Hi all,
I would like to ask you (suggest) something. Let's say that I created a record with 5 subjects (650 fields) and three authors ( 100 field and 700 field). I saved the record but then I realize that I want to add two other fields. The only problem(?) is that after adding the two fields I have to validate again the authority fields. But I don't want to validate the authority fields as I didn't change them. I believe that it would be great to have the option not to validate the authority fields and keep them as they are. I think this would be time - saving. I would like your opinion on this. |
This needs enhancements in the editor. Will be addressed in 3.0.4
On 10/11/2011 11:30 AM, nsid [via NewGenLib] wrote: Hi all,
NewGenLib Open Source Support
Verus Solutions Private Limited www.verussolutions.biz |
Thank you.
|
In reply to this post by nsid
It is a good suggestion. Though I admit that validation is a very important process and the current procedure works for me. And if the subject is already validated anyway, then you won't have to do anything as it will skip it, really. Though, potentially, what you suggest may lessen time. For this to happen in the current setup, a mechanism will have to be created to keep in touch with what has been edited and what has been not in the catalog record.
Or maybe a separate tool 'Insert subject' in the search catalog module so that you don't have to enter the actual catalog record? Then it may skip validation entirely if you will select an already existing authority record. Edit: Ooops, did not see the other replies. Good news since this will be already addressed.
-------------------------------------------------
With great knowledge comes great responsibility. |
Hi,
"Or maybe a separate tool 'Insert subject' in the search catalog module so that you don't have to enter the actual catalog record?" This may be difficult as Subjects are part of the bibliographic data and it is important that the cataloguer needs access to the record before editing it. Please comment On 10/11/2011 12:47 PM, pedroparkero [via NewGenLib] wrote: It is a good suggestion. Though I admit that validation is a very important process and the current procedure works for me. And if the subject is already validated anyway, then you won't have to do anything as it will skip it, really. Though, potentially, what you suggest may lessen time. For this to happen in the current setup, a mechanism will have to be created to keep in touch with what has been edited and what has been not in the catalog record.
NewGenLib Open Source Support
Verus Solutions Private Limited www.verussolutions.biz |
Hi,
@Pedro I can't skip the validation process. If I modify a record I will have to re-validate the authority fields again. What do you mean saying "skip" @all The validation process is extremely important. What I have in my mind is when the following window opens to have an extra button which is going to say, somehow, keep all the subjects as they are. The major hint/tip/trick here is to keep the subjects exactly as they are. |
In reply to this post by Verus Open Source Support
I was thinking that a 'behind-the-scenes' approach of inserting a 650 tag to the record so that every other tag remains intact, making validation unneeded. Although I am fine with just having enhancements in the editor, as you say. That also works for me.
@nsid Sorry it got you confused. I mean, yes, the existing authorities are still in the list to validate, but they will just go quietly and won't give you an option to "create new" or "select existing", and that's the skip I meant. X-D
-------------------------------------------------
With great knowledge comes great responsibility. |
Thank you Pedro
The problem is the following: As you can see the system searches for Art, ignoring the subfields. So your last record may have the subject "Art -- History", so you have to find this specific subject and then click on "keep the existing subject" button. When I create the record, yes, the validation of the authorities is absolutely important and I will validate th subjects one by one. But when I want to do a modification maybe it would be nice to have an extra option "Keep the existing subjects" automatically. But the the exact subjects! e.g. Art -- History Thank you for this creative discussion. |
@nsid
As I understand from you earlier postings 1. There is a catalog record with 5 subjects and 3 authors 2. You are modifying the above record 3. You only editing one subject. This means you did not touch 4 subjects and 3 authors 4. You recommend that: In validation process only the subject that is edited must be shown. Rest of 4 subjects+3 authors must not be shown. Whereas currently all 5 subjects + 3 authors are shown On 10/11/2011 01:22 PM, nsid [via NewGenLib] wrote: Thank you Pedro
NewGenLib Open Source Support
Verus Solutions Private Limited www.verussolutions.biz |
Well, you described the perfect workflow for me and I believe it makes sense.
When you create a record with 5 subjects, you should validate step by step all of them. When you modify a record editing only one subject, you should only validate the subject (authority), you changed. I am not sure if this is something easy for the development team. Thank you for listening though :-) Always discussions and brainstorming have excellent results! |
Well, one suggestion that would eliminate the need of validation is just to simply restrict saving a record with a name or subject that is not in the authorities. Instead of a textbox in the subject area, why not bring down the button from above the Cataloging GUI where you can insert a subject from the authorities [and not be able to type it manually]? If the subject is not yet in the authorities, you can simply create one on the spot because the search subject module has a "create" button along with "modify" & "delete" anyway.
Although if would be a different matter if importing from a MARC catalog. Maybe that's where you'll need validation. "Paste MARC record" would still retain the text in the subjects, but the catalog record won't still be save-able unless you go through the validation process. [If there will be people who might complain that this new method is not conducive to a quick&dirty cataloging (when they're in a hurry, perhaps?) maybe you can create a new category of records and have a button "save as draft record", where the record is searchable to staff only and can be seen in the drafts section module where it will stay until it is given proper authorities. But what I describe above, doing something slow & perfect the first time, is much simpler though.] [Anyway, this train of thought reminds me of a something: is it possible to have an auditing function embedded in NGL? Something that tells me which staff member edited a record and when? And maybe a report on the total of records they have created/edited per day?]
-------------------------------------------------
With great knowledge comes great responsibility. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |