[Archivesspace_Users_Group] questions about migration of existing rights statement data for next version of ArchivesSpace

[Christine Di Bella]

Hello ArchivesSpace members,

Development work has begun on the rights management enhancements that were circulated for community review last fall. The aim is for this functionality to be available in the next major release of the application. You can see the full specification and the individual tickets created out of it at https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-123.

As part of this work, some existing rights fields are being changed or will serve a slightly different purpose. Data currently in some fields will need to be migrated to the appropriate places in the new model. You can see the full list of proposed migrations at https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-114, with some clarifications in the comments. Of course, these migrations will only affect people that currently have information in the relevant rights statement fields. Going forward, new data would be entered into the new fields.

While most of these migrations will be fairly straightforward, some questions have come up on a few of them. Some background:


*         To better align with PREMIS and make it easier to move data between ArchivesSpace and systems like Archivematica, the enhanced rights module will have an Act sub-record which includes fields for Act Type, Restriction, Start Date, End Date, and a Note sub-record. The original migration proposal was to take all rights information that represents a specific action and move it into a new Act sub-record. This includes moving any existing Permissions, Restrictions, Granted Note, or Restriction Start and End Dates to particular fields in the Act sub-record.

*         Three of the fields in an Act sub-record are required (Act Type, Restriction, and Start Date).

*         Not all current rights statements sub-records have data that will fulfill these required fields.

The two options are to migrate existing restriction data to an Act Sub-record programmatically, or to leave it up to individual institutions to determine when/what Act sub-records are appropriate once they have upgraded to the version of ArchivesSpace with this new functionality. If you currently use the rights statements sub-record in ArchivesSpace, would you please weigh in on your preference:


*         Should an Act sub-record be created for all existing restriction information?

*         If so, are the proposed mappings adequate?

*         Also if so, since an Act sub-record requires certain fields, what values should be used as the default when an existing record does not have relevant values?



*         If not, since data in some fields (Permissions, Restrictions, Granted Note) will need to be migrated regardless, would it be adequate to move these into Note fields (not Act Note fields) since a Note sub-record only requires the value and a label? (These fields do not exist in the new model in their current form so leaving the data where it is currently is not an option.)

Thanks in advance for your responses and discussion. I'll also be sending this directly to everyone who responded to the rights management survey last summer who indicated they were using rights statements.

Christine

Christine Di Bella
ArchivesSpace Program Manager
christine.dibella at lyrasis.org<mailto:christine.dibella at lyrasis.org>
800.999.8558 x2905
678-235-2905
cdibella13 (Skype)

[ASpaceOrgHomeMedium]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20170519/758c6775/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4144 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20170519/758c6775/attachment.jpg>