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

Index full place name from geonames #1065

Closed
jcoyne opened this issue May 26, 2017 · 4 comments · Fixed by #5493
Closed

Index full place name from geonames #1065

jcoyne opened this issue May 26, 2017 · 4 comments · Fixed by #5493

Comments

@jcoyne
Copy link
Member

jcoyne commented May 26, 2017

When I choose "Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom" and it's indexed as 'Sheffield' ... and ditto for "Sheffield, Tasmania, Australia"
screen shot 2017-05-26 at 10 24 16 am

@no-reply
Copy link
Member

no-reply commented Jun 9, 2018

Was this closed in #1956?

@rjkati
Copy link

rjkati commented May 17, 2021

This issue is still present in Hyrax 3.0.2. When I add location metadata via geonames, only the first part of the name appears.

Example: https://nurax-dev.curationexperts.com/concern/generic_works/6395w720f?locale=en
The Location metadata should be "Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States" and "Durham, North Carolina, United States". However, the work show page displays "Chapel Hill" and "Durham".
geonames

@rjkati rjkati moved this from Test and Confirm Issue to Planning and Prioritizing in Hyrax Maintenance WG - January-June 2021 May 17, 2021
@jlhardes jlhardes moved this from Planning and Prioritizing to Ready for Dev/Doc (priority ordered) in Hyrax Maintenance WG - January-June 2021 May 18, 2021
@jeremyf jeremyf self-assigned this Jun 21, 2021
@jeremyf jeremyf moved this from Ready for Dev/Doc (priority ordered) to In Progress in Hyrax Maintenance WG - January-June 2021 Jun 21, 2021
@jeremyf
Copy link
Contributor

jeremyf commented Jun 21, 2021

This work was in the valkyrie branch but never merged into main. PR #1956 includes the SHA 79a19df. When I check which branches contains the SHA I get the following:

❯ git branch --contains 79a19df136bd85ce2b0f283718fba5bf79c6303d
error: no such commit 79a19df136bd85ce2b0f283718fba5bf79c6303d

So, yes, the PR resolved it, but we never got this into main. I'm exploring now.

@jeremyf
Copy link
Contributor

jeremyf commented Jun 22, 2021

I'm reviewing the current implementation, and it varies significantly from the non-merged commit (aka 79a19df).

I am updating the existing spec to highlight that the gn:countryCode node is not used. Here's the spec:

https://github.com/samvera/hyrax/blob/05d576b43572511a62d00bcf14c9ae330d047fa0/spec/indexers/hyrax/generic_work_indexer_spec.rb#L101-L125

When I look at the https://www.geonames.org/5037649/about.rdf URL, there's no state code, just country code. Which we know to be inadequate. However, changes introduced in #1956 are breaking changes (updating the generator and removing constants), so I can't use them directly. I'll be bringing this up during stand-up.

For now, I'm going to work on getting a local test suite up and running so I can verify what I already have.

@agoslen agoslen modified the milestones: Backlog, 3.x series Jun 22, 2021
jeremyf added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 25, 2021
As I'm working through #1065, I needed to understand the default
behavior.  I also wanted to look and see if there were more attributes
on the RDF document that I could add to the label.

I'm also considering that #1956 required a change in implementation;
moving away from RDF and towards the JSON response document.

At present, I'm uncertain on the best approach to proceed with resolving
issue #1065.  I'll be bringing this up in the hyrax-wg channel and
during stand up.
no-reply pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 25, 2021
As I'm working through #1065, I needed to understand the default
behavior.  I also wanted to look and see if there were more attributes
on the RDF document that I could add to the label.

I'm also considering that #1956 required a change in implementation;
moving away from RDF and towards the JSON response document.

At present, I'm uncertain on the best approach to proceed with resolving
issue #1065.  I'll be bringing this up in the hyrax-wg channel and
during stand up.
@jlhardes jlhardes moved this from In Progress to In progress in Hyrax Maintenance WG - July-December 2021 Jul 7, 2021
@dlpierce dlpierce assigned dlpierce and unassigned jeremyf Nov 4, 2021
@jlhardes jlhardes added this to Planning and Prioritizing in Hyrax Maintenance WG - January-April 2022 Jan 27, 2022
@dlpierce dlpierce moved this from Planning and Prioritizing to In progress in Hyrax Maintenance WG - January-April 2022 Feb 2, 2022
@dlpierce dlpierce moved this from In progress to Review in Hyrax Maintenance WG - January-April 2022 Mar 4, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment