XML workflow use case: Publishing a PDF-only version prior to XML
In our design meet we discussed this in reference to the collection The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health:
Putting these two together, my understanding is the following:
- If an Investigator submits a prepub or final PDF before the Publisher (NAP) submits the source XML, then BCMS should publish a PDF-only version. You explained in the call that this step requires currently an api request to get the "metadata wrapper".
- If the source XML already exists when an Investigator submits, then no further action is needed. In other words, the XML from the publisher takes precedence.
Some initial questions:
- Firstly, does this apply to wholebooks and chapter-processed books?
- Can we equate the PDF files from the Investigator with the Bookshelf Display PDFs we already support?
- Is the API request still relevant? Won't we have all the metadata we need in the BCMS? (If API request is needed, please provide details)
- In the diagram there's a decision point "Is it under an accepted funding award/policy?" How will the BCMS get the answer to this? Is the the same agreements api request (#481 (closed)) or should the user be asked to provide an award number that we search for through the Granthub integration?
- If there is no award funding policy, then it seems there are two verification steps that involve asking a person question before either the PDF-only version of the xml can be published. Would both these people be Org Admins in NIH (Org A in the diagram)?
- Check funding with Funding Admin
- Has it been approved by the NLM collection by Judith Eannarino
- Besides the NIH/NAP example, how many other collections are there with this use case?
- I think we'll need a way to distinguish this use case from other 'Funding collection' by a setting -- do you have a meaningful setting in mind?