[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Community review of Rights Management Enhancements specification

Wed Oct 5 12:27:10 EDT 2016

Hi Jordon,

The purpose of the community review just started is to surface pros and
cons and to adjust or augment the specification for a modification to the
Rights module in ArchivesSpace accordingly.

The primary reasoning behind this specification is to support atomic and
thus machine-actionable rights statements in ArchivesSpace. However, these
statements, like you said, can also be used as descriptive elements, and
could display in ArchivesSpace public displays (in ArchivesSpace or in
other discovery systems). At the end of this process, if/when this
specification is implemented, users will have at least three basic options:

   1. Use only Conditions Governing Access/Use notes.
   2. Use only the Rights module.
   3. Use the Conditions Governing Access/Use notes in conjunction with the
   Rights module in the way I described above or in some other way (the "we" I
   was referring to earlier was just the group of us that did some research
   and wrote up the rights module).

This approach accommodates the various ways institutions already use and
want to use rights statements. Users recording rights data in the Rights
module should have the ability to publish (or not publish) to the PUI. I
talked with Brad briefly about this; sounds like it will need to be
reflected in the specification and the PUI group will need to be informed
to account for this change in its work. The specifics of that (what
displays, what doesn't, etc.) seem like they'd still need to be worked out.

Finally, this enhancement work should not result in any data being lost.
While some current fields (like the ones you mentioned--these and others
are written out in the "Removals" section of the "Data Migrations" table)
are being transferred to others that support atomic statements. Actually,
the current Permissions/Restrictions field is a good case in point. The
migration scenarios provided in the specification indicate these changes
and what is to happen to current data, in this case being transferred to an
"Act" note with an appropriate label.

Hope this helps and thanks again for the feedback!
Max

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Jordon Steele <jsteele at jhu.edu> wrote:

> 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@
> 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> 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
>
> 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:* Monday, October 03, 2016 2:49 PM
> *To:* Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group@
> 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), Hillel
> Arnold (harnold at rockarch.org) and/or myself (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*
>
>
>
> Bentley Historical Library
>
> 1150 Beal Ave.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2113
> (734) 763-7518
>
> http://bentley.umich.edu/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list
> Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org
> http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Max Eckard*
> *Assistant Archivist for Digital Curation*
>
>
>
> Bentley Historical Library
>
> 1150 Beal Ave.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2113
> (734) 763-7518
>
> http://bentley.umich.edu/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list
> Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org
> http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group
>
>

-- 
*Max Eckard*
*Assistant Archivist for Digital Curation*

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/be348786/attachment.html>