EPrints Technical Mailing List Archive

See the EPrints wiki for instructions on how to join this mailing list and related information.

Message: #09374

< Previous (by date) | Next (by date) > | < Previous (in thread) | Next (in thread) > | Messages - Most Recent First | Threads - Most Recent First

Re: [EP-tech] Question about relations between eprints and corrections

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
Hi Robin,

The Simple Portfolio plugin at https://github.com/eprintsug/Simple-Portfolio essentially provides a basic version of the solution that David has just mentioned, namely a multi-itemref field that allows an eprint to store references to other eprints in the same repository's live archive.

In this case it's just a simple autocomplete based on the title of the record when adding an item, and it's not a compound field so doesn't have sub fields for storing the nature of the relationship for example. However, simply naming the field "Errata" might be enough to make it clear that all the eprints stored in this field are errata! The field  then renders in the summary page as a bullet point list of the eprints that have been connected to given record.

Alternatively if the main barrier is just needing a DOI for the errata documents, and you're happy for the errata to carry on just being an upload of the original eprint, rather than a whole separate spin off eprint, the latest version of the DataCite DOI plugin does allow for document level DOI minting: https://github.com/eprintsug/DataCiteDoi. However it sounds like you need other bits of metadata stored for the errata so perhaps having them as separate eprints is still the best approach.

I hope this helps!

Many thanks,

Will


Will Fyson
Development & Support Analyst, Research Technologies
CoSector, University of London
Senate House
Malet Street
London
WC1E 7HU

t: +44 (0)20 7863 1341
e: will.fyson@cosector.com
w: https://cosector.com/digital-research/

The University of London is an exempt charity in England and Wales.

From: eprints-tech-request@ecs.soton.ac.uk <eprints-tech-request@ecs.soton.ac.uk> on behalf of David R Newman <drn@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sent: 17 August 2023 17:55
To: eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk <eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; Robin Sylvestre <robin.sylvestre@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [EP-tech] Question about relations between eprints and corrections
 

HI Robin,

Yes, creating a new version that set the succeeds field will knock the original eprint record out of search results.  Therefore, this is clearly something you don't want to do.

For some research data repositories that store datasets that are related to publications that may be in a different repositories or hosted elsewhere, a special compound multiple field called "Related Resources" has sometimes been defined that allows reference to the title, resource type, ID (e.g. DOI, ISSN, etc.), ID type, URL, publication status and name of publication.  A similar approach may be possible for errata.  However, it sounds like the issue is that both of these exist on the same EPrints repository, so you really probably want a field that is like the succeeds field (i.e. of type itemref) but it be a compound multiple field, so you can assign a type and maybe even a description for this relation and maybe define multiple related items, (e.g. you could have multiple errata).

I know my colleague has been working on improving the itemref field's user interface, so you can click on it and it pops a search form, where you can select an item or items from a set of search results.  So there is definitely multiple use cases for wanting to be able to do this.

Regards

David Newman


On 17/08/2023 17:23, Robin Sylvestre wrote:

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.

Hi everybody,

 

In EPrints errata files are considered a type of content/version of a document object. Until now we used to place errata files within the same eprint as the main document. It seemed logical at the time but we are losing the metadata of the errata itself since it has its own DOI and volume/issue, etc. What we should have done from the beginning was to put those errata as a separate eprint, in line with the practice of the publishing industry. We would then like to display the relationship between the two eprints.

 

What I understand is since an erratum is a type of content, whose terms are based on the different versions of a document, then an erratum should be considered a new version of that eprint. However, an erratum is not a complete version of a document. Using the succeeds field removes the original eprint from search results and doesn’t display any relation on it either, just on the new version.

 

What are your thoughts or local practices for errata information?

 

Thanks!

 

Robin Sylvestre
Technicien des systèmes informatisés
Bibliothèque Louise-Lalonde-Lamarre
Polytechnique Montréal
514-340-4711 poste 5973