Difference between revisions of "User:Inga/container tocs"

From MPDLMediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
* [[ESciDoc_Services:core_services]] shortly describes the Container Handler service and introduces the terms "Container", "TableOfContents" and "StructuralMap"
* [[ESciDoc_Services:core_services]] shortly describes the Container Handler service and introduces the terms "Container", "TableOfContents" and "StructuralMap"
* [[ESciDoc Container Toc‎]]. This document introduces a TOC representation based on RSS 1.0 which is probably no longer in consideration. The [[ESciDoc_Container_Toc#Questions_.26_Discussion|Questions & Discussion section]] may be of further interest.
* [[ESciDoc Container Toc‎]]. This document introduces a TOC representation based on RSS 1.0 which is probably no longer in consideration. The [[ESciDoc_Container_Toc#Questions_.26_Discussion|Questions & Discussion section]] may be of further interest.
 
* ["http://www.escidoc-project.de/documentation/Rest_api_doc_OM_Container.pdf API Documentation Container Handler], rest interface, framework release 0.9




Line 17: Line 17:
* Synchronizing terms and definitions for  
* Synchronizing terms and definitions for  
** container
** container
** table of contents/tableOfContents/TOC
** table of contents/tableOfContents/TOC - if the escidoc toc is semantically in sync with the METS concept
** StructuralMap - if a structural map is only a "flat" list of item reference we may consider to use the METS term
** StructuralMap - if a structural map is the "flat" list of item reference we may consider to derive our term from the METS term "fileSec" (e.g. "Sec")

Revision as of 18:03, 13 March 2008

Resources available about containers and tocs:


Open Questions:

  • ESciDoc Container Toc‎ states "Grouping of direct members is not necessary; a hierarchical structure is build by container resources wich are linked as members." -> isn't the toc something like a grouping?
  • ESciDoc Container Toc‎ states "The only reason to provide more than one TOC for a container resource would be to have different selections of the container resource members. It is assumed that there is no use case for different selections of members of one single container.
  • One TOC per container?

Assumptions & :

  • Container members are independent from their container, thus each item/container can be member of n containers.
    -> The requirement that "non-editors" would like to provide individual TOCs for an existing container
  • The TOC is an optional, but integral component/member of the container
    ->Changes in the TOC object should version the container object

Todos:

  • Synchronizing terms and definitions for
    • container
    • table of contents/tableOfContents/TOC - if the escidoc toc is semantically in sync with the METS concept
    • StructuralMap - if a structural map is the "flat" list of item reference we may consider to derive our term from the METS term "fileSec" (e.g. "Sec")