Multivalued field separator in record view

[Ondřej Košarko]

Look at ​this record there's a field called "organisation" and a value that seems to be "Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, UFAL, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague".
The record actually has two organisation - publisher, and provider's affiliation. It would probably be better to separate multiple values with something other then a comma (maybe newline?)

[Jörg Knappen]

Analysing the Original Metadata, the first organisation comes from

OLAC-DcmiTerms?/publisher

and the second from

resourceInfo/contactPerson/affiliation/organizationName

It is probably a good idea to blacklist the latter XPath.

[Ondřej Košarko]

Blacklisting is certainly an option. I'm not sure if a good one though...

1) It depends on what kind of organisation should be mapped to the facet. Providers only?
2) In the faceted search it is properly displayed as two distinct values, only the record view creates the confusion.
3) Could this confusion arise on other fields than organisation?

[Jörg Knappen]

ad 2)/3) The current VLO just displays multiple field/facet values in one bulk. This applies to all fields used in the display. The beta version of VLO 3.0 does much better in this respect.

For this particular resource, the problem is that the two organisations are almost---but not exactly---the same. Such kinds of duplicates are undesirable.

[Ondřej Košarko]

Replying to j.knappen@…:

For this particular resource, the problem is that the two organisations are almost---but not exactly---the same. Such kinds of duplicates are undesirable.

Yes the values are almost the same, but the semantics is quite different. If the contact person were affiliated with eg. MPI, would you be able to tell how many organisations are there just from the row in view record?

[teckart@informatik.uni-leipzig.de]

I agree that the key problem here is the unclear definition of the facet. I personally would vote for something like "providing" organisation or organisation that was involved in the creation of the resource (which is basically the same as the tooltip in the current VLO; which is not an "official" definition). In this sense the affiliation of the contact person would be blacklisted. Therefore I suggest to postpone this decision until we have an agreement about it.

[Twan Goosen]

fixed record link

[Twan Goosen]

No longer seems to be a problem (due to auto curation?)
Thomas: close as 'worksforme'?

[teckart@informatik.uni-leipzig.de]

Due to the new facet definition of organisation ("The name of the organisation currently responsible for the resource or tool [...]") concepts regarding the publisher were removed in r6085. Related to ticket #724.