Difference between revisions of "ESciDoc Item List"
m (corrected typos) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== Questions & Discussion == | == Questions & Discussion == | ||
* How to version the changes required if a change in the transformation requires a change of all item of a specific content type | * How to version the changes required if a change in the transformation requires a change of all item of a specific content type | ||
--[[User:Natasab|Natasa]] 12:32, 26 September 2007 (CEST) | |||
Proposed solution can be treated as a "temporary workaround" and a test for having all metadata further placed into proper storage. At present, the "list metadata" are part of the Fedora system datastream (DC metadata) that is "pushed" into the relational database. Note: only non-qualified DC metadata is allowed. | |||
To Do: think of "moving" the "list metadata " (or all descriptive metadata) into a RDF storage (this will take substantial rework, but will give also substantial benefits for interoperability, discovery - and of course - performance etc.) | |||
To consider for start: | |||
* in case when metadata presented in the "list-metadata" are not sufficient and a new transformation is needed - this is not (from aspect of content versioning) changing the version of the content item - it just provides a new "enriched view" on the content item. In this case if very necessary: utility should be developed that is modifying the content items (but not creating new versions of them) | |||
* Is it required to "break" DC rules to create the information required to display item lists? | * Is it required to "break" DC rules to create the information required to display item lists? | ||
** If yes: Change of functional specification? | ** If yes: Change of functional specification? | ||
| Line 27: | Line 37: | ||
*# create a new logical version? | *# create a new logical version? | ||
*# create no new logical version? | *# create no new logical version? | ||
--[[User:Natasab|Natasa]] 12:32, 26 September 2007 (CEST) | |||
* see above: not - as it is a redundant information derived from the actual metadata of the item. | |||
Revision as of 10:32, 26 September 2007
This page is the result of the eSciDoc workshop held in September 2007. It should serve for collecting ideas, questions & constraints, discovered while evaluating the filtering of items according to a "mini item" information object. Please feel free to use the page ;)
Basic Idea[edit]
Base filter methods on a "mini item" = a specific data stream with minimal metadata. The metadata would be created "content type" specific with creation/update of an item.
Prototype[edit]
Boundaries for prototype by FIZ:
- with AA
- without paging
- list format RSS in RDF
Requirements (delivered by MPDL):
- item list should be sortable by:
- item list currently include following metadata:
- list hier
- transformation rules are available:
Questions & Discussion[edit]
- How to version the changes required if a change in the transformation requires a change of all item of a specific content type
--Natasa 12:32, 26 September 2007 (CEST) Proposed solution can be treated as a "temporary workaround" and a test for having all metadata further placed into proper storage. At present, the "list metadata" are part of the Fedora system datastream (DC metadata) that is "pushed" into the relational database. Note: only non-qualified DC metadata is allowed.
To Do: think of "moving" the "list metadata " (or all descriptive metadata) into a RDF storage (this will take substantial rework, but will give also substantial benefits for interoperability, discovery - and of course - performance etc.)
To consider for start:
- in case when metadata presented in the "list-metadata" are not sufficient and a new transformation is needed - this is not (from aspect of content versioning) changing the version of the content item - it just provides a new "enriched view" on the content item. In this case if very necessary: utility should be developed that is modifying the content items (but not creating new versions of them)
- Is it required to "break" DC rules to create the information required to display item lists?
- If yes: Change of functional specification?
- Should a change of the "mini item" data stream
- create a new logical version?
- create no new logical version?
--Natasa 12:32, 26 September 2007 (CEST)
- see above: not - as it is a redundant information derived from the actual metadata of the item.