Hi Vicky,
That's a great idea, and I can definitely see how it would be useful. I think it would be possible, though we'd have to work out some of the implementation details.
One of the challenges is that *some* fields (such as title and identifier) will crosswalk between all description standard templates, but others (such as the DACS technical access field, and many of the RAD fields) are standard-specific. I can think of several possible ways to allow users flexibility in determining this:
- In the new module, users first select the description template to use, are given a blank template, and then any values added are only added to that template. In this example, if you added some default values to ISAD, then changed your default template to DACS and created a new desrciption, none of your ISAD default values would be applied, even if they crosswalk. For simplicity, you can only select one template
- Same as above, but if a crosswalk exists, the default value is automatically applied regardless of template. This could potentially be implemented as a checkbox option modifying 1, above.
- Users can have multiple saved templates - one per standard. Default values are only taken from the related pre-populated saved template for that standard.
- Same as 3, but there is a checkbox to apply values globally where crosswalking exists. If users have multiple templates with conflicting values (say, different scope and content notes in ISAD and DACS default templates), then the value from the related standard is prioritized
- Users are given a new master template organized first by global fields and using their internal names (similar to those found in our CSV templates). There are additional areas for per-standard fields listed below. Crosswalking is by default for any values added to the global fields. Custom tooltips can indicate the display name of the field in each standard.
Personally, I think option 2 would be the easiest to understand, and probably the easiest to implement as well. I like the checkbox option for whether or not any crosswalked fields should be applied across templates.
I've created a Wishlist ticket to capture the idea here and add some further thoughts - I based my own additional thoughts added to the ticket mostly on option 2:
Obviously this would require some analysis, design, and development to implement, which would mean that we'd need community support for Artefactual to include it in a future release. For anyone not familiar with how we maintain and develop AtoM, please see:
If your institution is interested in sponsoring such work, feel free to contact me off-list.
Cheers,