1393 minimal machine-readable information in dataset landing pages

[pameyer]

New Contributors

Welcome! New contributors should at least glance at CONTRIBUTING.md, especially the section on pull requests where we encourage you to reach out to other developers before you start coding. Also, please note that we measure code coverage and prefer you write unit tests. Pull requests can still be reviewed without tests or completion of the checklist outlined below. Thanks!

Related Issues

Minimal Dublin-core metadata in dataset landing page in html meta elements (aka - machine-readable metadata).

• connects to Add metadata to dataset HTML, improving Zotero/Endnote import, search engine discoverability, and support for citation tracking tools like Altmetrics #1393 Add Support for Meta-tags in HTML of Dataset for Reference Managers (Citation Metadata)
• connects to Investigate possibility of using Altmetrics for reporting and sharing dataset metrics #2899 Investigate possibility of using Altmetrics for reporting and sharing dataset metrics

Pull Request Checklist

• Unit tests completed
• Integration tests: None
• Deployment requirements, SQL updates, Solr updates, etc.: None
• Documentation completed
• Merged latest from "develop" branch and resolved conflicts

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.004%) to 10.058% when pulling 66438cf on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[landreev]

I've added some review notes to the issue (#1393), regarding the use of the DC fields, vs. what we put in them in the export utility. (it may benefit from some review/discussion with others?)

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 10.049% when pulling 5b10732 on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 10.207% when pulling 1f66efb on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 10.209% when pulling e7844fd on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[oscardssmith]

@jggautier, can you look at this? I believe I have all the features done. I still need to add some tests, and any advice there would be great

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 10.211% when pulling 8e49760 on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 10.211% when pulling 9e13026 on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 10.211% when pulling e18b233 on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 51f2ba6 on develop.

[landreev]

Looks good.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.004%) to 10.282% when pulling 7a90c98 on 1393_exp_dcmeta into 02e5545 on develop.

[adam3smith]

I've now tested and refined this in Zotero and it works perfectly:

Zotero doesn't currently have a built-in dataset item type (that's on the roadmap) but the bit circled in red transforms the item type into a dataset for citation purposes. In APA style, e.g., the output is
Spruce, S. (2017). Spruce Goose [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.5072/FK2/RJI87V

We don't currently capture the publisher in there ("Root" in the example here) which is an issue on the Zotero side of things, but I think it's safe to claim Zotero compatibility with v 4.7 Congrats!

[pdurbin]

@adam3smith thanks! Is there an issue we can track on the Zotero side for the built-in dataset item type?

It's interesting to me that type: dataset gets turned into Data set. This was an early debate when we rewrote DVN 3 to Dataverse 4 and changed from "studies" to "datasets". I think we felt like "dataset" is more modern that "data set". It's like how "data base" eventually became "database".

[adam3smith]

It's "dataset" because that's the name of the Citation Style Language type and "Data set" because that's what APA wants (it could be different things in different citation styles and will eventually also be localizable).

The best issue to track is zotero/zotero-bits#22 -- it's semi-official, but Zotero devs have basically told us they'll do what we tell them. There's significant tech debt because they're syncing databases across machines with different versions, making DB schema upgrades hard so this will still take a bit. Target version is Zotero 5.1, we're currently in the beta for 5.0

[pdurbin]

@adam3smith I imagine this will look a little different (and better!) in Zotero as of zotero/zotero@42a4649

That commit closed this issue:

• Data Set zotero/zotero-bits#22

Instead of "Extra" I suppose "type: dataset" goes under some other field. Not sure.

In other news, there's a whole "Discoverability" page coming to the Admin Guide in this PR and it definitely covers machine readability:

• Gdcc/Signposting #8981

[adam3smith]

yes, indeed, though currently those changes aren't even available in the beta build yet. For anyone interested, I'll lead a Force11 workshop on April 19th on adding support for specific data repositories to Zotero (Dataverse repositories are well supported already, though). I'll post on the community group once I have more

[pdurbin]

@adam3smith sure, maybe you can post to the mailing list a little closer to the date to remind us. 😄