Replies: 10 comments 5 replies
-
I would start with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You can customize record types here: For example, you can define a new type of print record by defining a new MARC template for that bibliographic type. This allows you to enter different types of Sources (in our configuration we have nine different source types, for example -- some manuscript, some print, some as contents of a manuscript or print.) So you might create a new record type "001_book" or "002_journal_issue" with a default template, and then continue to customize from there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Certainly, but at the same time, this list is duplicated (or triplicated) in several places:
I found that when trying to create record_types for Publications. And talking about "hardcoded configuration", as this discussion is about, my opinion is that record_types is one of them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
There is actually a fourth place too ;) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I understand it well if the conclusion is that your plans are to abandon the current Publications record type and to fusion it with Sources, and have a single one? In that case, would it be the Record type what would differentiate between a musical source and a secondary literature? Even more, between all types of musical sources and all types of secondary literature (currently not yet developed)? In that case, would the "main author" field be named (and indexed as) "composer" or author" depend on that record type? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm obviously willing to make things easy, and to collaborate, because I'm convinced that we all can benefit of a shared work. For example, I had been writing this documentation for my own understanding and to help other newcomers to Muscat. It is not finished and the last paragraphs should go to another document specific for editors, and not all links work well (they do work well in our local Redmine instance, but for some reason Github Textile parser does not recognise the same links as clickable urls), and it exemplifies well my current paradox: So, now there are two bibliographic record types and several (currently only for Sources) document types. What should we do now with Publications, specifically about #1043? Maybe we could use the same document types (editor template) for both record types (Sources and Publications)? This way we would not duplicate efforts (following the DRY principle) and we could use Sources as primary bibliographic record types and you, as RISM, could have the same templates for Publications? I haven't thought enough about it to evaluate whether it is feasible, but it comes up as a possible solution. The only big difference would be the https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/blob/master/config/marc/default/source/template_configuration.yml file that lists the valid document types of each instance (with some obvious small differents here and there about this or that tag or subfield). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This situation raises and old idea that I had months ago. To use Muscat as a research and institutional repository, I thought two choices: either using Publications model, or using the EDITOR_PROFILE, and maybe the MARC configuration variables as set in: https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/blob/develop/config/sample_application.rb#L52 In fact, that was my purpose with my #936 and related patches. This way, creating a new EDITOR_PROFILE, called, for example, I'll try to update my work where I left it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What about just calling it bibrecord? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm not sure about renaming it, it would be huge endeavour of reworking (Muscat is basically a source cataloguing application) and then we would end up with the same identical functionality. I think probably we should use the configurable labels to show users a different name (as we do for Publications that is called Secondary Literature) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable, thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Or "Central bibliographic record" as @ahankinson named them ;)
The Source module has some hardcoded stuff in it, plus some "hardcoded configuration". It could be worth identifying what is there so that the model can be more easily adapted.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions