Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Export to Geoblacklight #70

Closed
eliotjordan opened this issue Mar 9, 2016 · 13 comments · Fixed by #194
Closed

Export to Geoblacklight #70

eliotjordan opened this issue Mar 9, 2016 · 13 comments · Fixed by #194

Comments

@eliotjordan
Copy link
Contributor

eliotjordan commented Mar 9, 2016

Have an endpoint that export the item into geoblacklight schema

@drh-stanford
Copy link
Contributor

jrgriffiniii pushed a commit to jrgriffiniii/geo_concerns that referenced this issue Mar 18, 2016
…e FileSet (covering the indexing of properties into a Solr Document compliant with the GeoBlacklight schema)
jrgriffiniii pushed a commit to jrgriffiniii/geo_concerns that referenced this issue Mar 20, 2016
…field "uuid" for the GeoBlacklight schema by overriding #to_solr within GeoFileSetBehavior
@jrgriffiniii
Copy link
Contributor

As I currently understand the GeoBlacklight schema and this issue, the ActiveFedora ID for the FileSet or Image/Raster/VectorWork must map to the Solr field "uuid".

Unfortunately, I receive the following error when I attempt to implement a solution for this:

Error: {'responseHeader'=>{'status'=>400,'QTime'=>2},'error'=>{'msg'=>'ERROR: [doc=ws859f68w] unknown field \'uuid\'','code'=>400}}

(Please see the latest [WIP] commit)

My suspicion is that Solrizer uses dynamic fields in order to avoid hard-coding fields generated for indexed ActiveFedora properties (explaining why one finds field names such as "dct_references_s" rather than simply "dct_references", as a common pattern for dynamic fields would be "*_s" for single valued strings). Because GeoBlacklight requires "uuid" rather than "uuid_s", I can only propose that we proceed by offering an alternative/extended Solr schema.

I will further investigate this and report my findings. Please let me know if any of my suspicions rest upon some misunderstanding of Solrizer, the GeoBlacklight schema, or ActiveFedora.

@eliotjordan eliotjordan modified the milestone: Geo Hydra Sprint 2 Apr 4, 2016
@drh-stanford
Copy link
Contributor

drh-stanford commented Aug 16, 2016

Note that the GeoBlacklight schema went 1.0. See the wiki for details: https://github.com/geoblacklight/geoblacklight/wiki/Schema

GeoCombine might also be useful

@eliotjordan eliotjordan self-assigned this Aug 16, 2016
@drh-stanford drh-stanford self-assigned this Aug 16, 2016
@eliotjordan eliotjordan added this to the Sprint 8/29/2016 milestone Aug 16, 2016
@drh-stanford
Copy link
Contributor

Pending #170

@drh-stanford
Copy link
Contributor

@eliotjordan
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not sure why, but it looks like you have to do some custom indexing to get that to happen. As it stands, the UI only allows one provenance value. Don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here.

https://github.com/projecthydra/curation_concerns/blob/master/app/indexers/curation_concerns/collection_indexer.rb#L12

@eliotjordan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also related is issue #169. I think we might want to use a configurable institution name here to generate the geoblacklight docs instead of provenance. We may not need that property at all.

@johnhuck
Copy link
Collaborator

there's also that new :depositor attribute, but I dunno how it's used in cc.

@drh-stanford
Copy link
Contributor

I don't understand the link to the collection_indexer.rb. Can you clarify?

@eliotjordan
Copy link
Contributor Author

eliotjordan commented Aug 31, 2016

@drh-stanford I got confused there. That is not the droid you are looking for.

@eliotjordan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@johnhuck The :depositor attr looks like it is auto-populated with the username of the person creating the work. I think this is to support sufia/ir applications.

@johnhuck
Copy link
Collaborator

👍 makes sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants