Status update on UI for relationship lookups in the submission forms (Atmire).
Based on the work done for Mockups for the Submission process with support for the Author (Person Entity) first version: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wRIsDJr3A7AHrrLqNHlSGGBphPryhd-l we propose to visually enhance the process to allow the user to pick the author name from the name variants.
Support for defining relationship lookups in the submission forms
Based on the feedback on https://github.com/DSpace/Rest7Contract/pull/64, it should be determined whether any of the suggestions should be changed, and how all the details can be included in that case
The discussion started at "DS-4223 Metadata Schemas for configurable entities" - https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/2443, regarding the missing Orcid ID. We need to decide what which strategy to follow, not only for Orcid IDs, but also to other Entity IDs fields, like Organization ISNI or Ringgold which none of them is supported by Schema.org or Dublin Core. The proposed strategies are:
Rely on the DC specification for identifiers - dc.identifier, the values will be stored in the type of a URI - dc.identifier.uri = http://orcid.org/0000-0001-2492-3701
It will be created a set of non standard dc.identifier qualifiers (we already have some), like dc.identifier.orcid, dc.identifier.isni, ... and each installer will decide the best way to manage their qualifiers
Rely on the Schema.org to add new specific fields, for example it supports the DUNS number in the Organization schema
This list was voted on in the meeting on May 23, 2019 (just before OR2019). The prioritization below may change, but it gives a high level overview of what still needs to be done.
(Lieven, Ben, Tim, Fernando, Jose, Mark, Oliver, Paulo) Submission integration (creating Entities & relations using the Item submission process) - Mockups already created by Paulo previously.
(Lieven, Ben, Tim, Jose, Oliver, Paulo) Which metadata fields should be used for each Entity type. (DS-4223).
(Lieven, Ben, Tim, Mark) Additional data for relations (essentially "metadata" or labels on relations) - Related to many other features / use cases.
(Oliver, Paulo) Author name variants - Not currently implemented
(Jose) Configuration of batch import (via CSV) for Entities - Already a CSV import available, but can only link entities in CSV to existing entities (in the system). Need to decide how to represent relations in CSV.
(Mark) Permissions on Relations (who has permissions to add/modify/delete relations) - Currently, if you have Edit permissions on the Entity, then you can edit/delete any relationships to/from that Entity.
(Fernando) Deleting objects with Relations (How or should deletion propagate between closely related objects, e.g. delete entire Journal) - Currently, deleting a relation just decouples the two Entities. E.g. If you delete a Person entity, that Person may no longer be listed on any Publications it is linked to (may want to copy info over after deletion).
Relates to GDPR
(Alexander) AIP Backup & Restore (of Entities)*
Dynamic display of Relations - determine automatically how a list of entities displayed on an Item page (list vs search). Currently hardcoded based on entity type (in item page template). Want to make it configurable/dynamic.
SWORD integration (submission of Entities via SWORD) - Uses same format as AIP. Once AIP is implemented, SWORD should be easy.
OpenAIRE v4 implementation using Entities* - Brought up in Steering. Possibly just an OAI-PMH configuration which maps Entity metadata fields to OpenAIRE v4
ORCID integration with Entities (for Person Entities).
Best Practices around Entities in Collections. We've suggested in the Preview Release to structure Collections based on Entity Type (Person Collection, Projects Collection, etc). We should better document and formalize these best practices. Can we hide these Collections which only serve to store Entity Type.
(NEW) The ability of pick the proper affiliation of a Person for a specific context. DSpace should address this use case to allow the user to describe something like in this document http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/46268/1/1-s2.0-S1877050917302788.pdf regarding the authors and affiliations. You have different persons, each can belong to an institution at the time of that publication. The affiliation shouldn't be changed afterwards. And the user should be able to pick the proper one if an Author has more than one.
Notes
Revisiting Priorities Listing
It was stated that perhaps we don't need the #14 priority, because there could be ways to achieve the same, like relating the Publication with an Organization and the Publication with the Person
Decision: RCAAP will share a report example to show the real need of that use case
Author name variants
The presented UI could be reviewed by a User Interface expert, but, from first comments, the Interface should have a second level for the user to choose the proper name variant (in the case there is more than one)
Another comment was that the buttons "Cancel" and "Accept" could be removed to give space to a more dynamic interface and re-use of the modal window and existing components
Decision: Atmire will also share mockups (based on the current interface) for this
Submission integration
The RestContract PR#64, there were some discussion about this point, and we didn't reach any agreement
Decision: RCAAP will commit an alternative PR that sustain their point-of-view on this aspect
Additional data for relations
There was still some clarification needed for Labels on relationships. Atmire had the kindness to share the idea behind the labels naming of the relations. We all agree that we need this along with the documentation to support others.
Action Items
Any assigned actions will appear here, along with details of who they are assigned to.
RCAAP team: will provide a concrete use case example or the reports about the need of relation on publications and affiliated authors
Atmire team: will share mockups about the Author name variants in the submission process
RCAAP team: will commit an alternative PR#64 to sustain their point-of-view