
* May be possible to split up into: better metadata validation and improved
form management (currently both of these are lumped together into
input-forms.xml config file)
* As you may be able to tell from discussion below, the developers themselves
are unsure of the best way to approach this. We may need to find a few
volunteers to investigate options, especially investigate if there are any
third-party, open source tools/form builders which may make this easier (rather
than building something new ourselves)
* There *is* a definite interest amongst the developers to see this happen.
But, it may take an institution/developer (or two) volunteering some time for
investigation of options and better determining requirements, etc.
Full discussion thread follows:
[20:27] <tdonohue> DCAT does all their reviews on the Wiki, in a new "forum"
area: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/dsforum/Home
[20:27] <tdonohue> (can everyone get to that page? It just prompted me for a
login...which is odd)
[20:27] <kshepherd> i got to it ok
[20:27] <kshepherd> but i was already logged in..
[20:27] <robint> I cant login
[20:28] <kshepherd> "You must be a registered wiki user to participate."
[20:28] <helix84> same as kshepherd here
[20:28] <stuartlewis> I'm in (as a logged in user)
[20:28] <mhwood> I got it without login
[20:28] <tdonohue> Ok, well, as long as we can all get to it. I know we are
supposed to have access to it -- i.e. anyone in the community should be allowed
to get to it and join discussion
[20:29] <kshepherd> DS-164 has reminded me of another idea i had, but i'll save
it for later ;)
[20:29] <tdonohue> So, in any case, I wanted to (1) make everyone aware of
this. DCAT is voting on whether they feel these older feature requests still
have merit or not. (2), I thought we could all specifically revisit DS-164 (the
first one they reviewed)
[20:29] <mhwood> Wait, wrong link. Got in with login.
[20:29] <tdonohue>
https://wiki.duraspace.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=23268096&focusedCommentId=25067837#comment-25067837
[20:29] <mdiggory> Just found it earlier and have been at play in there all
morning... thanks
[20:30] <grahamtriggs> yeah, we kinda noticed
[20:31] <tdonohue> So, does anyone else have comments / suggestions / ideas on
DS-164? Anyone aware of the status of any work that could eventually meet these
needs, or is there more info we want to ask DCAT for (i.e. better requirements,
etc?)
[20:31] <tdonohue> (i'm reading mdiggory's input now)
[20:33] <tdonohue> I should also mention that I agree that this would make a
great feature. If anyone is interested in tackling it (or even starting to
investigate what it would take to tackle it), I'd do my best to support you (as
would DCAT).
[20:33] <grahamtriggs> in my case, I'm the one dealing with the .xml files, so
it insulates admins from that layer - but we're seeing issues in terms of what
people want simply not being capable with the input-forms (or even the proposed
DB driven stuff)
[20:33] <mdiggory> In its simples form... smells like Content Models
[20:33] <mdiggory> grahamtriggs: hear hear
[20:33] <grahamtriggs> and that is in the forms needing to be 'designed' more -
not just be a collection of fields
[20:34] <mdiggory> again... hear hear... and TBH, the authority control lookup
is still not what our clients want
[20:34] <mhwood> Are there existing forms packages we could use?
[20:34] <tdonohue> grahamtriggs -- makes perfect sense. have you or anyone at
Open Repositories begun to brainstorm this out at all? Or is the dependency on
DB driven configs what is really in the way?
[20:36] <grahamtriggs> I've been forging ahead with Freemarker UI - getting
browse / search / item viewing in place - haven't quite got to admin or
submission - yet... but I was toying with making it possible to just define the
fields directly in Freemarker templates
[20:36] <mdiggory> I worry the DB driven drive detail is a red herring...
Though it would be nice to put the capability into the Admins hands, theres
still some problems with how this is all hodge podge wired together like a
pachinka machine
[20:36] * kshepherd would be more inclined to spend dev time/effort on SWORD,
EasyDeposit, etc. than submission in jspui/xmlui
[20:37] <mdiggory> kshepherd: we have need for both... and the validation part
I write about plays into the SWORD work as well
[20:37] <grahamtriggs> I tend to agree with mdiggory to separate the validation
of fields away from the configuration of the forms. The issue of items being
'correct' is not tied just to the submission forms (although the submission
forms do need to be able to present useful feedback in the case of error)
[20:37] <kshepherd> i can see that validation is still needed, yeah
[20:37] <tdonohue> kshepherd -- we do need people on both sides of things. But,
it's perfect fine to prefer one over the other :)
[20:38] <mdiggory> tdonohue: how diplomatic...
[20:38] <tdonohue> haha :)
[20:39] <mdiggory> So... I ponder if we can come up with a set of changes to
something like the MetadataRegistry that might get us part of the way there
[20:39] <mhwood> Yes, validation belongs to the abstract metadata field, not
the box or element or whatever in which it is presented to the machine.
[20:39] <tdonohue> Ok. So, what are the next steps in getting towards something
like DS-164? Trying to tease out the dependencies here. Sounds like we've
already hit on a few of the bigger issues...
[20:40] <mhwood> Tag the metadata field with a validator class.
[20:40] <tdonohue> mdiggory -- putting validation details in MetadataRegistry?
[20:40] <kshepherd> if we are redesigning the forms, i wonder if it's worth
thinking about 'edit item' as well -- i've thought of trying to get XMLUI's
item edit page using input-forms.xml or similar so that we can use better form
elements, auth control lookups etc in edit pages
[20:40] <tdonohue> kshepherd ++ I agree completely
[20:40] <kshepherd> (and potentially keep the old plain textarea forms behind
'Advanced Edit' or something)
[20:40] <tdonohue> (both edit and submit should be using the same mechanism)
[20:41] <mdiggory> ContentModelRegistry... A list of Content Models that have
Metadata Fields Assigned to them and some validation rules like (required,
optional) and a value syntax rules
[20:42] <mdiggory> we use the submission forms again in the EditMetadata stage
in the XMLUI, seems plausable it could be used in the EditItem as well.
[20:42] <tdonohue> hmm...interesting idea. Not sure I'd call them "Content
Models". worried that's a loaded term (e.g. Fedora, Hydra, etc. all use that
term)
[20:42] <mdiggory> It is purposefully "loaded"
[20:43] <mdiggory> ;-)
[20:43] <mdiggory> "Schema"?
[20:43] <kshepherd> or we could try and tie it in with templates
[20:43] <mdiggory> I promise not to say... Ontol...
[20:44] <kshepherd> then along with validation rules, you can supply default
values, bitstreams etc. as we do with templates currently
[20:44] <grahamtriggs> mdiggory: I was about to say something similar - I
wouldn't mind seeing 'input control/data type' and validation tied against the
metadata registry. Form design would then place which fields you are interested
where you want them, with minor option tweaking (ie. is it repeatable)
[20:44] <tdonohue> this does bring me back to the question that mhwood posed
(no one responded): "are their existing forms packages we can use?" Similarly,
is there existing validation/schema/content models frameworks we could use?
[20:44] <kshepherd> (the term "templates", i mean, not the actual code)
[20:45] <grahamtriggs> If you are using the same metadata field for different
formats of data in different circumstances (ie. item types or different
collections), you probably should rethink your field usage
[20:45] <mdiggory> kshepherd: Templates is interesting, but the problem is that
we only get so far with the Item model before we need more
[20:45] <mdiggory> I do agree that Template might be replaceable by one or more
"item Schema"
[20:45] <mdiggory> especially ina Type driven submission system
[20:47] <kshepherd> here's something that's kinda fun to play with -- an html5
forms builder: http://www.reformedapp.com/#home
[20:47] <mdiggory> grahamtriggs: I agree on the last statement, we get allot of
requests to change the Label for dc.foo.bar on collection X but not Y
[20:48] <mdiggory> And we then immediately respond with why thats not so wise
to do...
[20:48] <grahamtriggs> different metadata = different fields... If you need to
expose it in a common field for OAI-PMH, etc., then that's what crosswalks are
for
[20:48] <kshepherd> indeed
[20:49] <tdonohue> So, is DS-162 of definite interest to anyone or their
institution? Curious if we have a person or two who is already interested in
digging in deeper on some possible options? (this doesn't mean you'd have to
"lead" or build it, just that you'd dig around more and report back on some
options/issues)
[20:49] <mdiggory> robint: I'm curious about your view on the topic give the
work you've done on Type Driven Submission?
[20:50] <tdonohue> err..I meant DS-164, not DS-162 (obviously)
[20:50] <robint> mdiggory: Slow thinker.
[20:51] <robint> Can see the need for different labels for the same metadata
filed though - dc.date
[20:51] <robint> s/filed/field
[20:52] <robint> Claudia has well developed thoughts on this subject
[20:53] <tdonohue> fyi -- if any of you have more thoughts on this later as
well, please do feel free to comment directly on DCAT's page, or the DS-162
issue itself. DCAT is watching both of those, and it'd be good to keep
discussions moving forward
[20:53] <mdiggory> I tend to agree that if you want to change the meaning of a
field by changing its Label. It is better to change the field or at least
qualify it
[20:53] <grahamtriggs> If you need different labels, then the data is
representing different things. If the data is different, then the field should
be. You can always crosswalk all of them into (eg. dc.date) when you expose the
fields if you need to
[20:54] <robint> Are our DC qualifiers not just labels of a sort ?
[20:55] <mdiggory> Old Search/Browse adapted to this through merging metadata
fields into single search or browse fields, SOlr currently doesn't "
[20:55] <mdiggory> merge"
[20:55] <kshepherd> yep. my stuff is only ever proper OAI-DC or MODS or
whatever after crosswalk and serialisation... before that it's all sorts of
crazy schemas and fields ;)
[20:55] <kshepherd> mdiggory: very easy to do in schema though
[20:55] <kshepherd> i have an example as a blog post
[20:55] <grahamtriggs> Granted, there are some curiosities with Dublin Core -
ie. titles and book chapters, etc. but that's just crappy, ambiguous dublin
core. Store it internally in something that isn't DC and isn't ambiguous, and
crosswalk it to DC on the way out
[20:55] <mdiggory> kshepherd: to a degree
[20:56] <mdiggory> but yes, good catch there, and we need some more of that
kind of documentation
[20:56] <kshepherd> yeah i have some more to write, too
[20:57] <mhwood> Is the problem separable into nicely-sized subproblems?
F'rinstance, can we move validation information away from the forms separately
from redoing the presentation? Are there other subproblems?
[20:58] * tdonohue is reminded that many of these discussions seem to circle
back to improving Metadata. We need to schedule a special topics meeting on
improving how we manage Metadata, etc
[20:58] <kshepherd> just on a tangent, i notice one of the DCAT requests is
DS-638
[20:58] <mdiggory> Also back to the forms issue, if the validation rules are
abstracted from the form definition, it really opens the doors to experiment
with new form technologies. Possibly even allot more JSON / AJAX driven Forms
handling
[20:59] <kshepherd> and i agree with the JIRA comments.. this should be a
curation task
[20:59] <tdonohue> kshepherd -- yes, DS-638 is another they are interested in :)
[21:00] <tdonohue> kshepherd -- I'd encourage you & everyone else to comment on
DCAT recommendations outside of this meeting as well. So, don't hesitate to add
thoughts/suggestions or ask questions of DCAT. I'm trying to get better about
that myself :)
[21:00] <mdiggory> http://www.reformedapp.com/ ... eh.. whats so easy about
filling out lots of individual forms to generate a form?
[21:02] <tdonohue> Ok. it sounds like discussion of DS-164 is slowing down a
bit. I'll post a summary to DCATs page. Please feel free to add more comments
there, etc. If you come across and idea or something that could be worth
investigating more, let us know!
[21:02] <mhwood> Do we have a good grasp of what sites want from the forms
presentation layer? Other than "not so much icky XML".
[21:02] <mdiggory> Per DS-638 the BitstreamFormatRenovation would have
introduced Pronom/Droid in this space...
[21:02] <tdonohue> mhwood -- that's something we can ask DCAT for, better
requirements. Right now, I think the only request, is 'not XML based, please'
> Deposit Interface
> -----------------
>
> Key: DS-164
> URL: https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-164
> Project: DSpace
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Charles Kiplagat
> Priority: Major
>
> Suggestions included: a web interface for altering input-forms.xml, being
> able to select an input form "on the fly" based on the type of item being
> deposited, a web interface to the Configurable Submission System, eliminating
> the need to restart the server after changes to input-forms.xml and the
> Configurable Submission System, allowing more configuration (e.g.
> input-forms.xml, Configurable Submission) and command-line actions (e.g.
> batch imports) to be pushed down to community and collection administrators,
> allowing metadata specific to an eperson (e.g. name, metadata fields to
> exclude) to be stored in that eperson's profile, It was noted that the lack
> of a web interface to many DSpace configuration files means that repository
> managers who are not also systems administrators may not be able to configure
> their installations fully.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://jira.duraspace.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________
Dspace-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel
