OAI-PMH Support
(UXPROD-993)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | mod-oai-pmh |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | 1.0.0 | Parent: | OAI-PMH Support |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Hkaplanian | Assignee: | Hkaplanian |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | epam-thunderjet | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||
| Sprint: | oai-pmh - sprint 49 | ||||||||
| Story Points: | 2 | ||||||||
| Development Team: | Thunderjet | ||||||||
| Epic Link: | OAI-PMH Support | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Official Specification: https://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html#ListSets
For now we're only supporting the "all" set (which is the set of all records) and will expand on this later on (possibly in 2019 Q1), e.g. ...
<set>
<setSpec>all</setSpec>
<setName>All Records</setName>
</set>
...
Error Conditions:
NOTE: resumptionTokens aren't part of this story, so we might want to return an error if one is provided. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Pavel Korolenok [ 22/Oct/18 ] |
|
Hi Craig McNally, Hkaplanian, What do you think about returning "noSetHierarchy" error (means 'The repository does not support sets') instead of "all" set? |
| Comment by Hkaplanian [ 22/Oct/18 ] |
|
I think if we can use the "from" argument with a value of "1900-01-01" with an empty "until" value to retrieve the entire collection of records, that should get us what we need and allow us to eliminate the set "all". Craig McNally, do you think the EBSCO and other harvesters support this? This seems to be the way to request all MARC records using an OAI harvester: ?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix= {marc21 OR marcxml}Lists all records in the repository having marc21xml metadata |
| Comment by Craig McNally [ 22/Oct/18 ] |
|
Hkaplanian Date ranges are handled independently from sets, e.g. you can ask for the intersection of a set and date range. We discussed this at the standup. My stance is that there's a slight preference towards specifying "all" for now since we do plan on implementing sets in the future and this would make that transition somewhat easier than returning noSetHierarchy. |
| Comment by Hkaplanian [ 22/Oct/18 ] |
|
Craig McNally, I'm good with your stance. |
| Comment by Pavel Korolenok [ 25/Oct/18 ] |
|
The story is completed and ready for review. |