Conversation
svogt0511
requested review from
a team,
KellyStathis,
codycooperross and
wendelfabianchinsamy
| 'conference-paper' | ||
| when /^(poster|Conference poster)$/i | ||
| 'conference-poster' | ||
| when /^(presentation|Conference presentation)$/i |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I'm remembering correctly, this section of the code attempts to match free-text resourceType values to ORCID work types. If a resourceType contains only "poster" or "presentation", should we assume that the work is a conference poster or conference presentation? A question for @KellyStathis , I think.
Noting that this only would trigger when resourceTypeGeneral is "Text".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For resourceTypeGeneral "Poster" and "Presentation", we are mapping these to "conference poster" and "conference presentation" in ORCID.
When resourceTypeGeneral is "Text", it looks like we already had the mapping for "poster" or "conference presentation" to "conference presentation" in ORCID. Since we have this in place already, it makes sense for me to also have the equivalent for "presentation" and "conference presentation".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good! My hesitation with adding the resourceType "presentation" -> ORCID "conference-presentation" mapping is because not all presentations are necessarily conference presentations. We could remove resourceType "presentation" -> ORCID "conference-presentation" and resourceType "poster" -> ORCID "conference-poster", but happy to continue supporting both if that makes sense to you. I doubt this affects that many record regardless.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense! Though since this is the same mapping we're using at the resourceTypeGeneral level, the same concern could apply there. We deliberately used a similar definition to ORCID's (which comes from the COAR work types) but scoped to not be specific to conferences.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me know if we need changes because of this. I merged this pull request a minute ago.
3 participants
Purpose
Changes to lupo as required for the Metadata 4.7 release, described in the document at the link, below.
Metadata Schema Release 4.7 - Product Spec
closes: Add github issue that originated this PR
Approach
Open Questions and Pre-Merge TODOs
Apparently orcid_client is incompatible with less than ruby 3.1. Does this need to be announced somewhere?
Learning
Types of changes
Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Reviewer, please remember our guidelines: