-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 64
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sorting of "newspaper year"-processes in METS-file of newspaper-process #5821
Comments
@andre-hohmann Are you talking only about newspaper issues? I see this as a general problem (as it also relevant for periodical volumes and multi-volume works), which was also discussed in one group at the Kitodo User Group Meeting this week. I know that some libraries rely on the ORDERLABEL to achieve correct ordering in their respective presentation system because when the import of volumes in Kitodo happens not in the order of the volumes it is a lot of work to reorder the volumes in Kitodo. On the other hand the reordering feature in Kitodo was introduced exactly for the purpose of bringing subprocesses in the right order. I am not sure if it is a good idea to automatically sort imported processes based on the ORDERLABEL while importing since the question would be when exactly this should be the case. (Only for newspapers? Always? Does that make ORDERLABEL a required field?) What do you think of a button in the metadata editor which would allow to sort the processes by ORDERLABEL? That would allow us to keep the current behavior: new processes are always attached to the end by default (this is definitely the case for mass import), but can be reordered based on the orderlabel. One could check then if all processes involved have an ORDERLABEL and only enable sorting in this case. That would also allow to sync the ordering in Kitodo based on an ORDERLABEL attribute which is derived from the catalogue. We can maybe also discuss this in the @kitodo/kitodo-community-board. cc @matthias-ronge |
@BartChris : For other document types there are opportunities to adjust the sorting of the subordinate processes. We can think about another general approach, but we should take into account the following aspects: The processes of newspaper-issues in the "year-processes" seems to be sorted correctly, due to the elements "month" and "day". You are right, that this is relevant for periodicals and multi-volume works, too. However, the order of their subordinate processes (volumes) can be influenced during the manual import (Mehrbändige Werke, Zeitschriften). As we do not apply the mass import, i have not considered this use case. The information, which is shown in the list can be configured in the ruleset by For the migration, it was decided to apply the key If some processes are not in the current order, we do correct the order manually. Therefore the order of the processes in metadata editor have been unlocked: For us, this works well, because a wrong sorting of processes of subordinate process does not occur often - at least until now. As there might be different approaches to capture sorting information (metadata key, document type, ...) this seems to be a topic for the @kitodo/kitodo-community-board. At least to ensure, that we have the same idea about it and ti gather use cases. |
Further information: It seems as if the processes of the newspaper issues, which are created subsequently to existing ones are sorted in a similar way. In this case, too, it may not have consequences for the depiction in the calendar, but the METS file looks strange.
|
https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=https%3A%2F%2Fopendata2.uni-halle.de%2Foai%2Fdd%3Fverb%3DGetRecord%26metadataPrefix%3Dmets%26identifier%3Doai%3Aopendata2.uni-halle.de%3A1516514412012%2F182098&cHash=e377843f8a3b175a777c84d3431e3436 |
When creating newspaper processes with the calendar, an annual process is created for each year; the annual processes are appended to the overall newspaper process. So they get always added at the end. As a result, their order is inconsistent. At the time of software design, the only plan was to create a newspaper as a whole all at once, not incrementally. Remember that the calendar editor was part of the Create Process Screen in version 2. Goal: New year processes should be inserted in the complete edition in the correct place, not at the bottom. What happens if you create additional processes for an existing year? Then—I assume—the same year is produced a second time, right? |
No not anymore. Right now the additional issues are child of the "old" year. But unfortunatly they are placed at the end of the list and not within their sequence. As I said its ok to sort about 30 years but to sort issues within a list of 600 others is a punishment. |
Here are some corrections and additions: correction
This is not correct. In the SLUB Dresden, the test scenario was not a realistic one. @apiller observation is correct. additions
See newspaper-issues 1928-01-08, 1928-01-15, 1928-01-22, 1928-01-29 which are appended at the end of the month. On the first glance, everything looks correct. Another examples can be found in January 1924 (Jahrgang 37).
Due to the long loading times when opening the year processes with more then 200 (up to 600) child processes the metadata editor (more then 15 minutes), this is in some cases technically just not possible. |
Another example from SLUB Dresden is the following one of "Schönburger Tageblatt und Waldenburger": |
Describe the bug
If new processes for newspaper-issues are created, processes for the year-levels are created, too. The order of the year-processes is done according to the Kitodo ID, although this does not always reflect the order of the processes.
For example, if processes for older issues are created after the new ones, because they needed to be repaired and could be digitized only after the new ones.
This can be solved be rearranging the order in the metadata editor manually - but this is cumbersome.
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Expected behavior
The processes of the years should be ordered by the values in the METS-attribute
ORDERLABEL
.Screenshots
In the following example, the process until 1896 are migrated. The other ones are created after the migration.
Release
3.6.0-SNAPSHOT from 03/01/2023
Desktop (please complete the following information):
Additional context
This issue is related to:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: