Sorry list moderators! I used the wrong email address. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM, amy wieliczka <amywieliczka@gmail.com>wrote: > Hey all, > > At the deployers workshop recently we discussed adding the ability to send > fields from related records to the UI with search results data - for > example, if a cataloging object has a related place term with lat/long > fields, then when a user searches for the cataloging object, the lat/long > fields are returned with the search results. I don't think this is > currently supported? It's very similar to the mini="relates" property used > in the app config, but instead of sending the related data to the record > editor, I'm looking to send the related data to the search results page. > What all is involved in accomplishing this? > > Thanks! > Amy >

 Hey all,

 At the deployers workshop recently we discussed adding the ability
 to send fields from related records to the UI with search results
 data - for example, if a cataloging object has a related place
 term with lat/long fields, then when a user searches for the
 cataloging object, the lat/long fields are returned with the
 search results. I don't think this is currently supported? It's
 very similar to the mini="relates" property used in the app
 config, but instead of sending the related data to the record
 editor, I'm looking to send the related data to the search results
 page. What all is involved in accomplishing this?

 Thanks!
 Amy

From an App view of the world:.... The fields that are returned in a search results are specified using the mini, it could just be a different value you put in the mini field. http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/cspace-config+Fields#cspace-configFields-mini So theoretically this functionality could be expanded to specify 'related fields'. There are a couple of issues from an app point of view: 1. What would be a logical way for the user to write this kind of configuration. * Would you put it in the place config or the cataloging config. o e.g. in the place config you could specify instead of just search something like mini="catalogingSearch" * or would you create a field in cataloging o e.g. <searchfield id="place/latitude"></searchfield> 2. If there were 5 related place records would you expect all 5 lat/long to be returned or just the 'primary' as is the current standard with search results. And what does 'primary' mean in relation to related records as they don't currently have 'order' 3. Currently retrieving related Procedures is a separate call for each record. Would you expect something where the related procedure (or primary procedure) is nested in the search results for the parent cataloging object or would fan out be acceptable cost for this functionality? e.g. one call to related procedure for each search result * If fan out is not acceptable then this become a service layer question as to how feasible is it to bundle more into the list view and how costly is that functionality. On 23/02/2012 01:36, amy wieliczka wrote: > Sorry list moderators! I used the wrong email address. > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM, amy wieliczka <amywieliczka@gmail.com > <mailto:amywieliczka@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hey all, > > At the deployers workshop recently we discussed adding the ability > to send fields from related records to the UI with search results > data - for example, if a cataloging object has a related place > term with lat/long fields, then when a user searches for the > cataloging object, the lat/long fields are returned with the > search results. I don't think this is currently supported? It's > very similar to the mini="relates" property used in the app > config, but instead of sending the related data to the record > editor, I'm looking to send the related data to the search results > page. What all is involved in accomplishing this? > > Thanks! > Amy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org