Contribute to the DSpace Development Fund
The newly established DSpace Development Fund supports the development of new features prioritized by DSpace Governance. For a list of planned features see the fund wiki page.
| Title (Goal) | Giving submitters a safe and easy to use interface to perform edits on existing items |
|---|---|
| Primary Actor | Human |
| Scope | Item page |
| Level | |
| Story (A paragraph or two describing what happens) | The repository administrator, John, has configured the repository's configuration file, so that permissions are delegated to an item's original submitter, to change his submission's metadata after archival. Two weeks after Sally has finalised the submission of her thesis to DSpace, she realizes that she forgot to fill out the sponsorship field where she was supposed to add grant or funder information. Sally is able to login and edit the metadata of the original item, in order to put this additional information in place. However, she is not able to remove, replace or add any bitstreams to the existing item. When Sally saved the modifications to her thesis, the item returned to the workflow. As such, the item could no longer be viewed our found through the repository's user interface. |
Overview
Content Tools
All content on the LYRASIS Wiki is licensed under the CC BY (Attribution) license
, unless otherwise noted.
3 Comments
Bram Luyten (Atmire)
This usecase was discussed during the August 2014 DCAT call on end user use cases.
Jim Ottaviani mentioned that this was implemented at the University of Michigan, allowing submitters to use the admin item edit interface for editing their own items. They can also add bitstreams but can't remove any.
Another participant on the call mentioned that theses probably present a use case where the original submitter shouldn't (at least not automatically) get any rights to modify the metadata or files after after it has gone through the workflow.
This usecase is related to End User - Crowdsourcing metadata for archived items but is of course more restrictive, as we are only considering the original submitter, or maybe to some extent co-authors or other contributors mentioned on the item.
emilio lorenzo
My opinion is that providing administrative functions (edit metadata&add/reingest bitstreams) to end users becames more a problem than a solution. Some problems (most of them are more philosophical than practical):
Having said that, we inherited two years ago, for maintanance and evolution, a Dspace repository with that buit-in feature. In order to take charge of the contract, we instantly remove it, and nobody complains (200 hundreds registered users)
Jose Carvalho
Regarding this use case, we know that this is important, also for the submitter/author, to have the capacity to edit/correct or improve metadata.
From the repository manager perspective, this shouldn't be done in this, by just editing. We would prefer that the submitter/author (or any other user) submit changes that are then validated by the administrator.
Based on the ISO 16363 (Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories) and an audit we develop to repositories, one item is evaluated, the capacity of the end-user to provide feedback on each item of the repository. This can by achieved by sending an email with the page of the item or by using a more sophisticated functionality. This new functionality can be something integrated in the workflow and use the "Versioning functionality" (and also the OAIS state on another comment) to identify versions of the same item after he is validated by the administrator (the general administrator or the administrator of the community/collection).
In this context, the OAI-PMH interface for example should also be "notified" by updating the date of the item.