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

1.0 fdo profile #138

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024
Merged

1.0 fdo profile #138

merged 11 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

southeo
Copy link
Contributor

@southeo southeo commented Sep 3, 2024

Introduced 1.0.0 Version of FDO Profiles according to finalization discussion

Handle Objects

  • Handle-kernel
  • Annotation
  • Data-mapping
  • Machine-annotation-service
  • Source-system

DOI Objects

  • Doi-kernel
  • Digital-specimen
  • Digital-media

Request vs normal schema?
A "request schema" is used to validate requests to the handle API. Terms in these schemas are terms that may or must be determined by a client. terms not in the request schemas are generated internally by the handle api.

@southeo southeo marked this pull request as ready for review September 16, 2024 14:28
@southeo southeo requested a review from TomDijkema September 16, 2024 14:28
Copy link
Contributor

@TomDijkema TomDijkema left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🦌

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add VIEW=JSON to 10320/loc for consistency (although we do not currently have a HTML view for the annotation)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it is now implemented as ID=JSON but the ID should not change, a VIEW parameter should be added. ID attributes are given an integer in the Handle documentation, I am not sure that is actually required but people using Handles may expect an integer there so I would keep the ID integers. They may be handy if there are for example multiple URLS with VIEW=JSON, to display one of them with preference using a weight (e.g. one is served in Chine, the other in Europe and for traffic coming from Europe you may prefer the one served from a location in Europe).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not 100% sure if the handle system supports that. In their documentation, they say:

The currently defined selection methods are:

  • Locatt (select by id)
  • country
  • weight

However, they also say:

The attributes for the set of locations, as well as each location entry in the set, are open-ended to allow for future capabilities.

So it might support it, it might not. Will need to test. If it fails, using the id this way should work. There's nothing in the documentation that says that the id needs to be an integer.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, how I read the documentation you should be able to add any attribute you like. If it does not work then please use the id instead but having both attributes would be more flexible.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

pidissuerName should be DiSSCo (DataCite does not issue Handles for our annotations), pidIssuer is the ROR for DiSSCo

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

now pidIssuerName is changed to the ROR, but the ROR should be in pidIssuer and pidIssuerName should be DiSSCo

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

update idx6 example with 10.3535 prefix, add VIEW=JSON to10320/loc

@DiSSCo DiSSCo deleted a comment from southeo Sep 25, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@sharifX sharifX left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good. a small comment.

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
{
"10320/loc": "<locations><location href=\"https://dev-orchestration.dissco.tech/api/v1/mapping/TEST/QDD-Y07-QK6\" id=\"0\" weight=\"1\"/></locations>",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should it be ID=JSON here?

Copy link
Contributor

@wouteraddink wouteraddink left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Almost there! a few requests for changes still, see comments

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it is now implemented as ID=JSON but the ID should not change, a VIEW parameter should be added. ID attributes are given an integer in the Handle documentation, I am not sure that is actually required but people using Handles may expect an integer there so I would keep the ID integers. They may be handy if there are for example multiple URLS with VIEW=JSON, to display one of them with preference using a weight (e.g. one is served in Chine, the other in Europe and for traffic coming from Europe you may prefer the one served from a location in Europe).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

now pidIssuerName is changed to the ROR, but the ROR should be in pidIssuer and pidIssuerName should be DiSSCo

@southeo southeo requested a review from wouteraddink October 2, 2024 13:46
@southeo southeo merged commit e33cf8d into master Oct 7, 2024
1 check passed
@southeo southeo deleted the feature/fdo-1.0 branch October 7, 2024 12:22
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 this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants