marking of a rudimentary description ("stub")

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

One question (possibly I overlooked this): is it possible to mark a rudimentary description as such (if the cataloguer wants others consider it as "stub")?
All description have the same indication "work in progress", but "stub" is more than that.

[eu-genia]

at the moment if you have no change element (or the only change element has who="PL" then "Stub" is printed

   {if (count($document//t:change[not(@who eq 'PL')]) eq 1) then
   <span class="w3-tag w3-red">Stub</span>
   else if ($document//t:change[contains(.,'completed')]) then
   <span class="w3-tag w3-gray" >Under Review</span>
     else if ($document//t:change[contains(.,'reviewed')]) then
   <span class="w3-tag w3-white" >Version of {max($document//t:change/xs:date(@when))}</span>
   else
<span class="w3-tag w3-red" >{"Work in Progress"}</span>

we can agree on when "Stub" must be printed

[eu-genia]

@nafisa-valieva @CarstenHoffmannMarburg @karljonaskarlsson @thea-m @abausi
I think this is another small but important addition to the guidelines that we should all agree upon and implement: how we mark stub records and whether and how we want them visualized.

First I thought that the easiest would be that in all cases where only 1 change element is present AND this element contains the word "stub" we see the word "Stub" (as in the screenshot above). Then, as soon as there is a second change element, or there is just one change element but it does not contain the term stub this term would not show.

This sounds OK but we can also have stubs where changes occurred (like facs added, or something else) making a second change element necessary but the record is still a stub.

We could possibly say that as long as there is the word stub anywhere in the change history then "Stub" is printed, and when we think the record has stopped being a stub as it has been developed further then in the first change line the word stub must replaced with something like initial version or anything else. It is a bit awkward to have to modify earlier change elements but at the moment this is something that I can see as the easiest to implement. Other ideas?

[nafisa-valieva]

@nafisa-valieva @CarstenHoffmannMarburg @karljonaskarlsson @thea-m @abausi I think this is another small but important addition to the guidelines that we should all agree upon and implement: how we mark stub records and whether and how we want them visualized.

First I thought that the easiest would be that in all cases where only 1 change element is present AND this element contains the word "stub" we see the word "Stub" (as in the screenshot above). Then, as soon as there is a second change element, or there is just one change element but it does not contain the term stub this term would not show.

This sounds OK but we can also have stubs where changes occurred (like facs added, or something else) making a second change element necessary but the record is still a stub.

We could possibly say that as long as there is the word stub anywhere in the change history then "Stub" is printed, and when we think the record has stopped being a stub as it has been developed further then in the first change line the word stub must replaced with something like initial version or anything else. It is a bit awkward to have to modify earlier change elements but at the moment this is something that I can see as the easiest to implement. Other ideas?

This looks good for me! I am only afraid that we will never delete the word "stub" at the end :-)

[eu-genia]

Yes I am also afraid but since I always ask you to check how the record you have created/merged appears online would one not notice that the red "Stub" is there when it should not be?
I am really not sure that that is the best way, revising historical change is not the best practice, I am just trying to think of a way to somehow clearly distinguish stubs at first glance, without looking into the XML.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

This sounds best for me: "We could possibly say that as long as there is the word stub anywhere in the change history then "Stub" is printed, and when we think the record has stopped being a stub as it has been developed further then in the first change line the word stub must replaced with something like initial version or anything else". The cataloguer has to remove the stub-marking as soon as he/she does not consider the description a stub any longer (if I understood it right). Yes, the stubs should be distinguishable at first, glance.

[eu-genia]

In this case we would gave to check first all existing records that use stub in change and replace it when needed
https://betamasaheft.eu/xpath.html?xpath=%24config%3Acollection-root%2F%2Ft%3ArevisionDesc%2Ft%3Achange%5Bcontains%28.%2C%27tub%27%29%5D

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

I agree with Eugenia initial suggestion. It should be a solution, that is easy to handle and does not require awareness or action on the side of cataloguers, who will surely change in the future as well. I think, it is not a problem, if some rudimentary descriptions remain, that are not marked as "stubs" explicitely.

[karljonaskarlsson]

Eugenia's suggestion makes sense to me as well!

[thea-m]

Do the guidelines also need to be updated regarding this? https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=revisions

[eu-genia]

Yes, thank you!

[nafisa-valieva]

Do the guidelines also need to be updated regarding this? https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=revisions

Probably it makes sense to work on both updates together. If you do not mind, I will take care of it and then ask for your revision.

[thea-m]

Thank you @nafisa-valieva that's great!