265 adding ipt required fields to metadata form #284
Conversation
Added geographic and sampling description multiline text fields
- Fixed typos and corrected blankRecord.js - minor issue with method steps being returned as object instead of array
doesn't affect anything
|
This looks good! It would be good to give this "Add Item" button some context, like if items are method steps, maybe this can be in a section called "Methods" and items can be "Steps" or something like that.
|
…plain the section Changed wording to add/remove step from add/remove item to be more descriptive
|
Visit the preview URL for this PR (updated for commit 69acb74): https://cioos-metadata-form--pr284-265-adding-ipt-requi-4atwslqv.web.app (expires Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:49:40 GMT) 🔥 via Firebase Hosting GitHub Action 🌎 Sign: 57eda2a7622dc877ccadb675a0532261c52b09fd |
|
Thanks, only getting back to this now. As suggested, I've renamed the buttons to give more context and moved the method steps themselves into a section with descriptive text. I've also added key to the steps so they can be enumerated on the page. I guess this could be reworked to behave like contacts or instruments - for the moment I've modeled it after the resources tab. |
|
Looks good! Tiny thing - looks like "Move up" is correctly greyed out when theres a single method step, but "Move down" is still clickable (doesn't do anything) 
|
| <methodStep> | ||
| <description> | ||
| <section> | ||
| <title>{{ method.title.en }}</title> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My text editor (VSCode) is complaining about <title> being here. do you have any links to info on this <title> tag?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also possible my editor is using the wrong schema files, if this works in the IPT thats good enough
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I consulted a few different sources but ultimately based my structure on the following example: https://ediorg.github.io/data-package-best-practices/methods.html
Based on the idea that the description for a methodStep element is a section and a section has a title.
This seems to bear out in the EML schema detailed here (https://eml.ecoinformatics.org/schema/eml-methods_xsd.html#MethodsType_methodStep), but I'm no expert in this either - the following validator doesn't complain about it: https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/emlparser/
It does have some opinions on roles being specified for associated party:
The content of element 'associatedParty' is not complete. One of '{userId, role}' is expected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At first glance, there appears to be quite a bit of overlap between 'Method' from EML and 'Lineage' from iso1911. Specifically the processing step.
| </description> | ||
| </methodStep> | ||
| {% endfor %} | ||
| <sampling> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The sampling section seems to overlap with the following iso19115 concepts:
| <para>{{ record.biological.studyExtent.en }}</para> | ||
| </description> | ||
| </studyExtent> | ||
| <samplingDescription> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
samplingDescription also seems to overlap with the iso lineage section
| @@ -70,6 +72,7 @@ | |||
| </distribution> | |||
| <coverage> | |||
| <geographicCoverage> | |||
| <geographicDescription>{{ record.biological.geographicDescription.en }}</geographicDescription> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
overlap with iso https://wiki.esipfed.org/EX_GeographicDescription
|
replaced by #322 |
Added a biological tab for Geographic Description, Sampling Description, Study Extent and Method Steps (repeating section).
Updated EML generation to include new elements.