REF2 output type and metadata mapping

Hi everyone


We wanted to present our plans for implementing a REF2 output type and metadata mapping, and seek your feedback as per below.  We intend to deliver this functionality in the 5.17 (August) release.


As per the attached mockup, you can see that we plan to offer functionality that will enable institutions to define their own default output type mappings (and by default, we mean that it will be possible to override all default mappings (such that any Elements Publication type can be returned as any REF2 Output type)).

 

But offering this kind of flexibility does have a key restraint. For all mappings, institutions must ensure that the Elements publication template includes all relevant underlying fields (as per the 'Metadata mapping' table (attached)) to ensure that all required metadata can be captured. For example, if you plan to return an Elements 'artefact' as a D-Journal Article, you must ensure that your 'artefact' template includes all relevant metadata fields for D-Journal Article, as per the mapping (e.g. journal, volume, issn). If the Publication template does not include relevant metadata fields, the output will fail validation and there will be no means to populate the missing data.


As such, we are asking all institutions to check the proposed metadata mapping in detail to ensure that it will meet your needs. If you foresee any issues with the proposed metadata mapping, please get in touch as soon as possible so we can pursue potential solutions.


Many thanks!


Manya


1 Comment

Hi all


Further to the above, we've been working on updating the REF2 metadata mapping as per feedback received on our original proposal.  The proposed mapping is attached and has been updated as follows:


URL field


The original proposal was to source 'URL' from the 'public-url' field, but feedback received indicated that this was not the appropriate field to use.  I've sought clarification from colleagues and the most appropriate field(s) to source 'URL' from are 'publisher-url' and 'author-url' fields - but there is a lot of variability in the use of these fields.  Accordingly, given this variation, and as the 'URL' field is only mandatory for 'H-Website content', we propose to only return this field for this output type.  And when returning we will source from ‘publisher-url’ and if empty, ‘author-url’.


Publication date


We will take Publication date from Month / Year from Online publication date; if empty, we will take from Publication date.  It is possible to override the Publication Year and/or Month in the REF2 form; where overridden we will take the value from the override.


We propose no change here.  For those output types (e.g. exhibitions, performances) where Publication date is not used, the Output date override field in the REF2 form can be used to return the accurate publication date.


Scholarly edition


The REF guidance states that, for Scholarly editions, Output title = Brief description, and Volume title = Title of edition.  


Without the equivalent of a ‘Brief description’ field in Elements (‘abstract’ is too long and not what’s sought after here), our proposal is to return ‘title’ for both fields (we did something similar at Edinburgh for REF2014 (where this requirement was the same), with no issues raised).


Also, please remember to note that while we've delivered a very flexible REF2 output type mapping (see https://support.symplectic.co.uk/en/support/solutions/articles/6000227513), for all mappings, you must ensure that the Elements publication template includes all relevant underlying fields to ensure that all required metadata can be captured.  For example, if you plan to return an Elements 'artefact' as a 'D-Journal Article', you must ensure that your 'artefact' template includes all relevant metadata fields for 'D-Journal Article', as per the mapping (e.g. journal, volume, issn).  If the publication template does not include relevant metadata fields, the output will fail validation and there will be no means to populate the missing data.


If you have any further feedback on the proposed REF2 metadata mapping, please do get in touch :)


Thanks!


Manya



Login or Signup to post a comment