Loan types need clear definition

[mkoo]

What's the difference between data loans and media loans (collections across Arctos are not consistently practised)? Can we come up with definitions that we can all agree and live with?

• Data Loans - metadata only? (parts cannot be added to a data loan)
• Media Loans - any digital imagery? (parts can be added to a media loan) Input from other museums using media loans?

Once we have definitions, add a "info" button to loan.cfm!

[dustymc]

data loans

http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTLOAN_TYPE

Loan is of the data associated with cataloged items. (All other loan types are associated with specimen parts.)

add a "info" button

[Jegelewicz]

I can see how the definition of media loan:

Loan primarily involving media; specimen material or hard-copy archives may have been handled for digitizing purposes.

might be confusing. Did we send them a photograph or just a digital image of one? Since media should be a part of any particular record, we could loan physical media (and for art collections this could be really confusing!). Are media loans necessary? If we send someone a bunch of digital images of objects, isn't that a data loan? This might need a bit of discussion and ties in with the project thread. If items are digitized for a "media" loan, then using an in-house loan would make sense for the "handling" part and a data loan for the images sent. Both loans could be added to a project, or not, as any collection sees fit to handle it.

[AJLinn]

Dusty and I came up with media loans as a separate type to handle all of the image request loans I've been creating since our collection moved into Arctos. Previously I was using data loans for this type.

Currently, I use this whenever someone requests photographs for publication (my old database listed this type of loan as a "photo request". As the definition indicates, the image request typically includes only a transfer of a digital image file, but sometimes it might require that I pull and object and take a new photograph of it. It may also involve scanning of a photograph or slide, which is then transferred to the requestor as a digital image file. All of these actions are listed in the loan remarks or instructions sections.

I personally don't really care what this type of transaction is called, but I prefer to not create two or three different transactions in order to cover the single request, unless this is considered the most accurate way to document the entire process. I should think we can collectively come up with something more efficient, however.

Did we send them a photograph or just a digital image of one? Since media should be a part of any particular record, we could loan physical media (and for art collections this could be really confusing!).

This type of loan in an art collection should be returnable, unless the media was copied onto a drive or sent as a video file, for example, and not expected to be returned to us, in which case it would still just be a media loan.

I'd be happy to discuss this at an AWG upcoming meeting.

[dustymc]

A photograph (painting, sculpture, whatever) in an art collection would probably be cataloged as part "object." A photo/reproduction/whatever of that would/could be "media."

A "media" part should be something tangible - a thumb drive, paper photo, printout, hand-written letter, etc. I doubt that's how things are ACTUALLY handled, but it's defensible within the confines of the model and explains the need for a "media" loan.

I think the ambiguity comes from procedural differences. CollectionA reserves high-quality media files and only sends them out as Media loans, CollectionB just makes them available as part of the specimen record and (sometimes/maybe) records usage as "data" loans (eg, users can get what they need without curatorial help). In response to a request for photos of specimens, some collections would create an in-house loan (involving the specimen parts which were photographed) and just make the photos available in the specimen record, others would create "media" parts and loan them, and I'm sure other collections do other things that I don't know about.

Same sort of material, same sort of usage, different usage statistics. I don't think we can or should try to force procedures, but we can provide "if you want these statistics, do that" sort of documentation.

[dustymc]

merge>https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1450