articles left in inconsistent state on some ingest errors

I talked with Steve about this and he has an interesting point. We all seem to have a different view of 'published' means. I think we will stick to the idea that once the article has been ingested succesfully in Mulgara/Fedora it is ready to be published. CrossRef? errors can be managed and solved manually as they do not occur that often. However, I do understand that it is confusing for the end-user. Maybe we create and move the file to another 'queue' (say cross-ref) and the file remains there till succesful and only then moved to the ingested queue (or maybe even use the ingested queue as the 'crossref' queue and then move it to a 'backup' queue or something). There might be other better ideas and we will look at this later.

sure, that idea works - anything that doesn't leave things in an inconsistent state, requiring intervention by the administrator, is good.

note that the crossref failure is a block to publication - my understanding is that if you try to publish an article that doesn't have crossref xml when crossref deposits are active, you get an error.

so despite your insistence that we define as "publishable" an article that ingested successfully in mulgara and fedora, it's not actually publishable on the system we've built.

but the semantic point is irrelevant: we can't leave things in a strange in-between state in the ingest app. this becomes drastically more important when we move to command line ingest and there isn't visual feedback telling the operator that things are messed up.

finally, i have no idea how to manually make a crossref deposit and neither does susanne - any hints?

Replying to russ:

finally, i have no idea how to manually make a crossref deposit and neither does susanne - any hints?

• Logon to the system at http://doi.crossref.org
• Follow the "Upload Submissions" link
• Choose live or test depending on what you want to do. You can also monitor status of submissions

Replying to russ:

sure, that idea works - anything that doesn't leave things in an inconsistent state, requiring intervention by the administrator, is good.

Cannot guarantee that in all cases, but in general the above is a good premise for design.

note that the crossref failure is a block to publication - my understanding is that if you try to publish an article that doesn't have crossref xml when crossref deposits are active, you get an error.

Did not know this. Steve will be able to answer this better.

so despite your insistence that we define as "publishable" an article that ingested successfully in mulgara and fedora, it's not actually publishable on the system we've built.

Yes. We would have to change one or the other.

but the semantic point is irrelevant: we can't leave things in a strange in-between state in the ingest app. this becomes drastically more important when we move to command line ingest and there isn't visual feedback telling the operator that things are messed up.

Agreed.

finally, i have no idea how to manually make a crossref deposit and neither does susanne - any hints?

we've since learned how to make a manual crossref deposit.

this ticket is probably dupe with the #528, but i'll let jeff decide...

Closing this as this is exactly the opposite of what Rich wanted and we modified. Moving to ingested queue is a courtesy and not a guarantee. Keep copies of the archive around if you want that...:)