Document Metadata Fields that Display

[Seventy-9DegreesNorth]

Describe the feature you'd like

Most document systems have some level of content-relationship heirarchy (shelves, books, pages) but also have metadata associated with things like status, unique ID, control classification, etc. so the reader understands basic "characteristics" about the document besides which shelf they reside on. These metadata elements should be consistent across the document (page) set.

I suggest an ability to add document metadata fields, field types and field selections (dropdowns, multi-select text (tags), etc. that you can include in a page, or, in a page template. This would allow users to create a template with standard location for, say, Approval Status: Approved, Draft, Under Review, Under Revision, etc., document number, Document type: policy, information, code snippet, etc. Tags can do some of this but it's single threaded and not well structured.

Describe the benefits this would bring to existing BookStack users

Better organization. Flexibility to make users aware of different statuses of documents. Could draft documents (pages) in the system instead of having to either draft offline and put in approved content, OR, having to adjust permissions document by document.

Can the goal of this request already be achieved via other means?

Yes and no. Tags could do one single metadata type/topic , but they're not embedded in the documents and considered metadata for a lot of document types. If you wanted 4-5 document metadata types for, say:
change control category: permissive, mandatory, none
Approval status: approved, in-progress, draft
Document number: XYZ-003
and Functional area: Accounting

Tags just wouldn't get that done.

Have you searched for an existing open/closed issue?

• I have searched for existing issues and none cover my fundamental request

How long have you been using BookStack?

1 to 5 years

Additional context

Bookstack user interface is glorious. It's fast, elegant, and easy to use from a user perspective.

It's a nightmare from an administrators perspective. You can only really have approved content on there unless you use permissions which is complex and makes it hard for document admins to ID documents that are NOT approved, other than through tags -- which should be for content ID, not document metadata.

[ssddanbrown]

Thanks for the request @Seventy-9DegreesNorth, but I'm not really keen on adding additional levels of generic metadata upon that which already exists for tags.

A lot of what's requested seems to be focused on approval/status, which is something already covered by #473, or for variation upon how metadata is presented/controlled which is a whole scope of elements I'd prefer not to open up.