hakaiinstitute / ckan Goto Github PK

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

• Remove Activity Stream tab https://catalogue.hakai.org/organization/hakai-institut
• Remove Group Tab

This tab is empty

Additional context
Metadata code sprint Nov 2023

Take for example the 2019 CTD data set: https://iys.hakai.org/dataset/ca-cioos_9bcf7978-77eb-47da-9f3b-2d2eaa7df589

Anna Vazhova is listed as the owner and the metadata custodian in the metadata intake form, but her owner status does not appear in the CKAN record.

Same issue exists for this dataset: https://iys.hakai.org/dataset/ca-cioos_fdba20a9-0e91-4e37-bf5f-086b08d56209

Brian is listed as an owner in the metadata intake form but it doesn't show up in CKAN.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The stream activity tab is always empty. What's the main use of that page can we populate it or use it to show changes over time related to this dataset or usage..

Dates: The only date that makes it into Datacite .XML is the year 2022 with 'Date Type' = Issued. I don't think it makes sense to map Metadata Creation and Revision Dates from CIOOS .XML into Dataset. As for dates related to actual data resources, it would be nice if 'Dataset Creation Date' in CIOOS .XML would map to 'Created' Date Type in Datacite .XML. 'Dataset Publication Date' in CIOOS .XML could map to DataCite 'Date Type' Available.

In the IYS catalogue, the URL that gets included in the citation is a broken link.

For example:
See this record: https://iys.hakai.org/dataset/ca-cioos_811845a7-0959-40ba-9803-404976d91e7d
and note the URL in the citation is broken. The problem is the URL in the citation uses ca.cioos, rather than ca-cioos.

It would be good to improve the look of the Hakai metadata catalogue. Some suggestions:

• Use the Hakai primary color #B60C0E (as picked form the Hakai portal) as the main color of the interface header and footers
• Change there header logo which is hard to read right now to a fully white logo perhaps without the text below. Perhaps like this one but without the text below which will hard to read anyway
  

Describe the bug
ERDDAP resources entered and described via the CIOOS metadata intake have some boilerplate titles and descriptions in the CKAN record. Ie, regardless of what you enter for a title or a description in the metadata form, the resource title and description in CKAN is always the same boilerplate title: "ERDDAP Data Subset Form', and description: "ERDDAP's version of the OPeNDAP .html web page for this dataset..."

This happens on the IYS and the Hakai CKAN instances...

Screenshots

Despite the title and empty description entered above, I always end up with the boilerplate ERDDAP text below:

I'm hoping it would be possible to concatenate the multiple roles assigned to a contact under the same 'item', eg:

Individual Name: Brian Hunt
Organisation Name / Affiliation: University of British Columbia
Contact Info Email: [email protected]
Role: Principal Investigator, Author, Owner, Custodian

Instead of this being 4 separate contact items.

Thanks!

@fostermh When you click Download Citation from a metadata record with a DOI, the DOI is not included in either of the exported bibtex.txt files or the ris.txt file. It's in all the other formats though. I also noticed the bibtex export lists the resource type as misc. I think that should be dataset.

It seems that in metadata records in IYS CKAN, the NPAFC is included in the citation, see e.g. here. In the metadata intake form, the NPAFC is listed as 'Publisher' and not included in the preliminary citation (which is preferred for us). Any reason why there's a discrepancy in what's shown in the preliminary citation, and in the CKAN records?

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It's unclear to users what roles they select end up in the Point of Contact and Responsible Party sections of CKAN. For eg. "What does it mean to be the Point of Contact? Isn't everyone listed a potential point of contact depending on the nature of the inquiry (data related vs metadata related for example)". "What does it mean to be the Responsible Party?" These are questions asked by users of the IYS/CIOOS Metadata intake form.

Describe the solution you'd like
Merge the Point of Contact and Responsible Party sections and label the new combined sections "Points of Contact'"

Describe alternatives you've considered
The alternative would be to clarify in the metadata intake form what roles end up in the Points of Contact vs Responsible Party section in the CKAN record. I think this might be too much information that doesn't really have any meaning for the user.

Additional context

Perhaps not so much an issue as it is a question: Is there a protocol on how to enter/include organizational information for resource contacts that have multiple affiliations?

Currently, on the Hakai Catalogue, it's not clear how users can contribute data to the Hakai Catalogue. Perhaps we can add some text to the 'About' tab, including a link to the metadata intake form?