Dear,
I would like to find the recto verso sheet numbering as a structure in my TOC or side panel of my IIIF viewer. What type can I assign for this in the New doctruct?
Kind regards,
Piet André
2 „Gefällt mir“
Hi Piet,
welcome to the community board, it’s great to have you here!
I created two screenshots to answer your question. The first one is showing the Goobi workflow internal METS editor in the “Pagination” section. You can find the drop down menu for choosing the different pagination styles in the third column from the left at the box “Define pagination” within the header bar on the right. I marked it with a red square:
If you open the IIIF manifest you can see the pagination for example in the Mirador in the gallery view:
The example used here is from the digital State Library of Upper Austria in Linz:
- Goobi viewer: https://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/image/396/1/
- IIIF manifest: https://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/rest/iiif/manifests/396/manifest
Does this answer your question? Greetings from Göttingen and have a nice day,
Jan 
1 „Gefällt mir“
I highly appreciate your response, but not really yet. Here is a print screen as an example (a picture is worth a thousand words).
In line with this an additional question. Our starting point for digitization is that more than 10 consecutive blank folia are not digitized. Which is the most elegant way to integrate this working methods within the GOOBI workflow. Can we insert these info somewhere (in metadata or creation of virtual blank pages?
Many thx,
Piet André
1 „Gefällt mir“
Hi Piet,
Great to see you here again. 
I just had a look into your screenshot. What I see there are that for each image there is a pagination label assigned (which you see in the bottom list of thumbnails) and additionally for each image there was created one structure element which you then see in the Table of Content area on the left.
From my experience I would say that this is somehow an issue inside of the IIIF manifest of your mirador sample. In the left area you should not see each page. Instead there should only be listed elements like Title pages, Covers, Chapters and so on. The pagination instead is assigned to individual images and can independently of the Table of Content get displayed for each image in the thumbnail view as in your sample and in Jans sample. Then it should look like Jans sample which I link here into a mirador viewer as well:
https://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/mirador/?pi=396
I think that you could of course somehow describe in a metadata field that several pages were skipped during scanning. That might be helpful for a user then later on. Another way could be to insert placeholder images instead of the scans. However my suggestion would be different so that I would say:
Alternative a) I would simply scan those empty pages the same way as all other pages. This way all images (incl. the blank ones) would be processed identically and your digital version of that book would be a complete 1:1 copy of the analogue version. From my point of view this is the best, most efficient and ‘cheapest’ way. Beside that your digital content would be complete regarding the long term preservation some day.
Alternative b) An alternative could be that you now simply ‘ignore’ these pages. Somehow you must have come to the conclusion that these pages were not worth to be scanned. Why now invest more energy to describe what is missing there? This is eventually just more work than if you had simply scanned these empty pages together with the other ones. Don’t you think?
I am not sure if my answer helps you at all. Otherwise please let me know and we can talk again a bit more detailed about it, ok?
Best,
Steffen
1 „Gefällt mir“
Hello Steffen,
These are exciting times, my first tentative steps through the IIIF-protocoi, Goobi workflow;-)
I understand and follow your logic regarding the place where certain (meta) data must end up, so like Jan’s example.
For part two of your answer: We will indeed make a note in our catalog and perform alternative A. In fact it was our starting point for internal digitization, but our external partner has his own rules. We definitely need to harmonize it. Thank you for the explanation, confirming a number of things.
I was still wondering if we can change the naming of structural elements, add new ones, to the list of the Goobi Metadata Editor, but it starts to dawn on me that your documentation is very detailed on the website and that I probably will find answers under rule-sets (3) or configuration files (7.3).
Best wishes,
Piet André
2 „Gefällt mir“