Properties still visible in process editing

[matthias-ronge]

Several properties are still displayed on the edit process page, even though properties are defined as gone in version 3:

Goal: Display properties should be removed. Instead, the logical root’s metadata should be displayed.

[henning-gerhardt]

Your assumption is wrong as they still existing for migrated processes and are inside database and all logic.

I don't know how they can be added for new processes - so this is why new processes did not have them.

[matthias-ronge]

Yes, technically they still exist because TIFF header generation and docket generation are still based on them, this is still an open construction site (#3335), but official communication is, in version 3 there are no more properties. And that's why they shouldn't be visible here either, and they'll disappear technically when the construction site is complete.

[henning-gerhardt]

but official communication is, in version 3 there are no more properties

This is new for me. Can you quote this decision or official statement?

I know only a lot of discussion about this properties as some institutes / users need them as they did not have this data inside their meta data files. Other institutes / users did not need them as they have all this property data inside meta data files or did not need this data anymore. But there was no final decision about this properties.

[matthias-ronge]

Can you quote this decision or official statement?

I don't know whether this is explicitly stated somewhere, if so, you can find it on the intranet or in the JIRA of the development project. In any case, the topic was also presented as part of the “development fund” grant this year (#4317) and its financing was discussed. That does not suggest that it is not wanted. It was also not mentioned there that it was not wanted. Please also view this ticket, and if you are of the opinion that we have overlooked a need, please add it there.

I see it in such a way that this development is the logical consequence of the fact that in version 3 we only manage all metadata in the METS file and have integrated the options that were available in version 2 for managing properties (goobi_processProperties.xml) into the ruleset. The distinction into process properties, template properties and workpiece properties were also mapped as domains technical, source and description in the ruleset. The search, that took place in version 2 via the properties in the database, is now made via the index, and the metadata are indexed in it.

For third parties to use in scripts, metadata is still available in version 3 in the METS file, which makes it easy to access (sometimes, a grep from a script is even easier than doing a database connection and query) but yes, when migrating, external scripts may have to be adapted.

[henning-gerhardt]

I don't know whether this is explicitly stated somewhere, if so, you can find it on the intranet or in the JIRA of the development project.

I'm not searching as you wrote, that this is an official statement so you should prove your statement to me and not the other way around. But this is not the point.

Removing the visibility of this property data but still using and indexing it, is the wrong order in my opinion. In a first step their usage should be changed: instead of using them from the database using them from the meta data files. In a second step remove this property usage from the application.

[matthias-ronge]

I see, you understood “officially” differently than I meant it. By official I meant what is communicated to users, and how we proceed, for example, when discussing possible solutions; in contrast to unofficial, which is what is technically still the case, but actually shouldn't have been the case for long, if the development hadn't got stuck halfway. I did not mean an “official statement” from the association, or something comparable. As I said, maybe there is one, but I no longer have access to it.

Removing the visibility of this property data but still using and indexing it, is the wrong order in my opinion.

Of course you can also see it that way. I had created the ticket in response to the feedback that I was asked why there are still properties, even though they no longer exist.

Yes, you can also say that development should be completed first, but it is also a question of usability to hide misleading components, and here things are visible that would no longer have the desired effect.

I think that's a question of direction for @Kathrin-Huber: What do you think, how should we proceed better here?