Related:

• Feature Request/Idea: Add "Term URI" metadata in Keyword block dataverse#10288

However, I checked with @Saixel and he plans to implement this using a custom metadata block for the CAFE project rather than attempting to modify the keyword field in the citation block (which is what the issue above is about).

He said there are almost 300 controlled vocabulary values.

First, this should be moved to the harvard dataverse repo, as it should not require any code in the core.

Second, we're wondering about this:
"Dynamically populate options within the selector based on the NIH controlled vocabulary glossary"

Is the idea to haver these values read from an existing API? If so we would use the external CV functionality and the best next step woiuld be a spike to use this API and make sure there are not any unexpected behavior. (that spike would likely be a size 10, for someone who already has experience with the external CV functionality)
If not, and it's just using our external CV functionality, then all that needs to be done is add the values to the appropriate tsv file, can be sized as a 3.

Related:

• Feature Request/Idea: Add "Term URI" metadata in Keyword block dataverse#10288

However, I checked with @Saixel and he plans to implement this using a custom metadata block for the CAFE project rather than attempting to modify the keyword field in the citation block (which is what the issue above is about).

He said there are almost 300 controlled vocabulary values.

@pdurbin Thanks for pointing out the related issue. My initial approach was to use a custom metadata block to avoid changing the current keyword block structure. However, I see in the comment in IQSS/dataverse#10288 that a similar case is suggested by implementing an autocomplete function. Our goal is to present a list of options for keyword selection from the prepared terms in a CSV. So either through a dropdown or autocomplete, either option could be a viable solution. If it's okay with you, we can dig deeper into this topic as we work on this implementation.

First, this should be moved to the harvard dataverse repo, as it should not require any code in the core.

Second, we're wondering about this: "Dynamically populate options within the selector based on the NIH controlled vocabulary glossary"

Is the idea to haver these values read from an existing API? If so we would use the external CV functionality and the best next step woiuld be a spike to use this API and make sure there are not any unexpected behavior. (that spike would likely be a size 10, for someone who already has experience with the external CV functionality) If not, and it's just using our external CV functionality, then all that needs to be done is add the values to the appropriate tsv file, can be sized as a 3.

@scolapasta The issue has been moved to the Harvard Dataverse repo as per your guidance (thanks for pointing this out). Regarding the "Dynamically populate options within the selector based on the NIH controlled vocabulary glossary" feature, I'd like to clarify that we don't have an API. Instead, we have a CSV with a list of almost 300 terms. If we can use the external CV functionality you mentioned for this purpose, I would appreciate any documentation or pointers to existing implementations to explore and test this further.

I'd like to clarify that we don't have an API. Instead, we have a CSV with a list of almost 300 terms. If we can use the external CV functionality you mentioned for this purpose

I would recommend playing around with the configuring Author Affiliation to look up from ROR. For config advice, please see IQSS/dataverse#10331 (comment)

That said, this feature depends on an external API (like the ROR API). So you'd need to build and host that API somehow.

It might be easier to use the database and put the 300 values in a controlled vocabulary. But if you have a plan for how to build an API and where to host it, it should be do-able. 😄

After further discussion, we've decided to expedite the NIH controlled vocabulary integration by creating a new custom metadata block with a dropdown for CCH terms, using our prepared list. This approach will help us avoid the complexity and longer development time of modifying the existing keyword metadata block.

Hi all. In a meeting today, Sonia, Emily, Alexis, Ceilyn and I talked about this during a Zoom meeting and I was asked to write in this GitHub issue what I mentioned during the meeting.

There's evidence that other collection administrators (in addition to our colleagues at CAFE) would like their depositors and curators to be able to choose values from a list, like a drop down menu, instead of typing in terms and pasting in term URIs, as well as being able to enter their own values if nothing in the list is appropriate.

So letting collection admins adjust a field, like the keyword field, so that it suggests terms from a particular vocabulary, would be a helpful feature for other groups who manage collections.

But this can be more complex and take longer, like @Saixel wrote earlier in this issue. So in some cases where the collection is within an installation that has other collections with different needs, like collections in Harvard Dataverse, custom metadata blocks have been created, like what's being discussed in this GitHub issue.

In other cases, the collection admins ask depositors to enter metadata in a user interface that's separate from the one that the Dataverse repository uses, where a field like the keyword field has been changed to let depositors select terms suggested from a particular vocabulary and let depositors enter their own terms. And then Dataverse APIs are used to push that metadata to the Dataverse installation.

There are challenges with both of these approaches, too. In one of the GitHub issues I used to track work on one of CAFE's custom metadata blocks, I wrote about how fields in CAFE's custom metadata blocks overlap with fields in other metadata blocks, and that we'd want to resolve this design debt eventually.