Skip to content
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

Display bibliography at collection and component levels #1458

Open
2 tasks
marlo-longley opened this issue Dec 8, 2023 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #1505
Open
2 tasks

Display bibliography at collection and component levels #1458

marlo-longley opened this issue Dec 8, 2023 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #1505
Assignees

Comments

@marlo-longley
Copy link
Contributor

marlo-longley commented Dec 8, 2023

bibliography

  • Display at the collection level
  • Display at the component level

This ticket is broken out of #898

@gwiedeman
Copy link
Contributor

As someone who stripped out most of our bibliographies when migrating to ASpace, this one is a bit of a can of worms, as they can be super big and elaborate but I think we should just try and format bibref into a list. Example: https://github.com/UAlbanyArchives/collections/blob/4ede2996e8b87c215dd55d1d15ac04b42db28602/apap/apap030.xml#L44

@randalldfloyd randalldfloyd self-assigned this Dec 14, 2023
@randalldfloyd randalldfloyd moved this from Ready to In Progress in Arclight Community Sprint 3 - 2023 Dec 14, 2023
@randalldfloyd
Copy link
Contributor

@gwiedeman @mmmmcode EAD question related to bibliography...

It's suggested in the comment above to not fully render bibliography and instead only render bibref elements into a list. If that's the consensus, should we collect them from any elements that they are allowed to be within, or only if they happen to be children of a bibliography element?

@gwiedeman
Copy link
Contributor

We don't usually address all possibilities for an element, as its really hard and EAD has a lot of long tail possibilities that are rarely if every used, if ever. I think <bibliography> can be nested within <bibliography> theoretically forever which is a bit crazy.

I would say most <bibliography>s look like the example in the EAD tag library.

I think the two options are to just render the text like we do with many elements, which would probably require local customization depending on your encoding. Or try to render <bibref>s into a list which probably covers most, but not all, use cases. I'm probably for trying to just generally format <bibref>s into a list.

@randalldfloyd
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @gwiedeman . I may not have asked that very clearly. I was wondering about indexing/displaying a bibref depending on where it is found. According to the spec it can be within lots of different elements, but I was wondering if you thought we should pick them up regardless of where they are, or only if if they are a direct child/descendant of a bibliography element, which would scope it to this issue as it reads.

The EAD you linked to is an example of the latter, but in our fixtures I see bibref in elements not descendant of bibliography (i.e. one case I found they are list items inside a scopecontent element .)

@gwiedeman
Copy link
Contributor

Ah, sorry I misunderstood. Yes, that is a long tail use case. I don't think they're actually valid in <scopecontent> but they are in other odd places. I'd be curious to what @mmmmcode and others think for the limits of this. It would be nice to format it wherever if its a low lift, but <bibliography> is probably the main use for it. I think the formatting would be the same in whatever context.

@randalldfloyd
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks again @gwiedeman . I think I'll keep it scoped to bibliography for starters, but if someone had a different opinion it would be really easy to change. We would just change the xpath selector in the indexer to broaden the scope, but all the other parts I will add as part of this will be the same.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants