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.
@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
This completes 3 of 5 requests in #3131:
Depending on if the reporter is happy with these fixes alone, closes #3131.