Thanks for the quick response, Chris! I think a name such as domain-instance-vocabularies.xml would fit our naming model. I agree that vocabs are a strange brew since it's not at all changing a schema but rather adding new instances. I just wasn't sure how to approach them, aside from a long pointy stick. Thanks, - Jesse On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Chris Martin <csm22@caret.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > ah yes I can see - I included the domain-include in the base-vocab in the > wrong place. > You need one within the instance area. > Vocabs are different from the rest of the procedures and there is a divide > between changing/ using a different schema and instantiating a new vocab > > would a instance-vocabularies.xml make sense for adding to the vocabulary > instances to the existing schema or is there a better name for that file? > > Chris > > > > On 05/10/2011 15:22, Jesse Martinez wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm coming across an issue where I'm not sure the best way to add a new > vocabularized term list to the vocabulary (semi-)authority without adding it > to the base schema. AFAIK, to add a new vocab term list to a local or domain > schema, in this case domain-vocabularies.xml, there needs to be a new tenant > module for vocabularies with a schema extension, but I'm not looking to > extend the schema but rather just add in a few new instances. > > So far I've tried adding my new vocab instance to the domain- schema but it > appears the instances in that file aren't read or at least not used by the > app/service layer. Typically, within a procedural schema extension I can > declare additional fields in the respective domain- schema file and hook it > into the respective base- schema file by listing the schema extension as a > services-record-path with a unique id, e.g. > <services-record-path id="mmi">collectionobjects_mmi:http:// > collectionspace.org/services/collectionobject/local/mmi,collectionobjects_mmi > </services-record-path> > > but if I don't have a schema extension then I'm at a loss. I've also > attempted to hook my new vocab instances to the vocabularies_common > services-record-path but that didn't work. > Outside of just adding my vocab instances to the base schema, which I'd > like to avoid, should I make an empty schema extension just so I can add my > vocab instances to my local schema? > > Thanks, > > - Jesse > > > _______________________________________________ > Work mailing listWork@lists.collectionspace.orghttp://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/work_lists.collectionspace.org > >

Just to follow up: I can get my vocab instances to load by using your new schema organization, Chris. But I can _only_ get them to load if I use the file domain-vocabularies.xml (not domain-instance-vocabularies.xml) and wrap everything within <instances> tags. The original top-level tag <section...> wasn't catching for some reason. On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Jesse Martinez <jmartinez@movingimage.us>wrote: > Thanks for the quick response, Chris! > > I think a name such as domain-instance-vocabularies.xml would fit our > naming model. > > I agree that vocabs are a strange brew since it's not at all changing a > schema but rather adding new instances. I just wasn't sure how to approach > them, aside from a long pointy stick. > > Thanks, > > - Jesse > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Chris Martin <csm22@caret.cam.ac.uk>wrote: > >> ah yes I can see - I included the domain-include in the base-vocab in the >> wrong place. >> You need one within the instance area. >> Vocabs are different from the rest of the procedures and there is a divide >> between changing/ using a different schema and instantiating a new vocab >> >> would a instance-vocabularies.xml make sense for adding to the vocabulary >> instances to the existing schema or is there a better name for that file? >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> On 05/10/2011 15:22, Jesse Martinez wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm coming across an issue where I'm not sure the best way to add a new >> vocabularized term list to the vocabulary (semi-)authority without adding it >> to the base schema. AFAIK, to add a new vocab term list to a local or domain >> schema, in this case domain-vocabularies.xml, there needs to be a new tenant >> module for vocabularies with a schema extension, but I'm not looking to >> extend the schema but rather just add in a few new instances. >> >> So far I've tried adding my new vocab instance to the domain- schema but >> it appears the instances in that file aren't read or at least not used by >> the app/service layer. Typically, within a procedural schema extension I can >> declare additional fields in the respective domain- schema file and hook it >> into the respective base- schema file by listing the schema extension as a >> services-record-path with a unique id, e.g. >> <services-record-path id="mmi">collectionobjects_mmi:http:// >> collectionspace.org/services/collectionobject/local/mmi,collectionobjects_mmi >> </services-record-path> >> >> but if I don't have a schema extension then I'm at a loss. I've also >> attempted to hook my new vocab instances to the vocabularies_common >> services-record-path but that didn't work. >> Outside of just adding my vocab instances to the base schema, which I'd >> like to avoid, should I make an empty schema extension just so I can add my >> vocab instances to my local schema? >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Jesse >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Work mailing listWork@lists.collectionspace.orghttp://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/work_lists.collectionspace.org >> >> >