Hi, I'm trying to plan for importing authorities in 2.4. I believe it will be possible in 2.4 to use nonpreferred terms (which are part of the same authority record as the preferred term) as refnames in other services--is that right? Are those refnames identical to the refnames for preferred terms except for the display name or ???? Will there be more than one refname field in the authority schemas for 2.4? Susan

Hi Susan, Thanks very much for surfacing these questions in advance of v2.4's release. My understanding - welcoming correction or clarification from others - is that: 1. refNames for non-preferred terms will be, as you surmised, identical to the refNames for preferred terms except for the display name part. 2. There will be a single refName field in each record, rather than per-term refName fields. (I'm not completely certain about this, but current schemas for the various authority services show this.) Aron On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM, <sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to plan for importing authorities in 2.4. > > I believe it will be possible in 2.4 to use nonpreferred terms (which are > part of the same authority record as the preferred term) as refnames in > other services--is that right? > > Are those refnames identical to the refnames for preferred terms except > for the display name or ???? > > Will there be more than one refname field in the authority schemas for 2.4? > > Susan > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org

Thanks, Aron. Please let me know if you hear of any changes. Susan > Hi Susan, > > Thanks very much for surfacing these questions in advance of v2.4's > release. > > My understanding - welcoming correction or clarification from others > - is that: > > 1. refNames for non-preferred terms will be, as you surmised, > identical to the refNames for preferred terms except for the display > name part. > > 2. There will be a single refName field in each record, rather than > per-term refName fields. (I'm not completely certain about this, but > current schemas for the various authority services show this.) > > Aron > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM, <sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to plan for importing authorities in 2.4. >> >> I believe it will be possible in 2.4 to use nonpreferred terms (which >> are >> part of the same authority record as the preferred term) as refnames in >> other services--is that right? >> >> Are those refnames identical to the refnames for preferred terms except >> for the display name or ???? >> >> Will there be more than one refname field in the authority schemas for >> 2.4? >> >> Susan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk mailing list >> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >

This is all correct. One thing we may do is to make the authority items have a baseRefName stored in the DB, and then we construct refNames (with appended displayNames) in the context that needs them (in payloads for search, etc. termsUsed, etc.). When we search for refObjs, the initial version will match only the base refName, so any of the terms will match. Later, we may add support to match an individual term, but that will require work on UX for the user to choose which behavior they want. HTH - Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org > [mailto:talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org] On Behalf Of > sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:57 AM > To: Aron Roberts > Cc: talk@lists.collectionspace.org > Subject: Re: [Talk] refnames for nonpreferred terms? > > Thanks, Aron. Please let me know if you hear of any changes. > > Susan > > > Hi Susan, > > > > Thanks very much for surfacing these questions in advance > of v2.4's > > release. > > > > My understanding - welcoming correction or clarification > from others > > - is that: > > > > 1. refNames for non-preferred terms will be, as you surmised, > > identical to the refNames for preferred terms except for > the display > > name part. > > > > 2. There will be a single refName field in each record, rather than > > per-term refName fields. (I'm not completely certain about > this, but > > current schemas for the various authority services show this.) > > > > Aron > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM, > <sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm trying to plan for importing authorities in 2.4. > >> > >> I believe it will be possible in 2.4 to use nonpreferred > terms (which > >> are part of the same authority record as the preferred term) as > >> refnames in other services--is that right? > >> > >> Are those refnames identical to the refnames for preferred terms > >> except for the display name or ???? > >> > >> Will there be more than one refname field in the authority schemas > >> for 2.4? > >> > >> Susan > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk mailing list > >> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > >> > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collecti > >> onspace.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.c > ollectionspace.org >