Recipe #0027: Alternative Page Sequences

[glenrobson]

Links

• Original Issue: Alternative Sequence (via sequence Range) cookbook-recipes#27
• Pull Request: 0027 alternative page order cookbook-recipes#638
• Preview: https://preview.iiif.io/cookbook/0027-alternative-page-order/recipe/0027-alternative-page-order/

Background and Summary

This recipe shares how to create a Manfiest with two different sequences, one for physcial order and one for the corrected order. In IIIF v2 this was done by multiple sequences but in v3 this is done using a sqeuences behaviour on a range.

Voting and changes

We welcome comments on the recipe and as well as voting +1, confused face or -1 feel free to add comments to this issue. If this issue is approved then the author will take account of the comments before we merge the branch in to the master cookbook branch.

If the recipe is rejected by the TRC then we will make the changes requested and resubmit it to a future TRC meeting. If you feel that your comments are substantial enough that the recipe should be looked at again by the TRC after the changes have been made please vote -1 (thumbs down). A confused face is treated as abstaining.

Changes to the recipe will only be made after the TRC voting process has concluded.

[robcast]

Suggestion to change the second sentence of the use-case to "You want to digitally represent the book object in its current, corrected, order while offering users the option to browse its contents in the original author's numbering order." and change the order of the sequences to make the corrected order the default.

[zimeon]

@robcast - I don't think your suggested second sentence works with the first sentence as one then ends up with different notions of "correct". It makes me wonder whether it is better to simply describe the different orders without using "correct" or "incorrect", say as "current physical page order" and "believed original page order"

[zimeon]

I wonder whether in the example it is worth emphasizing the importance on the label on the Range for selection? Could be done with something like the following addition in italics:

Two Ranges are provided within the structures to represent this case study. From the two Ranges with the behavior value sequence, the first Range should be used as the navigation default, and the other should be selectable based on the supplied label.

[robcast]

@zimeon I was assuming that the archivists did some checking and reasoning to come up with their "corrected" order which should be preferred for this reason. But maybe its easier to just refer neutrally to "current archival order" and "authors numbering order".

[kirschbombe]

To @robcast and @zimeon's comments on the ordering. In many cases, at least in my experience with manuscripts and archival materials, we prefer to present things as they are, then offer "corrected" or the interpretive as an option. But I don't have a preference either way for the recipe and agree we don't want to suggest what the correct order of ranges should be as it is up to the manifest author. I would probably go with "current ordering" and "alternative ordering" or similar.

[kirschbombe]

I'm not sure the following is true "Such Ranges have limited hierarchical nesting and cannot be used to describe more complex structures, such as a Table of Contents for Book Chapters" - the spec only mentions that the hierarchy may be limited [depending on the viewer], but there is no restriction on having child Ranges inside a top-level sequence Range, so someone should be able to have a ToC inside a sequence range. Approving, but with the comment that this should be addressed.

With that change, I would also suggest moving the part about how Ranges of type sequence need to be at the top level into the first paragraph of the implementation notes. I feel it's less a restriction and more just how it's implemented. Or, restate it to say that Ranges of type sequence must not be nested in another range, but I think stating it upfront makes it more clear for the reader.

[leontpng]

Thank you all for your valuable comments and suggestions! Now that the voting period is almost over, we can soon begin implementing the suggested changes.

• Regarding the order in which the sequences of the use case are presented, I would keep the original first, followed by the alternative/archival/corrected sequence. This order aligns better with the use case and most bound items in general.
• To avoid implying that one sequence is correct or incorrect, I recommend simply renaming them as 'original' and 'alternative'.
• @zimeon - great suggestion to emphasise the importance of the label.
• @kirschbombe - I agree, I will remove the restriction and incorporate parts of it into the implementation.

[glenrobson]

Issue 138 (Recipe #27: Alternative Page Sequences)

+1: 13 [akrishnan15 cubap danieltbrennan glenrobson irv kirschbombe markpatton nfreire regisrob robcast ruven triplingual zimeon]
0: 0 []
-1: 0 []
Not TRC: 0 []
Ineligible: 5 [markpbaggett mathewjordan peteredwards rentonsa tristanr-cogapp]

Result: 13 / 13 = 1.00

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved