AtoM EAD is not compliant with DTD, causes DTD warnings on roundtrip
|Assignee:||Mike Gale||% Done:|
|Target version:||Release 2.2.0|
|Google Code Legacy ID:||Tested version:||2.2|
As of AtoM 2.2, we are now validating our EAD imports against a local copy of the EAD DTD, and spitting out warnings where the EAD is non-compliant (see for example #2787).
However, with the many new features, and various EAD changes made in 2.2, no one was validating our EAD output before adding new code.
Now, if you roundtrip a file in AtoM, it will spit out a horrible bunch of warnings, depending on the file. One example screenshot is attached.
- The <origination> element is appearing illegally in the <archdesc> element. It should be moved within the <did> of each level to be valid.
- The <bioghist> element contains a <date> for the dates of existence of the related actor, but <date> isn't allowed in <bioghist>. Instead, we would have to make it something like <bioghist><note><p><date>
- We are including empty <controlaccess></controlaccess> elements on export in the EAD, which we shouldn't - it causes a DTD error on roundtrip
- <processinfo> cannot contain <date> directly; if we want to use it, we need it to be <p><date>
There are likely more, but these are the constantly reoccuring ones. We should keep running our exports against an EAD validator until we're sure our EAD is compliant.
#2 Updated by Dan Gillean about 7 years ago
libxml error 504 on line 58 in input file: Element controlaccess content does not follow the DTD, expecting (head? , (address | chronlist | list | note | table | blockquote | p | corpname | famname | geogname | name | occupation | persname | subject | genreform | function | title | controlaccess)+), got ()
This is occurring because, even if the user adds no access points, we are including an empty <controlaccess></controlaccess> element in the EAD output.
#8 Updated by Mike Gale about 7 years ago
- Status changed from New to Code Review
- Assignee changed from Mike Gale to José Raddaoui Marín
Sorry about the diff in the first commit, it's a bit messy since a bunch of the EAD tags weren't indented properly. In the future I'll do those style fixes in a different commit.
#14 Updated by Dan Gillean about 7 years ago
- Status changed from QA/Review to Verified
- Requires documentation set to Yes
I've now roundtripped descriptions with every field filled out in the ISAD and RAD templates, without errors. I will keep an eye on this as we continue functional release testing, but so far it's looking very good. Marking verified.Documentation
- Will require a quick review, and a few updates, to our EAD mapping in the data entry section (ISAD and RAD).