You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If I understand correctly, Dataverse's replace file capabilities are only possible post-publication and not within a draft Dataset.
QDR's curation workflow involves replacing files in the draft Dataset (e.g. to remove PII) and, in connection with #7068, there is interest in being able to replace a file in the draft version/prior to publication without changing the PID reserved for the Datafile. I'm considering modifying the existing replace mechanism to work in a draft Dataset, probably deleting the old file unless it is used in a previously published version. Is there interest in this in the community? Any design guidance/ alternative mechanisms/ other feedback?
(Looking at other issues - might be able to look into #4380 at the same time.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In slack @scolapasta pointed out that the normal replace functionality generates a new DOI for the new file since the old DOI still refers to the original (assuming you have file DOIs on). Given that, it still seems to make sense to allow a draft-only file to be replaced and to allow any reserved DOI (after #7068) to be retained, but calling this something other than replace might make sense, e.g. updateDraftFile (suggestions welcome).
If I understand correctly, Dataverse's replace file capabilities are only possible post-publication and not within a draft Dataset.
QDR's curation workflow involves replacing files in the draft Dataset (e.g. to remove PII) and, in connection with #7068, there is interest in being able to replace a file in the draft version/prior to publication without changing the PID reserved for the Datafile. I'm considering modifying the existing replace mechanism to work in a draft Dataset, probably deleting the old file unless it is used in a previously published version. Is there interest in this in the community? Any design guidance/ alternative mechanisms/ other feedback?
(Looking at other issues - might be able to look into #4380 at the same time.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: