How can we improve Rosetta?

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.

6 votes
Sign in
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
dave allen shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →

1 comment

Sign in
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • dave allen commented  · 

    submitted to the community as part of the DIWG 2018 enhancement request -- results are as foloows

    High => 26.7%
    Med => 20.0%
    Low => 13.3%
    N/A => 33.3%
    Intersted => 6.7%

Feedback and Knowledge Base