Re: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now
Hi Esteban! With the None approach, it fear it can get confusing when iterating over all authors (or whatever other field) as one then get None into the mix. If one really wants to get the first author, maybe calling first_author (where first_author is a direct lookup to _first_author) is enough and then expecting a None or empty list is alright? I dunno, it seems to me that when asking for give me all the authors, None does not belong there with John Ellis. Cheers, Jan Cheers, Jan --- Jan Age Lavik System Developer INSPIRE-HEP http://inspirehep.net Github: @jalavik https://github.com/jalavik Work phone: +41 22 76 78682 On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Esteban Gabancho esteban.jose.garcia.gaban...@cern.ch wrote: Hey guys! I have a question about the aggregation of several fields into one. Taking the example of the authors, lets say I have two fields `_first_author` and `_additional_authors` and I want to aggregate then into `authors`. The common case, and the easiest, is when I have one `_first_author` and cero or more `_additional_authors`, in which case I just put a list with the authors (what else right? :-) The problem, or the question, comes when I don’t have a `_first_author` in which case I’m not sure about the content of the `authors` field, it could be i) only the list of `_additional_authors` or ii) `None` follow by the the list of `_additional_authors`. I think the second solution is the closest one to reality, the `None` express that the record doesn’t have a first author. And I also think that we could apply this solution for other cases where we have this kind of situation (like with the `110__` and `710__`). What do you think? Lars, as you have already pu in production, how do you deal with this problem? Cheers, -- Esteban J. G. Gabancho
Re: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now
On 27.03.2014 15:38, Esteban Gabancho wrote: Hi! I think the second solution is the closest one to reality, the `None` express that the record doesn’t have a first author. And I also think that we could apply this solution for other cases where we have this kind of situation (like with the `110__` and `710__`). What do you think? If I may: as a librarian you have a 100. You may not have a 700, but in case you have only one author it is 100 by definition. You always have to read Marc with the cataloging rulebook in mind. (AACR*, RAK, what have you.) Still one should handle a cataloguing error. -- Kind regards, Alexander Wagner Scientific Services / Scientific Publishing Central Library 52425 Juelich mail : a.wag...@fz-juelich.de phone: +49 2461 61-1586 Fax : +49 2461 61-6103 http://www.fz-juelich.de/zb/wp Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
Re: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now
Hello Alexander, Esteban et al, Alexander Wagner a.wag...@fz-juelich.de wrote: On 27.03.2014 15:38, Esteban Gabancho wrote: I think the second solution is the closest one to reality, the `None` express that the record doesn’t have a first author. And I also think that we could apply this solution for other cases where we have this kind of situation (like with the `110__` and `710__`). What do you think? If I may: as a librarian you have a 100. You may not have a 700, but in case you have only one author it is 100 by definition. [to the non librarians in the crowd; Alexander knows it already] Or a 110, or a 111, I'd like to remind. An author is not only a 100 (personal author), but it may be a corporate one (110) or a conference (111). And please, don't forget that any of those tags may have arbitrary values as indicators. Best regards, Ferran
Re: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now
On 27.03.2014 15:38, Esteban Gabancho wrote: Hey guys! I have a question about the aggregation of several fields into one. Taking the example of the authors, lets say I have two fields `_first_author` and `_additional_authors` and I want to aggregate then into `authors`. The common case, and the easiest, is when I have one `_first_author` and cero or more `_additional_authors`, in which case I just put a list with the authors (what else right? :-) The problem, or the question, comes when I don’t have a `_first_author` in which case I’m not sure about the content of the `authors` field, it could be i) only the list of `_additional_authors` or ii) `None` follow by the the list of `_additional_authors`. I think the second solution is the closest one to reality, the `None` express that the record doesn’t have a first author. And I also think that we could apply this solution for other cases where we have this kind of situation (like with the `110__` and `710__`). In Zenodo i'm just interested in the list of authors, and the first in the list is by definition the first author. The first author/additional authors are somehow an artifact of having to store in MARC as master format. I'm not sure what we would be the most appropriate solution. Cheers, Lars What do you think? Lars, as you have already pu in production, how do you deal with this problem? Cheers, -- Esteban J. G. Gabancho -- Lars Holm Nielsen CERN, IT Department, Collaboration Information Services http://zenodo.org | Tel: +41 22 76 79182 | Cel: +41 76 672 8927 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now
Hi Jan! On 27 Mar 2014, at 16:02, Jan Åge Lavik jan.age.la...@cern.ch wrote: With the None approach, it fear it can get confusing when iterating over all authors (or whatever other field) as one then get None into the mix. If one really wants to get the first author, maybe calling first_author (where first_author is a direct lookup to _first_author) is enough and then expecting a None or empty list is alright? I dunno, it seems to me that when asking for give me all the authors, None does not belong there with John Ellis. I understand (and share) your opinion, currently in the templates we are just iterating over the full list of authors and maybe we should start using the other keys. Lets see what the others think about this, although this is something that each Invenio instance should do with their data model definition. Cheers, -- Esteban J. G. Gabancho
Re: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now
Hi Lars! Be careful with this general simplified notion. In some areas of research author ordering can cause sort of religious wars. And I may also add that depending on the area of research, the question I want all my papers, but only those where I am the first author is /very/ common. Up to the notion my papers == only those where I am the first author == only those count at all. So, a destinction of 1xx/7xx (of course Ferran is right about the other fields) is really important as is the ordering field $b. -- Kind regards, Alexander Wagner Subject Specialist Central Library 52425 Juelich mail : a.wag...@fz-juelich.de phone: +49 2461 61-1586 Fax : +49 2461 61-6103 www.fz-juelich.de/zb/DE/zb-fi - Reply message - From: Lars Holm Nielsen lars.holm.niel...@cern.ch Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2014 17:08 Subject: [pu jsonalchemy] Aggregation of several fields into now To: Esteban Gabancho esteban.jose.garcia.gaban...@cern.ch Cc: project-invenio-devel (Invenio developers mailing-list) project-invenio-devel@cern.ch On 27.03.2014 15:38, Esteban Gabancho wrote: Hey guys! I have a question about the aggregation of several fields into one. Taking the example of the authors, lets say I have two fields `_first_author` and `_additional_authors` and I want to aggregate then into `authors`. The common case, and the easiest, is when I have one `_first_author` and cero or more `_additional_authors`, in which case I just put a list with the authors (what else right? :-) The problem, or the question, comes when I don’t have a `_first_author` in which case I’m not sure about the content of the `authors` field, it could be i) only the list of `_additional_authors` or ii) `None` follow by the the list of `_additional_authors`. I think the second solution is the closest one to reality, the `None` express that the record doesn’t have a first author. And I also think that we could apply this solution for other cases where we have this kind of situation (like with the `110__` and `710__`). In Zenodo i'm just interested in the list of authors, and the first in the list is by definition the first author. The first author/additional authors are somehow an artifact of having to store in MARC as master format. I'm not sure what we would be the most appropriate solution. Cheers, Lars What do you think? Lars, as you have already pu in production, how do you deal with this problem? Cheers, -- Esteban J. G. Gabancho -- Lars Holm Nielsen CERN, IT Department, Collaboration Information Services http://zenodo.org | Tel: +41 22 76 79182 | Cel: +41 76 672 8927 Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
