Rosetta

Your feedback matters to us. Help us improve Rosetta by telling us what you’d like to see using the message areas below. You can also can support something already posted.

We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points.

For more information please review our FAQ and guidelines. Thank you.

How can we improve Rosetta?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

  • When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
  • You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
  • To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".
(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback
  1. Additional rule input parameter: Preservation Type

    We have a few workflows where we are adding derivative copies either manually or automatically.
    We hold our derivative / access copies to a different standard than the preservation master files - as such, we are willing to ignore most techMD extraction errors, etc. at this stage.

    However, looking at the MD extraction error handling rules, ignore reasons can only be filtered on the producer / format / extension / mime type etc. level.

    We therefore propose to add Preservation Type as an input criterion for submission rules such as metadata extraction error.

    4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      You have left! (?) (thinking…)
      0 comments  ·  Deposit  ·  Admin →
    • Additional rule input parameter: material flow

      Since the organization levels in Rosetta are limited to consortium and institution, we often have to ingest objects of different origin an type into a single institution. This poses problems as for certain sources you want to activate more or less extraction and/or file extension rules that for other sources. Currently we have to leave the more permissive rules off, make the SIPs fail and end up in the TA, enable the permissive rules, rerun the SIPs and finally disable the permissive rules.

      This is a pain and requires many manual interventions that are error-prone and can influence other ingests…

      1 vote
      Vote
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        Signed in as (Sign out)
        You have left! (?) (thinking…)
        0 comments  ·  Deposit  ·  Admin →
      • Don't see your idea?

      Feedback and Knowledge Base