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

Feature Request/Idea: Add "Term URI" metadata in Keyword block #10288

Closed
stevenferey opened this issue Jan 31, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #10371
Closed

Feature Request/Idea: Add "Term URI" metadata in Keyword block #10288

stevenferey opened this issue Jan 31, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #10371
Labels
Type: Feature a feature request
Milestone

Comments

@stevenferey
Copy link
Contributor

stevenferey commented Jan 31, 2024

Overview of the Feature Request
The proposal of the issue is to integrate a new metadata "Term URI" to the keyword block to facilitate the integration of controlled vocabulary services.

Example with entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr:

capture_keyword_block

What kind of user is the feature intended for?
All depositors

What inspired the request?
This is related to issue #9276 and the Google group discussion

What existing behavior do you want changed?
Adding a “Term URI” metadata to the “keyword” block

Any open or closed issues related to this feature request?

@jonquet
Copy link

jonquet commented Mar 28, 2024

In practice, this 4 field-form should be changed by only one with autocompletion.
This will make description of dataset record with standard vocabulary/ontology term (I would not use the word "keyword" in this case) much more efficient and easy.

If term is from INRAE Thesaurus, then a lookup like the one illsutrated here should be enough:
https://agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/INRAETHES/?p=widgets
Capture d’écran 2024-03-28 à 12 18 18

cc: @DS-INRA
See:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Type: Feature a feature request
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants