433 results found

1. Changes to "Find duplicates job"

   Right now the "Find duplicates job" only checks a handful of elements for duplicate values. I would like to either ask Ex Libris to make the fields that it is searching configurable or to add original file name to the list of elements that are searched.

   6 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Data Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

2. I want to search all members of a specific set that I created on Search for Object page(not on Sets page)

   I want to search all members of a specific set that I created on Search for Object page(not on Sets page) to and and export(view) more columns like Date (DC), Is part of (DC), etc.

   The set has its ID so we though it's possible to search the itemized set itself by building a search query.

   30 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Data Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

3. Wasted space in General IE Viewer

   I've noticed that there is a lot of repeated information at the top of the General IE Viewer that pushes the meat of the viewer - the image or media content - down. It would be great to have this redesigned so that each of the options and information is not repeated. See the attached image or go to http://hdl.handle.net/10020/2004r10/job5251 to see an example.

   •  

   0 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Publishing & Delivery  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. OOB viewing report for list of IEs

   I would like to be able to give Rosetta a list of IEs and it will return the number of times each of the IEs has been viewed. Right now you can see the top 100 viewed or you can use the IE events report to get number of views for a specific IE, but I want to run this on a set of IEs.

   12 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Data Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

5. make passwords configurable, create password exchange infrastructure

   For compliance purposes and as a lesson learned from SC 00560356, I suggest improving the documentation and configurability of passwords throughout subsystems of Rosetta installations.

   I suggest creating and maintaining a KB article on how and where to change passwords for:
   - System user "dps"
   - System user "oracle"
   - Oracle user "sys"
   - default Rosetta user "admin1" (John Smith)
   - Cantaloupe Image Server user "admin" (changeable by configuring ".../system.dir/thirdparty/tomcat/rosetta-webapps/cantaloupe.war/cantaloupe.properties")
   - Solr user
   - Rosetta console UI user

   The passwords for Solr and the Rosetta console UI cannot be changed at the moment (Rosetta 5.5.0.0); I suggest considering changes to enable institutions to set their own passwords.

   Furthermore, I suggest that ExLibris set up suitable infrastructure for exchanging passwords securely. GPG-encrypted mail or a public write-only (!) storage would be suitable candidates, SupportCase comments (that might be publicly readable) and encrypted mobile instant messaging services like Signal (that often involve personal accounts/devices) are certainly not.

   For compliance purposes and as a lesson learned from SC 00560356, I suggest improving the documentation and configurability of passwords throughout subsystems of Rosetta installations.

   I suggest creating and maintaining a KB article on how and where to change passwords for:
   - System user "dps"
   - System user "oracle"
   - Oracle user "sys"
   - default Rosetta user "admin1" (John Smith)
   - Cantaloupe Image Server user "admin" (changeable by configuring ".../system.dir/thirdparty/tomcat/rosetta-webapps/cantaloupe.war/cantaloupe.properties")
   - Solr user
   - Rosetta console UI user

   The passwords for Solr and the Rosetta console UI cannot be changed at the moment (Rosetta 5.5.0.0); I suggest considering changes to… more

   1 vote

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. Clean-up job for operational repository file system

   Currently the clean-up job removes old data from deposit storage. Clean up job should clean also Operational Repository / Storage Repository Group file system. Data related to finished SIPs or committed IEs should be remove after some period from the FS path which is configured for operational repository.

   The job should not remove data in TA area.

   best regards
   Milan

   11 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

7. Containerize the Rosetta Server Infrastructure

   We would like to be able to install and run the Rosetta server in a docker container.

   Docker containers allow infrastructure to be managed more efficiently and at scale. Also, running Rosetta in a docker container would allow us to have the option to deploy it into cloud infrastructure.

   23 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Environment & Infrastructure  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. CMS Update

   submitted on behalf of Michele Lindlar

   Sometimes it's neccessary to update our cms metadata. if a librarian changes a record in the external cms-system, we want to update the record in rosetta too, but there's no task that works accordingly. we'd be really happy if there would be a task chain or a process that re-harvest existing cms-records.

   We currently integrate two catalogue systems via SRU in Rosetta: Aleph and Pica. Both systems are integrated uni-directoinal, as in a Rosetta flag is not available in either cataloguing system. As we are integrating the union catalogues which are held by third parties, we are not at liberty of including any Rosetta-specific fields in the catalogue.

   The initial CMS enrichment works without a problem. However, at times it becomes necessary to update the CMS information stored in Rosetta. This can be the case when either the catalogue was updated or when we have detected an error in our mapping.

   While two tasks are available which suggest a working update - namely, "Re-Assign CMS" and "CMS Metadata Record Update" - these tasks will not re-harvest from the source CMS included in the SRU integration but will instead always pull from the physical MID copy already stored in the /metadata storage of Rosetta.
   Actual re-harvesting is only possible by first manually deleting the MID record in the file storage and then re-harvesting.

   ExL has provided us with a script which can be run across the file system. The script requires a list of CMS Ids first and then deletes the records from the storage. The script needs to be run by the administrator from the shell.

   We do not consider the script solution sufficient. Instead, we require a functionality of re-enriching with updating CMS records from the integrated CMS system from within Rosetta.

   submitted on behalf of Michele Lindlar

   Sometimes it's neccessary to update our cms metadata. if a librarian changes a record in the external cms-system, we want to update the record in rosetta too, but there's no task that works accordingly. we'd be really happy if there would be a task chain or a process that re-harvest existing cms-records.

   We currently integrate two catalogue systems via SRU in Rosetta: Aleph and Pica. Both systems are integrated uni-directoinal, as in a Rosetta flag is not available in either cataloguing system. As we are integrating the union catalogues which are held by third… more

   6 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Other  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

9. Add report in migration plugin

   The migration plugin is part of preservation and is the way in Rosetta to migrate bitstreams from an obsolete format to an uptodate format. It is a script plugin receiving a file and delivering the newly migrated file.
   For purpose of transparency it would be necessary to add a report about what has changed. For example when migrating pdf to pdf/a it might happen, that a font was included or even replaced. Having a report would implement a well documented preservation workflow. Depending on the migration tool the report might be quite complex.

   So it would be nice to add this report as sourceMD on file level as part of the migration plugin.

   The migration plugin is part of preservation and is the way in Rosetta to migrate bitstreams from an obsolete format to an uptodate format. It is a script plugin receiving a file and delivering the newly migrated file.
   For purpose of transparency it would be necessary to add a report about what has changed. For example when migrating pdf to pdf/a it might happen, that a font was included or even replaced. Having a report would implement a well documented preservation workflow. Depending on the migration tool the report might be quite complex.

   So it would be nice to add… more

   42 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Preservation & Format Library  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

10. Assigning a valid SSO user to a default account if one does not exist

    We do not wish to have all of our institutional users in Rosetta, leaving that for administrators and publishers.

    When a user has signed in successfully through SSO (in our case ADFS) we know that they are from our institution, so we should be able to do access rights rules based on this.

    We are also able to pass through extra parameters through SAML to identify the type of user, and where they have come from, it would be great to be able to assign such users to basic user accounts so we can have granular access rights to IE's and Reps within Rosetta.

    We do not wish to have all of our institutional users in Rosetta, leaving that for administrators and publishers.

    When a user has signed in successfully through SSO (in our case ADFS) we know that they are from our institution, so we should be able to do access rights rules based on this.

    We are also able to pass through extra parameters through SAML to identify the type of user, and where they have come from, it would be great to be able to assign such users to basic user accounts so we can have granular access rights to IE's… more

    4 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  User Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

11. IIIF Universal Viewer

    SLQ would like the ability to configure the following in the ExL supplied IIIF Universal Viewer

    Print option – currently hidden in the default view - currebtly would like to configur how th pint out appears
    Bookmark - currently hidden in the default view
    Feedback - currently hidden in the default view – we see this as an option to allow ustomers to provide feedback on teh displayed image such as correctins and.or additional information
    Share Option – we would like the ability to configure additinal 'share' features such as FaceBook, Twitter, HistoryPin, etc

    2 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Publishing & Delivery  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

12. UI interface - Repository | General Settings | Events Configuration

    It wouls be greate if we could sort the display by 'Event Type' as this will allow easier matching to the Rosetta Configuration manul Appendix C whch lists events by ID number

    2 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Other  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Best fit mode for the JWPlayer in IE viewer

    With the new IE viewer in version 5.4 the JWPlayer (for video and audio) does not have a best fit parameter meaning that the right-hand side of the player is hidden under the metadata pane. The only way to see the whole player is to close the metadata pane manually or zoom out in your browser. We would like to see a “best fit” parameter added to the JWPlayer in Rosetta so that the behavior would match the jpeg viewer (which fits itself to the frame by default).

    Thanks,

    Ryan Edwards
    Digital Access and Systems Librarian
    Information Systems
    Getty Research Institute
    1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
    Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
    reedwards@getty.edu
    310.440.7398

    With the new IE viewer in version 5.4 the JWPlayer (for video and audio) does not have a best fit parameter meaning that the right-hand side of the player is hidden under the metadata pane. The only way to see the whole player is to close the metadata pane manually or zoom out in your browser. We would like to see a “best fit” parameter added to the JWPlayer in Rosetta so that the behavior would match the jpeg viewer (which fits itself to the frame by default).

    Thanks,

    Ryan Edwards
    Digital Access and Systems Librarian
    Information Systems
    Getty Research… more

    1 vote

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Publishing & Delivery  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

14. Solr Startup Checker Plugin

    After having had some issues with the new default Solr port in Rosetta 5.4.0.0, I suggest creating a startup checker plugin for Rosetta to test for Solr availability. Possible error scenarios involve:
    1.) network down
    2.) Name resolution down/misconfigured
    3.) Solr default port closed in the local firewall / Solr not listening

    1. & 2. could be checked by pinging the other servers' DNS names (NOT the IPs), which would test network availability and DNS resolution in one step. As Rosetta servers usually are located in the same subnet, we don't have to worry about ICMP firewall restrictions.
    2. could be tested by using "$> telnet $HOSTNAME $PORT", like "$> telnet rosetta-host-1 8983" and SSH-ing into the remote systems to list processes listening on specific ports, like "netstat -tulpn | grep 8983" or "ss -tulpn | grep 8983".

    After having had some issues with the new default Solr port in Rosetta 5.4.0.0, I suggest creating a startup checker plugin for Rosetta to test for Solr availability. Possible error scenarios involve:
    1.) network down
    2.) Name resolution down/misconfigured
    3.) Solr default port closed in the local firewall / Solr not listening

    1. & 2. could be checked by pinging the other servers' DNS names (NOT the IPs), which would test network availability and DNS resolution in one step. As Rosetta servers usually are located in the same subnet, we don't have to worry about ICMP firewall restrictions.
    2. could be tested… more
    5 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  APIs & Plug-ins  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

15. Producer Mandatory Fields shall be controlled by a code table

    As of now (version 5.3) there is no code table to control which fields are optional or mandatory when adding a producer.

    We provide Rosetta as a service and the details (name, email, telephone etc.) of producers can be seen across the installation. This means that staff user 1 from institution A can see the details of the producers of all the other institutions. The workaround is to enter 123 as telephone.

    Basically we would like Rosetta to be fully compliant with the concept of multi-tenancy.
    Until this can be reached we would like to see code tables in use for any place where user-information is entered, stored and shown in Rosetta.

    We opened a ticket with Ex Libris but since this is not a bug we were asked to request a feature enhancement.

    As of now (version 5.3) there is no code table to control which fields are optional or mandatory when adding a producer.

    We provide Rosetta as a service and the details (name, email, telephone etc.) of producers can be seen across the installation. This means that staff user 1 from institution A can see the details of the producers of all the other institutions. The workaround is to enter 123 as telephone.

    Basically we would like Rosetta to be fully compliant with the concept of multi-tenancy.
    Until this can be reached we would like to see code tables in use… more

    5 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  User Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

16. Bitstream information in Bitstreams Tab

    Researchers often use zip or tar files in order to upload large amounts of research data in various formats. Bytestream extraction is a useful tool for analyzing the content of these container files. The resulting bitstream information is written in the METS and displayed in the BitStreams Tab in the Web Editor. The information includes BS ID, file name, file original path, extension, mime type and format ID (if successfully identified).

    We would like to suggest the following improvements for the BitStreams Tab and the bitstream information in general:

    1) Include Bitstream size. The relevant values can be found in the table “HDBITSTREAMREF” in the field “FILESIZEBYTES”.

    2) Display bitstreams in order of path/filename: the bitstream list should reflect the order of the files in the zip or tar file. Currently they are displayed in random order.

    3) Make bitstream information searchable

    Researchers often use zip or tar files in order to upload large amounts of research data in various formats. Bytestream extraction is a useful tool for analyzing the content of these container files. The resulting bitstream information is written in the METS and displayed in the BitStreams Tab in the Web Editor. The information includes BS ID, file name, file original path, extension, mime type and format ID (if successfully identified).

    We would like to suggest the following improvements for the BitStreams Tab and the bitstream information in general:

    1) Include Bitstream size. The relevant values can be found in… more

    •  

    15 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Data Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

17. Scheduled Reports with Institution in Email-Header

    When Scheduling Reports for different Institutions, the Email received does not contain any information about where the Data comes from. If you want to know IEs in permanent, you would not know wheter it is about Institution A or B. It would be great if the Institution or a custom information-text-content would be sent either with the email or be included in the report itself. The Report in my special case is "Repository Stats" in "Data Management".

    •  

    •  

    2 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

18. Support the ability for Rosetta to request IEs in batches

    We would like Rosetta to work more efficiently when the storage layer is tape based, particularly for exports. Could Rosetta request IEs in batches from the storage layer. when exporting large collections from tape a file is retrieved from tape one at a time.

    10 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data Management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

19. untangle format identification/validation/MDextraction

    In the course of the discussion on the "File Extension Mismatch - Change Notice" posted on BaseCamp by Opher Kutner (ExL), I noticed that some aspects of file identification/validation/MDextraction in Rosetta need improvement. What got me thinking was the statement that format identification was done by the extractor, which isn't the case. Instead, the actual behaviour is that the MdExtractionPlugin also does the format validation, while the format identification is run separately in DROID. However, the job of extractors is neither format identification nor format validation. Instead, it's metadata extraction only. Usually, a preservation repository can't even know which extractor to apply without having successfully completed identification and validation before. The fact that format validation and metadata extraction are run in the same step introduces problems that could be avoided by dividing them up in separate steps.

    From my point of view, the correct workflow would be as follows:
    1. Run format identification against FL/PRONOM/YourFormatRegistryHere, get list of recognized formats (sorted descending by certainty of identification)
    2. Run format validation routine for elements from the list from step 1, only treat format IDs that were identified with a identification certainty above a certain percentage.
    2.a. If two elements from the list have the same identification probability, then both validators need to be executed. Human intervention is necessary to decide which format should be used. However, this should never occur, because PRONOM maintains a distinct prioritisation of format signatures.
    2.b. If validation successful, continue with 3.
    2.c. If validation fails, go back to 2. and try next element in list.
    2.d. If validation fails for all elements of the list, move file to TA.
    3. Choose the correct MD extractor, extract MD.

    This leaves us with the following classes of errors:
    1. Format identification fails, because:
    1.a. No recognized formats at all (empty list). This might be caused due to a missing signature in the format registry.
    1.b. No formats with sufficient certainty identified.
    1.c. One format identified with sufficient certainty, but file extension doesn't match. This might be either caused by:
    1.c.1. An extension that is actually wrong for that file type, and needs to be corrected.
    1.c.2. A wrong signature that misidentifies a file. (We had that problem in an older FL version, where TIFFs were misidentified as .NEFs due to an overly general signature for the NEF format.)
    1.d. Multiple formats identified with sufficient certainty, but no file extension matches.
    1.e. Internal error / Format identification plugin crashes.
    2. Format validation fails, because:
    2.a. If exactly one format was identified with sufficient certainty:
    2.a.1. One validator called, file validation doesn't return successfully.
    2.b. If multiple formats were identified with sufficient certainty:
    2.b.1. Validators for all detected formats were called, none returned successfully. This should never occur.
    2.c. Internal error / Validator crashes.
    3. MD extraction fails, because:
    3.a. No MD extractor plugin for that format available.
    3.b. No significant properties / DNX mapping configured for that plugin/format combination at all.
    3.c. File doesn't contain any of the significant properties that are configured for that plugin/format combination.
    3.d. Internal error / Format extractor plugin crashes.
    ELSE One format identified with sufficient certainty, no file extension mismatch, NO ERROR.

    The most important part here is that a format is only identified with certainty if a) the signature, MIMEtype and file extension given in the format registry match what is found in the actual file and b) if the validation has finished successfully. Only if both conditions are matched, we can be sure about the result of our format identification. I want to illustrate this with the example of the TIF format. In cases where one or both of the aforementioned conditions are not met, we DON'T have an invalid TIFF. What we DO have is something that looks suspiciously like a TIFF, but doesn't comply with the format specification, and therefore is NOT a TIFF. In other words: a format is ONLY successfully identified if the identification result is confirmed by the validation result.

    So, if we assume that the changes suggested above are implemented, the whole File Extension Mismatch Handling issue would become a lot easier. Every file that fails one of the stages ends up in TA and, ideally, will be returned to the producer to be repaired (or at least the producer will be notified about 1. the file being rejected 2. the reason for that including error message 3. the necessity to repair the file and re-ingest it). Alternatively, the TA user could run a repair operation on their own, but in the majority of the cases, the file that caused the error will have to be modified until the mismatch doesn't occur any more. This usually requires human intervention and analysis; just treating the error with a rule and ignoring it doesn't solve the underlying problem. As these underlying problems are usually a risk for the data in the repository, ignoring them is not an option.

    The consequences are that:
    - unknown formats can't be moved to permanent (and, as outlined, they shouldn't, because knowledge of the format is strict requirement for risk analysis).
    - format IDs can't be manually assigned to files at all, because that equals ignoring the issue instead and postponing the solution to the future, hoping that "someone will probably find time to do it then" (hint: they won't), thus effectively ignoring it.
    - the structure of plugin types in Rosetta needs to be refined, now strictly separating plugins for identification, validation and MD extraction, and also separating plugins by their intended format use. This probably means that existing plugins will need to be modified.
    - for cases where the files can't be returned to the producer and the repair operations have to be done by Rosetta staff:
    - a new plugin type "RepairPlugin" could be introduced to run very specific repair operations from within the TA workbench. The current manual approach is extremely cumbersome and doesn't scale at all.
    - repair operations in the TA workbench will need to support a higher level of automation to a) classify/group files not only by their IE but also by TypeOfError/numberOfErrors/ingestDate/anythingElseThatMightBeUseful b) run repair operations on all files from the same group or c) initiate repairs via an API (get errorMessages, get broken files from same group, repair outside of Rosetta, replace broken files, NOT using insecure ImportDescriptor.csv files). Also see these public SupportCases in SalesForce:
    - 00128163 bulk file replace in TA Rosetta 4.0.1.1
    - 00340712 enhance TA file replace assistant Rosetta 5.0.1.1
    - MD extractors are no longer assigned to Classification Groups (at least not exclusively). Instead, MD extractors should also be assignable to single format IDs. For practical reasons, formats could inherit their MD extractor setting from their Classification Group to set sensible defaults for all formats as long as no format-specific MD extractor is configured.

    In the course of the discussion on the "File Extension Mismatch - Change Notice" posted on BaseCamp by Opher Kutner (ExL), I noticed that some aspects of file identification/validation/MDextraction in Rosetta need improvement. What got me thinking was the statement that format identification was done by the extractor, which isn't the case. Instead, the actual behaviour is that the MdExtractionPlugin also does the format validation, while the format identification is run separately in DROID. However, the job of extractors is neither format identification nor format validation. Instead, it's metadata extraction only. Usually, a preservation repository can't even know which extractor… more

    7 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Preservation & Format Library  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

20. Make IE Viewer share button configurable

    The share button in the IE Viewer currently always shows the browser URL. Often the IE has an OID or some persistent URL that is preferred over the transient viewer URL. Rosetta should allow the URL that is displayed to be configurable. Preferably with an XSLT per institution similar to the IE metadata XSLT.

    It is also desirable to allow for more than 1 URL in the share window. That would allow to add URLs for standalone vs embedded viewers, thumbnail view, CMS metadata view, etc.

    4 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Publishing & Delivery  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating