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

Accept both 240 and 245 for publications title, prefer the later #1363

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fjorba
Copy link
Contributor

@fjorba fjorba commented Apr 25, 2023

Secondary literature should change title tag from 240 to 245 (#626). As a transition step and to keep compatibility with current records, accept both, but prefer 245.

Accept subtitle as $b if exists, as well; it does not affect sites that do not use subtitles.

Partially addresses #626

Secondary literature should change title tag from 240 to 245 (rism-digital#626).  As a
transition step and to keep compatibility with current records, accept both,
but prefer 245.

Accept subtitle as $b if exists, as well; it does not affect sites that do
not use subtitles.

Partially addresses rism-digital#626
@xhero xhero requested a review from jenniferward May 2, 2023 12:25
@xhero
Copy link
Contributor

xhero commented May 2, 2023

I need a comment from @jenniferward and @ahankinson on this

@jenniferward
Copy link
Contributor

I can't really picture what this change looks like so my comments probably won't help. In RISM Muscat we don't yet have 245 in Publications. We also don't have $b (nor do we need it for now, I'd say), but I agree that any project that wants to use 245$a or 245$b should be able to.

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor

@jenniferward you did file the original issue for this, way back in 2018. Does this still fix it, or have things moved on since then?

#626

@jenniferward
Copy link
Contributor

Nothing has changed since 2018. But what are we looking at? Does this mean there will be a new field, 245?

@xhero
Copy link
Contributor

xhero commented May 3, 2023

Yes, the idea is to move all 240s to 245

@jenniferward
Copy link
Contributor

Then that's great from my point of view.

@HirschSt
Copy link
Contributor

HirschSt commented May 4, 2023

Please have in mind that this will break existing exports

@fjorba
Copy link
Contributor Author

fjorba commented May 5, 2023

Please have in mind that this will break existing exports

Not yet. I mean, not until you change your RISM database records. But we, at UAB, are customizing secondary literature template, and want to use 245 for title. My patch ensures that the title element for the publication model works both for your (current) template with 240 and our (testing) template with 245. And when (in the future) you change your template, this compatibility step will already be done.

@fjorba
Copy link
Contributor Author

fjorba commented Sep 4, 2023

Hello, @jenniferward, if I understand it the current status of this PR, misses your approval. As I wrote, my proposal doesn't hurt any Muscat instance. If a publication has 240 as title (as current RISM practice), it takes it as such, but if it has 245, it will accept it. If a record has both, it takes 245. And if is has subtitle in $b, it recongizes is as such; if not, it doesn't hurt. Thanks.

@jenniferward
Copy link
Contributor

Right yes, sorry! I approve. Anyone who uses Muscat should reasonably expect 245$a and $b to be present and function as described by @fjorba .

@fjorba
Copy link
Contributor Author

fjorba commented Oct 5, 2023

Is there anything else that I should do, @xhero?

@fjorba
Copy link
Contributor Author

fjorba commented May 28, 2024

Hi @xhero, may I ask if this patch is going to be accepted, or should i drop it, and why? Thanks.

@xhero
Copy link
Contributor

xhero commented Jun 12, 2024

Sorry this flew under my radar, but I think we are all in favour actually! We can make official just after I survive Muscat 11.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants