EPrints Technical Mailing List Archive

Message: #08772

< Previous (by date) | Next (by date) > | < Previous (in thread) | Next (in thread) > | Messages - Most Recent First | Threads - Most Recent First

[EP-tech] Multiple compound fields and their display in views

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.

Hi,

When using fields with type => "compound" and flag multiple => 1
E-Prints, tested version 3.3/3.4, mostly behaves as expected. Except
when views need to be displayed and sorted by a component field.

For an example, we use series of papers where a paper can be assigned to
more than one series, but with their respective ordering string in the
sequence:

[
  {
    cluster_id => 'sr-xy',
    order => "123a",
  },
  {
    cluster_id => 'sr-zz',
    order => "2003.42"
  }
]

In an abstract page, everything is displayed as expected:
Series          Ordering
"Series A"   123a
"Series B"   2003.42

In the series' view as defined in cfg.d/views.pl:
   {
      id => "schriftenreihen",
      menus => [
        {
          fields => [ "schriftenreihe_cluster_id" ],
          new_colums_at => [10, 10],
          hideempty => 1,
        },
      ],
      citation => "schriftenreihe_tr",
      order => "schriftenreihe_order",
},

EPrints handles the components independently from each other. It does
not observe their connection. There does not seem to be logic like "take
into account the order string of the associated cluster_id".

So the series views are, safe one, ill-sorted in the end:

# Series A
122b ...
122c ...
123a, 2003.42   Title of the paper
124 ...

and

# Series B
123a, 2003.42   Title of the paper
...
2003.41 ...
2003.43 ...
...


I roughly remember it has been years since I mailed you about that
problem. [1]

Nowadays it stings somewhat. For sure, in an environment where printed
works are in constant recession compared to online resources, less and
less people would accept their work with shared authorship in only one
series, that of the first-named for instance. To register a new series
for every temporary company of authors cannot be regarded as a proper
solution, too.

Is our view configuration wrong, perhaps? Any one with that problem
beside us?


Kind regards,
Florian


[^1]: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eprints.org%2Feptech%2Fmsg01507.html&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ceprints-tech%40ecs.soton.ac.uk%7C46c1e9e246d54d83340608d98e527a9f%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0%7C0%7C637697308056757987%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=YynGVGfhmwKlXYLPp1OB%2B3OQ%2B50%2FsJDYj5Ug%2Bo5yQLE%3D&amp;reserved=0


--
UB Heidelberg (Altstadt)
Plöck 107-109, 69117 HD
Abt. Informationstechnik
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ub.uni-heidelberg.de%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ceprints-tech%40ecs.soton.ac.uk%7C46c1e9e246d54d83340608d98e527a9f%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0%7C0%7C637697308056757987%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=UWo50pRHQjSWrEYLPyC5u2LBOX3KJgxEkYb49akUP5E%3D&amp;reserved=0