Skip to content

GitLab

  • Menu
Projects Groups Snippets
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in / Register
  • N ncbi
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
    • Locked Files
  • Issues 260
    • Issues 260
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
    • Iterations
    • Requirements
  • Merge requests 21
    • Merge requests 21
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
    • Test Cases
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Code review
    • Insights
    • Issue
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • ncbi
  • ncbi
  • Issues
  • #569

Closed
Open
Created Jun 30, 2021 by Dione Mentis@DioneMentisMaintainer

XML workflow use case: Publishing a PDF-only version prior to XML

@lathrops1

cc @latternm @Kireev

You've provided this use case diagram in the Files management epic (&21) here:

image

In our design meet we discussed this in reference to the collection The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health:

NAP-usecase

Putting these two together, my understanding is the following:

  1. 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".
  2. 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:

  1. Firstly, does this apply to wholebooks and chapter-processed books?
  2. Can we equate the PDF files from the Investigator with the Bookshelf Display PDFs we already support?
  3. 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)
  4. 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) or should the user be asked to provide an award number that we search for through the Granthub integration?
  5. 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
  6. Besides the NIH/NAP example, how many other collections are there with this use case?
  7. 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?
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking