Crossref deposit improvements#4311
Conversation
joemull
changed the title
Which field do you mean? If it's related to |
joemull
force-pushed
the
3131-crossref-metadata-adjustments
branch
from
45c411e to
7a241e6
Compare
|
I've now rebased it onto master to avoid failing tests, but it has the same number of failing tests as master: FAILED (failures=3, errors=54) -- some of these are plugin-related. |
| <conference_name>{{ crossref_issue.journal.title }}</conference_name> | ||
| {% endif %} | ||
| </event_metadata> | ||
| <proceedings_metadata> | ||
| {% if crossref_issue.issue.issue_title %} | ||
| <proceedings_title>{{ crossref_issue.issue.issue_title }}</proceedings_title> | ||
| {% else %} | ||
| <proceedings_title>{{ crossref_issue.journal.title }} - {{ crossref_issue.issue.year }}</proceedings_title> | ||
| <proceedings_title>{{ crossref_issue.journal.title }}</proceedings_title> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this can be a breaking change for a lot of folks. When a conference proceedings "journal" has articles for multiple years, they can't set a single journal title that works. I need the logic has to be altered on identifiers.logic to cover the following cases:
- When an article has a publication_title, that always takes precedece.
- When a conference title is used and the issue has a year, preserve the existing functionality
- when a conference title is used but no year is available in the issue, render just the title.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so, because issue.year has never worked. There is no journal.models.Issue.year property or method.
This is the original commit that introduced it:
This is a more recent commit that changed the line but preserved the bug:
To chart a way forward, I think we should omit the year argument for now, and longer term create some of the metadata fields that would make it possible to structure this deposit in the way Crossref recommends:
https://www.crossref.org/documentation/schema-library/markup-guide-record-types/conference-proceedings/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@joemull I think the reporter is right about this comment
* [ ] Map our `page_numbers` field to Crossref's field `other_pages`. JM note: It looks like Crossref's field `other_pages` is used for items with non-contiguous page information. That's different from our page_numbers field, which is for a custom page range, like with roman numerals or something. I think we should not populate it with our custom page range field because the systems ingesting this info will not expect that field to duplicate info in first_page and last_page, just provide extra info. Something I'm not considering?
Yes, page_numbers in Janeway doesn't have an explicit use case, but its main use case it is still for non-contiguous page ranges. There is also no reason why roman numerals can't be part of this field according to Crossref schema, so I think that use case is safe too. Then I'd be happy to close #3131
joemull
force-pushed
the
3131-crossref-metadata-adjustments
branch
from
a1e1d1e to
681d582
Compare
Alright, that's fine with me--I've made that change. |
3 participants
This completes 3 of 5 requests in #3131:
Depending on if the reporter is happy with these fixes alone, closes #3131.