[
https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-1127?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=25635#comment-25635
]
Robin Taylor commented on DS-1127:
----------------------------------
I've applied the patch successfully so I'll give it a wee try. Thanks !
> Submission improvements: document type-based submission
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DS-1127
> URL: https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-1127
> Project: DSpace
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: DSpace API, XMLUI
> Affects Versions: 1.8.0, 1.8.1, 1.8.2
> Reporter: Nestor Oviedo
> Assignee: Robin Taylor
> Priority: Major
> Labels: has-patch
> Attachments: type-based-submission-classes.zip,
> type-based-submission.patch
>
>
> Document type-based submission
> As outlined in
> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Document+Type+Based+Submission,
> many repositories deal with several document types and the only approach
> DSpace has to offer so far is a collection based form definition.
> We found the following initiatives: https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-464
> and https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Document+Type+Based+Submission
> , but they are very old and it is very hard to integrate one of them in our
> 1.8.0 DSpace. Along with this problematic integration we also need some other
> features to the submission process, which made the integration yet more
> complicated.
> These initiatives propose to define a type-based form and/or pages, but we
> thought this would lead to a very complicated and redundant form definition,
> provided most document types share a lot of common fields. To avoid this
> replication, we propose to have a type-based field definition in the form
> configuration (input-forms.xml). That is, defining the forms and pages fields
> in the normal way, and only specify a type-restriction on those fields which
> are specific for some kind of document.
> The following excerpt is an example o a form definition:
> <form name="traditional">
> <page number="1">
> <field>
> <dc-schema>dc</dc-schema>
> <dc-element>type</dc-element>
> <label>Document type</label>
> <!-- other field properties -->
> </field>
> <!-- many others common metadata, like author, title, some
> date, language, etc -->
> </page>
>
> <page number="2">
> <!-- many others common metadata, like abstract, subjects,
> identifiers, etc -->
> <!-- Here we have a field specific for a theses -->
> <field>
> <dc-schema>theses</dc-schema>
> <dc-element>director</dc-element>
> <label>Thesis director</label>
> <type-bind>theses</type-bind>
> </field>
> <!-- many others common metadata, like coverage, some
> institution name, some other date, embargo info, etc -->
> </page>
> </form>
> The visibility of the type-based field depends on the dc.type field's value.
> This requires the dc.type metadata must be fullfilled before the rendering of
> any page with any type-based field.
> This approach allows you to mix fields, even though they are restricted to a
> document type. Also, you can define multiple document types in the
> <type-bind> element, separated with a colon (,). i.e
> <field>
> <dc-schema>dc</dc-schema>
> <dc-element>identifier.isbn</dc-element>
> <label>ISBN</label>
> <type-bind>theses,ebook</type-bind>
> </field>
> Other improvements
> Considering we have now a type-based submission, we need to be able to define
> the same field for different document types, with different attributes. A
> clear example of this in our repository is the ISBN metadata: theses may have
> an ISBN metadata while books must have it. Also, the label and hint of these
> fields could be different. To achieve this we avoided the limitation on field
> duplicity, allowing to define the same field multiple times.
> Another minor improvement proposed here was previously mentioned by Claudia
> Jürgen in https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-334. We agree with Claudia in
> that the visibility and the required attribute are not related directly, so
> we removed that validation. We consider that the mandatory restriction makes
> sense only when the field is visible in a scope. Thus it is completely valid
> to define a visibility scope along with a required attribute.
> Attachments
> Here you can find two attachments: a zip containing the modified classes, and
> another zip containing the diff for all the modified classes (this diff was
> made against the 1.8.0 version).
> We attached diff files for you to have a quick overview of the changes made.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://jira.duraspace.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Dspace-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel
