Does the whole pub data model have to be built from scratch?

[impyrean]

PubPub Platform and legacy PubPub seem to have completely different data models for pubs. Legacy pubs had fields like slug, title, description, doi, etc. Platform takes the approach of requiring the user to define pub fields. These fields are then used to create pub types. Is it possible to publish the set of fields and pub types that would achieve parity with Legacy?

Relatedly: the pub_fields model does not have a type field. If I define a publishedDate field, I'd like it to have a Date type. How can this be achieved?

Relatedly: Collections, Discussions, etc. were first-class entity types in legacy. These types do not seem to have been replicated in Platform. Are they no longer supported?

To recap, there are 3 questions here. Happy to split them into different Discussions if that works better.

[eastofesten]

Thanks for asking these questions! Tagging @gabestein to provide additional information, but to start:

1. Yes, they have different data models. When importing an existing Legacy community into Platform, our script will create Fields & Types for the Platform community. (You can see our working example of that in the Legacy Sandbox Community - information on accessing that can be found here.) We'll publish the set of Legacy fields and Types & provide an easy way to migrate from Legacy to Platform.
2. If I'm following you correctly, if you define a publishedDate field in Platform, you can assign it a DateTime schema. Values of that pub field will be validated to ensure they conform to the schema.
3. Collections, Discussions, etc. will be supported by the Legacy template (automatically created through our migration as mentioned in 1), but there will be no "first-class" concepts of Collections, Discussions, etc.