[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Community review of Rights Management Enhancements specification

Wed Oct 5 09:35:28 EDT 2016

Thanks for your response, Max. When you say “we,” do you mean the Technical Advisory Council? And please forgive my limited understanding about the functions of the ASpace groups, but should the decision about the pros and cons of integration and redundancy rest with the TAC or the User Advisory Council—or Governance? My cursory understanding is that the UAC advises the TAC on what feature enhancements the TAC should implement. Maybe UAC and TAC have discussed this?

To your point that the Rights module only should be used to manage machine-actionable rights information, unless you plan to change something in the enhancements, currently a user is not required to use the Rights module only for this purpose—there are notes fields that one can use to put rights statements that could easily live in access/use notes, too, and the machine-actionable features are not required to create a rights record.

Also, an important implication that one of my staff mentioned yesterday is that it’s possible the public user interface development going on does not account for institutions that choose to put their access/use information in the rights module. Have there been discussions with the PUI group about this?

Speaking of granularity, I have a more granular request: your attachments are useful, but it appears you have not provided a list of elements that would be eliminated if these enhancements were adopted. For instance, looking at your wireframes, it would appear that the free-text fields of “permissions” and “restrictions” would go away. I don’t really have an opinion right now on whether that’s a good idea or not, but it would be helpful if you could provide us with a list of fields you’re proposing to remove.

Best,

Jordon

Jordon Steele
Hodson Curator of the University Archives
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
3400 N Charles St
Baltimore, MD 21218
410-516-5493
jsteele at jhu.edu

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Max Eckard
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:08 AM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Community review of Rights Management Enhancements specification

Hi Jordan,
Thanks for the feedback! This issue about the pairing of Conditions Governing Access/Use notes and the Rights module has definitely come up in our conversations.

Borrowing some language from these conversations, at least for the moment we see the statements in the ArchivesSpace Rights module being used in conjunction with rights/access statements supported in the Conditions Governing Access and Conditions Governing Use notes. The Rights module statements are for granular, actionable statements, whereas the Conditions Governing Access/Use notes are for summary, non-actionable statements, and instructions, where appropriate, for contacting rights holders. That may turn out to be an unnecessary redundancy, and clearly there are folks like you that make a good case for that in theory and in practice, but that's at least our thinking for now.
Thanks again for your input! It really is very much appreciated!
Max

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Jordon Steele <jsteele at jhu.edu<mailto:jsteele at jhu.edu>> wrote:
Max,

These enhancements look good to us, thanks for your efforts.

We’ve been discussing at JHU the overlap and, frankly, similarity between what sort of information the Rights Management module is trying to capture and the Conditions Governing Access/Use notes are used for, and we’re not seeing a difference in concept between the two.  “Archivists have always used the Access/Use notes” or “Access/Use notes are an EAD/DACS/AT hold-over” may be factually accurate but they are not strong cases for continuing use.

So for the sake of not over-complicating the ASpace data model--where equally valid locations for putting the same type of information proliferate and, therefore, confuse—my main feedback is that you/the community/whoever take a good look at integration between the access/use notes and the rights management module. (After review of the responses I received from the ASpace listserv and internal discussion, JHU has decide to stop using the Access/Use notes and begin to use the Rights sub-records to manage information about what people are allowed and not allowed to do with all of our collections—analog and digital.) Your work presents a good opportunity for us all to try to get on the same page.

Best,

Jordon

Jordon Steele
Hodson Curator of the University Archives
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
3400 N Charles St
Baltimore, MD 21218
410-516-5493<tel:410-516-5493>
jsteele at jhu.edu<mailto:jsteele at jhu.edu>

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org>] On Behalf Of Max Eckard
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 2:49 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>>
Subject: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Community review of Rights Management Enhancements specification

Good morning ArchivesSpace community,
You may already be aware that representatives from the ArchivesSpace membership, the ArchivesSpace program team and Artefactual, Inc. have been working on a specification for enhancing the rights module in ArchivesSpace.

The primary aim of this specification is to enable the expression of standards-based rights statements that are atomic and actionable and that support data transfers with other applications using rights statements, such as Archivematica.
We have completed a draft specification, and are now asking for community review and feedback.

The attached packet includes:

  *   a summary of the enhancements requested in the specification and their purpose;
  *   a spreadsheet containing:

     *   1) the data model being proposed for the rights management module in ArchivesSpace,
     *   2) the data migrations necessary for moving data in the current data model to the new data model,
     *   3) a chart indicating the data elements to be migrated from Archivematica to ArchivesSpace, and
     *   4) a data map illustrating how PREMIS rights elements are supported in Archivematica and ArchivesSpace; and

  *   ten wire frames illustrating how the proposed data model should be reflected in the ArchivesSpace staff interface.

If you need some orientation to the way that PREMIS Rights Statements are used (regardless of whether these are authored in ArchivesSpace), see the attached PDF.

Please take a look. Brad Westbrook (brad.westbrook at lyrasis.org<http://lyrasis.org>), Hillel Arnold (harnold at rockarch.org<http://rockarch.org>) and/or myself (eckardm at umich.edu<mailto:eckardm at umich.edu>) are happy to answer any questions that you may have and to receive feedback on the specification by Friday, October 21, 2016.
Regards,
Max Eckard

--
Max Eckard
Assistant Archivist for Digital Curation

[https://webapps.lsa.umich.edu/dean/lsa_emails/bentley-sig-em.png]
Bentley Historical Library
1150 Beal Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2113
(734) 763-7518<tel:%28734%29%20763-7518>
http://bentley.umich.edu/

_______________________________________________
Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list
Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group

--
Max Eckard
Assistant Archivist for Digital Curation

[https://webapps.lsa.umich.edu/dean/lsa_emails/bentley-sig-em.png]
Bentley Historical Library
1150 Beal Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2113
(734) 763-7518
http://bentley.umich.edu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20161005/c37929e7/attachment.html>