Talk:PubMan Func Spec Easy Submission

UC_PM_EASM_01 upload file in structured format

Status/Schedule

• Status: in design
• Schedule:R3

Motivation

• The user wants to upload a locally created BibTeX file, containing one reference.

Expected outcome

Reference is uploaded to a collection on PubMan.

The item is created on PubMan and can be edited/modified afterwards.

Steps

1. The user chooses a collection where he has depositor privileges
2. The user chooses to upload a file in structured format.
3. The user starts the upload.
4. The system processes the uploaded file, checks for completeness, creates an item and releases them immediately. The use case ends successfully.

Alternatives

4. The user gets an error message, indicating type of error (time out during upload, invalid file, validation rules not met).

4a. User tries the upload again. continue with step 3.

4b. User cancels the upload procedure.

Actors involved

User with depositing rights for at least one collection

Data involved

BibTeX File, structured format. See example file by the AEI.

Constraints

• BibTeX files are idiosyncratically structured; BibTool may help with preprocessing/normalization.

Does this mean we need not to provide any mapping?--Ulla 11:03, 26 February 2008 (CET)

• Basic TeX Parsing is needed to interpret non-ascii characters etc., see for example https://dev.livingreviews.org/projects/epubtk/browser/trunk/ePubTk/lib/bibtexlib.py .
• In BibTeX fields are not repeatable; thus multiple authors need to be parsed from the author field.
• BibTeX allows for different formats of representing an author's name; thus the parser needs to be smart enough to recognize them all. See for example http://search.cpan.org/~gward/Text-BibTeX-0.34/BibTeX/Name.pm

Future development

• Upload files in structured format containing more than one reference

see Ingestion

Functional Prototype

Please check the functional prototype for easy submission

Comments functional team:

• The proposals by Natasa should be considered: default content category per genre, default creator roles per genre, default affiliation (same as previous), default source genre per item genre, default creator role if creator is of type organisation--Ulla 12:35, 15 February 2008 (CET)

to be checked: either collection set up? or default on GUI? in any case, "further options" should be available, in case default does not cover the need--Ulla 10:51, 27 February 2008 (CET)

• The overall requirement for submission (genre-specific Metadata for edit mask) has to be considered for easy as well as normal submission for R3

First approach proposal: define limited number of genres for easy submission and their respective metadata (feedback by Early adopters). we need to find out: are default metadata possible for each genre? how often is the case that user needs more than defaulted metadata? is the setting for defaults better on collection or is system default possible? how does this relate to performance? (each genre check => new edit mask)

• Fetch MD, Step 3: Typo on GUI, short short. In addition, would re-phrase to "...might not cover all fetched Metadata".

--Ulla 12:35, 15 February 2008 (CET)

• Fetch MD, Step 2: Provision of ID shoudl include also eSciDoc ID, as we have already the use case "create item from template" for R3. In here, would mean only to add escidoc ID, in adddition to arXiv and DOI.--Ulla 12:29, 26 February 2008 (CET)

Should be discussed with Early adopter when presenting func prototype: Is it confusing for teh user/scientists, to get escidoc ID offered during fetch Md? Discuss the 3 variants: offer "create item from template" from a) easy submission/fetch MD, b) view item version, c) after submission.--Ulla 10:51, 27 February 2008 (CET)

Franke Michael commented on AS-316:

---

Only some remarks:

• Abstract prototype

- Step 2 (Select collection): Shouldn't there be a note about having only one collection or more than one? - Typo: "Continuer and complete" - After finishing step 5 there is a decision diamond without a condition. I guess it is the validation, right? - After this decision one is led to step 1.4? I guess this is a typo, too. - Another typo: "sucess message" - Step 2.1: I do not understand it: Is the upload and the preview on the same page? I would also appreciate some more information on the preview. Or will this be part of the GUI design? - Yet another typo: "successfull"

• Page flow

- The texts next to "choose collection" are swapped. - From "view item version" there is no direct way to submit the item, only to the Edit item mask.

• Choose Collection

- Can this be linked to the according colab page?

• Choose submission method

- Where does "cancel" lead?

• Manual submission step 2

- "content-type" is now "content category" - The design of a file input cannot be influenced by CSS. It only depends on the locale set in the clients browser and on the OS (Windows, Linux, Mac). I will attach some examples. The GUI design has to take this into account. - I guess the red star at "genre" means that this field is mandatory. Why isn't there one at "title"?

• Manual submission step 3

- Creator names are split up into "Name" and "Family name". I expect this would cause faulty entries, because "Name" often is associated either with the surname or with the full name. IMO "Family name" and "Given name" would be better. - Why should the user enter the number of a author? - Once entered, an author cannot be edited anymore, can he? - If so, there should at least be the possibility to move creators up or down. Otherwise, the following can occur: The user enters 5 authors. Then she recognises that she produced at the first author. Now she has to delete all 5 authors to bring them back into the right order. - Is there a concept for entering authors in a predefined format yet? See http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/Talk:Providing_Lists_of_Authors#Varieties_of_Lists

• Manual submission step 4

- As it is decided that ONLY the "date published in print" will be asked for, there is no need for a dropdown meny, is there? - Because "Language", "Subject" and "Abstract" follow "Title of source, I as a user would have difficulties to decide if these fields belong to my publication or to its source.

• Bibtex import step 2

- Same for file input as above - If the import was successful, the user is lead to "Bibtex import step 3". What happens, if the import fails?

• Bibtex import step 3

- Here and on "Choose submission method" radio buttons are used. The user could save one click if we would use direkt links ?!?

Use Case

Reference Management Software for Lists of References

Publication Management

Albert Einstein Institute

Central European Time

Graphical User Interface

Metadata

Identifier

Enhanced Scientific Documentation

Digital Object Identifier

Cascading Style Sheets

Operating System