Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Require vocabulary description #7

Closed
hmaier-fws opened this issue Jul 19, 2023 · 7 comments
Closed

Require vocabulary description #7

hmaier-fws opened this issue Jul 19, 2023 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement Improve or modify an existing feature question Information is needed, includes user support requests

Comments

@hmaier-fws
Copy link
Contributor

Vocabulary definitions (e.g., vocabulary.json file) hosted on the ADIwg mdKeywords repository should be required to contain a description element. The text of the description is used by the mdEditor to provide information to users about the content of a vocabulary. The description would allow users to make an informed decision about a vocabulary's content prior to selecting it for use. For example:

keyword-mouseover-help
@jwaspin
Copy link
Contributor

jwaspin commented Aug 3, 2023

This particular enhancement is related to, but not directly involved with, mdKeywords. I modified mdEditor so if the thesaurus configuration does not have a description it uses "No description available."

The other GCMD bugfix that was just merged into dev should have solved the required description on the backend for the GCMD vocabularies. USGS has its thesaurus config hardcoded and it includes a description. I have created a new branch to fix the ScienceBase ones.

@jwaspin
Copy link
Contributor

jwaspin commented Aug 3, 2023

Related
#16

@hmaier-fws hmaier-fws added the question Information is needed, includes user support requests label Aug 3, 2023
@hmaier-fws
Copy link
Contributor Author

This particular enhancement is related to, but not directly involved with, mdKeywords. I modified mdEditor so if the thesaurus configuration does not have a description it uses "No description available."

@jwaspin for reference, this is not an UI issue. The problem here is that the source GCMD keywords do have descriptions, however, they were not included in the locally rendered keyword files. This issue is more of a business rule item. Should any vocabularies that are hosted on the ADIwg repository be required to have descriptions?

It is fine for the editor to not display a hint icon if there is no description (this is the current expected behavior).

See comment for PR: adiwg/mdEditor#578

@jwaspin
Copy link
Contributor

jwaspin commented Aug 3, 2023

@hmaier-fws Apparently I confused myself with all this, got it now, this one is not yet done. The description is hardcoded as "No description available." for all vocabularies, but this should be a simple fix.

@jwaspin
Copy link
Contributor

jwaspin commented Aug 3, 2023

@hmaier-fws I can't figure out where the descriptions for the vocabularies are located. I've used all the API endpoints that I know how to use and I've looked through the viewer, but I don't see descriptions for the vocabs. Do you know where they are or do they not exist?

This is specifically the description that would go into the thesaurus config for the GCMD vocabulary, the keywords' definitions are a different issue and has been resolved.

Examples/refs:
No description in the viewer:
https://gcmd.earthdata.nasa.gov/KeywordViewer/scheme/chronounits/a9f88ca9-5d19-45fa-8fbb-3c6ff5f1f190?gtm_keyword=Chronostratigraphic%20Units&gtm_scheme=chronounits

No description in the "main" endpoint (I think it's the main one):
https://gcmd.earthdata.nasa.gov/kms/concept/a9f88ca9-5d19-45fa-8fbb-3c6ff5f1f190?format=json

Also tried (but did not find description):
/kms/concepts/concept_scheme/{conceptScheme}
/kms/concepts/root
/kms/concept_schemes

@jwaspin
Copy link
Contributor

jwaspin commented Aug 8, 2023

Copying from the PR:

@hmaier-fws This one we discussed a little bit yesterday, but I forgot to ask about both sides of this issue: mdEditor UI vs mdKeywords harvesters.

The harvesters are currently designed to add "No description available." if it can't find one, but with custom vocabularies there's a chance that description won't even exist as a key in the citation, in which case, what do we want as the desired behavior? This PR would force all thesauri to display a description, so all of them would have the "?" tooltip even if it just says "No description available." It seems that the harvesters should be designed to work the same way the UI will work, and the UI functionality provided by this PR is just a backup in case one of the harvesters doesn't add the description properly (or in the case of a custom thesaurus that does not have a description).

Alternatively, if any thesaurus configuration does not include a description we just do nothing (current behavior).

What's the better choice here?

@hmaier-fws hmaier-fws self-assigned this Sep 6, 2023
@jwaspin
Copy link
Contributor

jwaspin commented Oct 2, 2023

Closing. Fixed in both mdEditor and mdKeywords.

On the UI side, the mdEditor already displays a (?) for all vocabularies, regardless of if it has a description. If there is no content available for the description it will read "No description available."

On the mdKeywords / harvester side, if it cannot find a description it adds the same "No description available."

@jwaspin jwaspin closed this as completed Oct 2, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Improve or modify an existing feature question Information is needed, includes user support requests
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants