LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  November 2020

CODE4LIB November 2020

Subject:

Re: modeling data and metadata for repository ingest

From:

"McDonald, Stephen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:04:00 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Thanks, Andromeda.  I take your point on thinking about the names.  Calling it a Tree only makes sense if there are Nodes.  If I don't use Nodes, I should use a class named Package for the package of data and metadata rather than Tree.  The name helps clarify the mental model.

You make a good point that knowing how to deal with specific metadata types should be a Node function.  I will have to think about making specific subclasses of Node for different metadata types.  It had occurred to me before while considering the issue.  That would make sense, and is a good argument for using a Node class.

Let me give a couple examples of the datasets I'm dealing with.
(A)  Once a week, Springer adds a zipfile to an FTP site, containing open access articles written by our faculty.  The zipfile contains a directory structure eight layers deep.  For each article, there is one XML file at a middle layer and one PDF file at a deeper layer, plus an optional ninth layer containing supplemental files for the article.
(B)  Faculty, students, and departments submit materials to be entered into the repository.  A person in the department or a liaison in the library reference staff handles requests from that department, using a template to create a spreadsheet with the related metadata, one row per title.  The materials may be PDF, images, videos, or sound recordings.  Catalogers in the library review the spreadsheet, replacing keyword subjects with controlled vocabulary and assuring general quality control.  The spreadsheet, PDFs, and media files are placed in a filesystem directory on a remote server waiting to be loaded.
(C)  The library purchases an electronic title (text or media) which must be hosted locally rather than on the vendor server.  A cataloger finds or creates a MARC record on WorldCat and downloads it.  The files are placed on Box until they can be loaded into the repository.

I don't know whether the toolkit will be able to pull directly from Box, but that would be interesting.  Similarly, having the toolkit pull files directly from an FTP site would be interesting but not strictly necessary.  I definitely want to handle filesystem directories, zipfiles, tarfiles, and possibly others.  That would relieve the staff from unpacking the files themselves.  The batch ingest process within the repository uses a file browser to select an XML metadata file (custom schema with elements from several schemas) and a list of data files.  So pre-processing needs to convert the submitted metadata into XML, run it through an XSL transform, collect several files into a single XML file if necessary, and reorganize the data files so they can be conveniently found in the file browser.  

The absurdity of writing, maintaining, teaching, and following the complicated instructions to manually prepare all these materials and several more is why we wrote the current toolkit.  Much of conversion processing exists in the current version of the toolkit, but it needs to be a lot more modular and flexible.  I expect we will continue to get new sources, each with their own quirks.

Optimally, I would write the toolkit so someone could write libraries to prepare datasets for a different repository system.  I don't know enough about the ingest processes of systems other than ours (Fedora 4 with Samvera interface and lots of local code), but I will try to make the core functionality as general as I can and keep the repository-specific pieces in separate libraries.  Going with Nodes sounds like the right direction.  Thank you for your help!

					Steve McDonald
					[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Andromeda Yelton
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] modeling data and metadata for repository ingest

I think you will be happiest in the long run if Tree exposes an interface that is the same as other interfaces you are familiar with, and it is entirely reasonable for a Node object to 1) exist and 2) know its own path.
Also I think a "copy" method should only copy, not "copy and instantiate"
(if a function is most accurately described with a phrase containing 'and', it wants to be at least two functions). Keeping its responsibilities small will make it easier to write, test, and maintain.

There's something pulling at my brain about this class structure that I can't quite identify without seeing the data, but it is something about the name and responsibilities of Tree. Knowing how to copy is treelike. But knowing how to deal with specific metadata types is possibly more Nodelike?

You say there are lots of possible input types and output types -- what does the part between them look like? Does everything go through some sort of common state? If so, it would make sense for a Node to know how to transform between its content type and that common form, and for Trees to deal only with the common form. Admittedly I cannot imagine what that common form would look like. But otherwise you're writing a fully-connected graph of transforms between everything and everything and you will be extremely sad as this graph grows.

Anyway. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, without having the code in front of me. But I think it's worth being very explicit with yourself about what you expect the responsibilities of each class to be, because then you can look at whether those responsibilities make sense, whether the class names correctly describe those sets of responsibilities, and what interfaces you need to expose to make it harmonize.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:34 PM McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Fellow library code wranglers,
>
> Coding questions don't come up often here, but I think this might be 
> the best group to ask, as my question somewhat involves both coding 
> and the nature of metadata and data.  A considerable amount of my work 
> involves ingesting materials into our institutional repository.  We 
> get this material from many sources in many formats; PDF, Quicktime, 
> WAV, etc., with metadata in XML, MARC21, or even spreadsheets.  It 
> might be organized as filesystem directories, zip files, or images with imbedded metadata.
> Before loading into the repository, the metadata must be extracted and 
> transformed, and the data files reorganized for convenient ingest.
>
> To make this easier, we have written a toolkit (in Ruby) which handles 
> the conversion.  You select the source type (e.g. zipfile of 
> electronic theses from Proquest), specify the 
> directory/zipfile/whatever containing the data, and the toolkit 
> executes all the transforms and organizes into a convenient directory 
> structure, ready to ingest into the repository.  The problem is that 
> the code in the toolkit is clunky, making it difficult to add new sources and the needed transformations.
>
> I am rewriting the toolkit from scratch, with a modular design.  I 
> want a consistent set of methods defined in an abstract class for a 
> package of data (which I am calling a Tree), with subclasses defining 
> the exact behavior of the methods for directories, zipfiles, images 
> with imbedded metadata, etc.  I'm sure this is familiar to some of 
> you.  A file or directory (or analog) within a Tree is defined as a 
> path from the root of the Tree
>
> The question I have is the best model to use for the arguments of the 
> methods of this class.  For instance, I want an analog to the copy 
> method, to copy a file from the input Tree to the new ingest Tree.  
> The ruby filesystem copy method is .cp(src, dest).  An analog method 
> would have to specify the input Tree along with the input path, and 
> the output Tree plus the output path.  So I could define the method as 
> Tree.cp(srctree, srcpath, desttree, destpath).  Or I could go a little 
> more abstract and define a class Node which is a combination of a Tree 
> and a path.  Then I could create Tree.cp(srcnode, destnode), which 
> looks more like the familiar filesystem methods.
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on which would be better?  Using Nodes 
> looks a lot cleaner and appeals to my sense of organization.  I will 
> be defining a Tree.glob method, so that should handle instantiating 
> source Nodes, but output Nodes would need to be instantiated.  The 
> first method avoids the complication of instantiating Nodes before 
> using them in copy and move commands.  I'm not sure which would be 
> easier for writing specific ingest routines for a new data source, 
> since someday someone else will have to write them.  Any thoughts?
>
>
>       Steve McDonald
>
>       [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>


--
Andromeda Yelton
Web Applications Developer, Berkman Klein Center: https://cyber.harvard.edu Lecturer, San José State University iSchool http://andromedayelton.com @ThatAndromeda <http://twitter.com/ThatAndromeda>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager