Attribute value table for the UAM Art collection

[amgunderson]

I have created an attribute called "preservation need" as requested by the Art Collection here at UAM - I am assisting UAM:Art in loading their collection in to Arctos. This is the last step to accommodate the Art data bulkload. They would like a controlled vocab value table with the following values and definitions, professional conservator - Artwork needs examination by a professional conservator. unframing - In order to preserve the artwork, it needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame, the mat is likely acidic and actively damaging the artwork. re-housing - The current storage housing for the artwork is inadequate. The artwork needs new housing (folder, matting, framing, box, etc.) or improvements to the current housing should be made. other - The artwork requires other preventative conservation measures.

[AJLinn]

UAM:EH could also use this attribute, as could UAM:Arc I would guess. I wonder if we can make the values for the code table less specific for art collections and more cross-collection (i.e., remove references to "artwork" and describe as "item" or "object").

[campmlc]

Yes, even for slide or fluid collections, which need remounting or refilling or rehousing.

On Fri, May 4, 2018, 6:36 PM Angela Linn notifications@github.com wrote:

UAM:EH could also use this attribute, as could UAM:Arc I would guess. I wonder if we can make the values for the code table less specific for art collections and more cross-collection (i.e., remove references to "artwork" and describe as "item" or "object").

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-386766198, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hJVh4sG41HH0Jv8WH5MCYjX2wkHFks5tvPQegaJpZM4TzWi9 .

[dustymc]

Yes, agreed, this seems broadly useful. Media (paper photos, glass negatives, audio tapes, etc.), slides, mounts, etc. are cataloged in many types of collection, and as always I'm sure there's a fair bit of overlap - a historical photograph is "a mammal part" only because of context (it's associated with specimens or collectors or etc.), and might have been cataloged in an art, ethnology, etc. collection under slightly different circumstances.

This seems better implemented against parts (as eg http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTSPECPART_ATTRIBUTE_TYPE) rather than specimens (as http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTATTRIBUTE_TYPE) - the data reference physical objects, not cataloged items. That said, specimen attributes are generally more accessible (in the specimen bulkloader, etc.) and I assume these data will be accompanied by verbose remarks, so I don't really have major problems with doing this "the wrong way" if it's somehow more convenient in practice.

And is "conservation need" a better term??

[AJLinn]

And is "conservation need" a better term??

I think probably not. Technically, framing or matting are not "conservation" level interactions with an item, but do influence our preservation/protection of the object. I think preservation is a better, more general term for the full range of possible values we might come up with for the code table. As @campmlc mentioned, this could be a matter of refilling fluid levels, which certainly does not require a conservator to do so.

And of course, we should have the obligatory "unknown" for those that we want to mark as requiring preservation assessment but we're not clear on what the needs are yet.

[dustymc]

conservation

Thanks!

unknown

I so dislike that term! "We looked at this thing, and hereby dutifully record that we have no idea what we saw." I know, I know, we have definitions, but still....

"needs further assessment"?? Probably some overlap with "professional conservator" and "other" in there.

[AJLinn]

"needs further assessment"?? Probably some overlap with "professional conservator" and "other" in there.

That's actually what I was thinking of at first. Could be useful in those situations where a student has physically seen the item, but doesn't really know what to recommend (e.g., does it need a conservator or just the collections manager to deal with it?) and wants to flag it in some way for their supervisor to come back to. I would agree with "needs further assessment"

[amgunderson]

I will leave it to Art, Arc, and Eth to say whether conservation or preservation is better. The needs assessment value is good.

[campmlc]

I agree.

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Aren Gunderson notifications@github.com wrote:

I will leave it to Art, Arc, and Eth to say whether conservation or preservation is better. The needs assessment value is good.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-387526133, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hBuyPKgy0hWGvNWkUYEpzUgROAqUks5twfrbgaJpZM4TzWi9 .

[marecaguthrie]

How about the following for preservation need: professional conservator - Object needs examination by a professional conservator. unframing - In order to preserve the object, it needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame, the mat is likely acidic and actively damaging the object. re-housing - The current storage housing for the object is inadequate. The object needs new housing (box, folder, matting, framing, etc.) or improvements to the current housing should be made. other - The object requires other preventative conservation measures. needs further assessment - Preservation need is undetermined. Object needs further assessment.

[AJLinn]

My recommended edits: [ ] = delete / CAPS = add

professional conservator - Object needs examination by a professional conservator. [unframing] UNFRAME - [In order to preserve the object,] OBJECT [it] needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame [, the mat is likely acidic and actively damaging the object.] [re-housing] REHOUSE - [The] current storage housing for the object is inadequate [. The object] - needs new housing (box, folder, matting, framing, etc.) or improvements to the current housing [should be made.] other - [The] object requires other preventative conservation measures[.] needs further assessment - Preservation need is undetermined. Object needs further assessment BY COLLECTIONS CARE SPECIALIST.

[marecaguthrie]

Great edits Angie.

[dustymc]

I don't see the break between "unframe" and "rehouse." I don't particularly care what the vocabulary is, but I do care about having two ways of saying the same thing - that'll prevent accuracy.

Thoughts on linking this to parts (more correct, I think) vs. specimens (more accessible, perhaps)?

[campmlc]

I would suggest going to the verb rather than the participle for the sake of brevity, if that works in this context, "unframe" "re-house"

and adding the following:

refill = refill with existing preservative solution replace solution = requires a change of preservative solution, can we add a "with" field? remount = replace existing mount and mounting medium; for example, microscope slides

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Angela Linn notifications@github.com wrote:

My recommended edits: [ ] = delete / CAPS = add

professional conservator - Object needs examination by a professional conservator. [unframing] UNFRAME - [In order to preserve the object,] OBJECT [it] needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame [, the mat is likely acidic and actively damaging the object.] [re-housing] REHOUSE - [The] current storage housing for the object is inadequate [. The object] - needs new housing (box, folder, matting, framing, etc.) or improvements to the current housing [should be made.] other - [The] object requires other preventative conservation measures[.] needs further assessment - Preservation need is undetermined. Object needs further assessment BY COLLECTIONS CARE SPECIALIST.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-387851025, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hLhQRCD2Tsaf8LQ3XI74UKYVTDCLks5tw0TigaJpZM4TzWi9 .

[campmlc]

And I believe this needs to be linked to parts. We have fluid and slide mounted parts for the same specimen. We also could link this to part condition and history.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Mariel Campbell campbell@carachupa.org wrote:

I would suggest going to the verb rather than the participle for the sake of brevity, if that works in this context, "unframe" "re-house"

and adding the following:

refill = refill with existing preservative solution replace solution = requires a change of preservative solution, can we add a "with" field? remount = replace existing mount and mounting medium; for example, microscope slides

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Angela Linn notifications@github.com wrote:

My recommended edits: [ ] = delete / CAPS = add

professional conservator - Object needs examination by a professional conservator. [unframing] UNFRAME - [In order to preserve the object,] OBJECT [it] needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame [, the mat is likely acidic and actively damaging the object.] [re-housing] REHOUSE - [The] current storage housing for the object is inadequate [. The object] - needs new housing (box, folder, matting, framing, etc.) or improvements to the current housing [should be made.] other - [The] object requires other preventative conservation measures[.] needs further assessment - Preservation need is undetermined. Object needs further assessment BY COLLECTIONS CARE SPECIALIST.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-387851025, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hLhQRCD2Tsaf8LQ3XI74UKYVTDCLks5tw0TigaJpZM4TzWi9 .

[dustymc]

can we add a "with" field?

Not without some structural changes. That's still "yes," but it's not trivial (adding a new "normal" code table is).

I'm not sure this concept makes sense for fluid. The problem there isn't limited to a particular specimen part, it's with the container - the other 99 shrews in the jar are floating in the same funky alcohol.

From that, I'd probably also maintain "this slide needs attention" data at the container level to avoid multiple pathways to "what in the collection needs maintenance?"

This could be a big improvement over scribbling things about container environment in some remarks field for those collections that don't use containers, but it's definitely not what I'd use to record something about the fluid in a Container.

[campmlc]

I see your point, but the conservationist goal is the same as for art objects. This isn't info about an actual refill, just the need for one. It seems to make sense to use the same approach as for rehousing.

I'd be happy to be able to integrate a container check with parts and part condition, but maybe all of this should go there? We need a common pathway for all these conservation/preservation/condition/history info.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 2:34 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:

can we add a "with" field?

Not without some structural changes. That's still "yes," but it's not trivial (adding a new "normal" code table is).

I'm not sure this concept makes sense for fluid. The problem there isn't limited to a particular specimen part, it's with the container - the other 99 shrews in the jar are floating in the same funky alcohol.

From that, I'd probably also maintain "this slide needs attention" data at the container level to avoid multiple pathways to "what in the collection needs maintenance?"

This could be a big improvement over scribbling things about container environment in some remarks field for those collections that don't use containers, but it's definitely not what I'd use to record something about the fluid in a Container.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-387867037, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hJk2yAQIsZ_F-1pVg-uGMZIupa-vks5tw1LPgaJpZM4TzWi9 .

[dustymc]

Container environment is capable of holding "fill level" (as a percentage or volume or just "OK"/"needs attention" or whatever).

Parts and containers are structurally integrated; I'm not sure what that means.

Yes this can be done entirely in the current container model, by collections fully using containers anyway.

Like most everything else in Arctos, this will be an option. If you prefer it over containers for some reason, you should be able to use it. For a slide (container which controls the preservation needs of about one part), the amount of work required should be more or less equal. For containers that hold more parts (freezers, cabinets, jars), going up the tree instead of dealing individually with hundreds or thousands of parts has some obvious advantages.

[AJLinn]

And I believe this needs to be linked to parts. We have fluid and slide mounted parts for the same specimen. We also could link this to part condition and history.

I totally agree with @campmlc and @dustymc that this really should be linked to parts. That being said, let me ask this: if we linked this to parts instead of making it an attribute, would we be able to search for a particular value? For example, if I"m writing a grant for conservation work and I want to search for all the parts that have "professional conservator" as the preservation need, could I do that? This is definitely linked to the condition. Maybe it's a part attribute instead of a regular attribute?

That being said, we're starting to accumulate a LOT of information in the parts section of the object detail record, which is making the records start to look pretty junky visually (see http://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:EH:UA92-006-0013AM for an example). Maybe it's time to figure out how to redesign the way the parts section appears on the detail page? Does it have to appear in a table format? Could it look more like our attributes section instead? If it does have to be a table, can we hide columns we don't want to see so when the condition field is super long (like the mask record noted here) it's not a skinny Loooong cell? If we add preservation need, to the object part, is that going to totally take over?

Something for a AWG meeting perhaps?

[Jegelewicz]

but it's definitely not what I'd use to record something about the fluid in a Container.

In principle, I agree. In practice, noting this about one specimen in the container will benefit all of them. Until such time that we have the resources to barcode all of the jars in a given collection or even make use of the part location attribute, this would be helpful (and perhaps an incentive to begin using one of the options above as these issues are identified).

refill = refill with existing preservative solution replace solution = requires a change of preservative solution, can we add a "with" field?

I suggest that instead of these we use the following for fluid storage (and hopefully it would apply to other preservation mediums...). Each part should have an attribute called preservation medium with controlled values such as ethanol, isopropanol, fomalin, etc. Each part should also have an attribute of preservation concentration with allowed values of between 0 and 100%. (This would help us remove the preservation information from the part name)

Then, for the conservation attribute values we could use:

preservative concentration - concentration of current preservation medium, found in the preservation medium attribute, needs to be checked and brought up to the value recorded in the preservation concentration attribute

preservation medium - requires a change of preservation medium to the value recorded in remarks

I would also add

storage container - requires a change of or upgrade to the object's storage container as described in remarks (to facilitate the need for new lids on jars in fluid storage or the need for a whole new jar as well as the need for replacement of non-archival storage containers in other areas)

All of this is a long way around the use of containers, which would really be preferable, but without the funds and people to make it happen, most fluid collections are stuck. And I'm not even sure I like this - it is just what I am thinking about at the moment....

Also, would the frame be most immediate the container for a work of art? Couldn't an art collection make use of containers in that way as well? Just curious!

[dustymc]

"location" is a part attribute - this would work the same way. It's searchable, and at finer scales than it would be as specimen attributes. Against the specimen, you can find specimens which have a preservation need. Against a part, along with the specimen data, you can query the specific part and things attached to it, like loans and containers. Data structure matters!

Parts have more structure than Attributes - parts are hierarchical and may include non-part children (like "preservation need"). I'm not sure how we'd get that across in a non-tabular format, but I'm certainly up for ideas.

We might also wish to discuss the initial view. My default assumptions are that everyone needs to know everything, that they're primarily interested in that thing we're talking about hiding, and that they won't find or click links. I don't think I'll be convinced that's wrong, but I could be convinced that we can't do it anyway - eg, the parts section could be a comma-separated list and a "click here for a giant table overlay" link or something.

Here's a screenshot of my parts testbed. I should add some long text data!

[dustymc]

noting this about one specimen in the container will benefit all of them

In theory, yes, those data can propagate up. In practice, I'm not sure that'll happen.

Until such time that we have the resources to barcode

Yes. If you've fully bought into the container system, this probably doesn't much benefit you (unless you just want to use it for some reason). If you haven't, and I think that's most of us at some level, this looks like a big improvement.

Each part should have an attribute

That's easy to implement, I should just need vocabulary. It's a LOT more data to manage than pushing that information off to containers. With containers, you change one thing when you top off that big jar of Batrachoseps. With part attributes, you have to find the part that's in the jar for all 300 salamanders. Given that we have many ways of saying "hacked-up pickled salamander" and that many of the specimens will also have parts which aren't in the jar, I'm not entirely convinced that anyone will track down and update all of the affected parts.

I'm not even sure I like this

It happens. Administration has some sort of objection to machine-readable part identifiers, the funds just aren't there, there are 50 more pressing needs, etc. etc. etc. For those who find themselves in one of those situations, this should be a clear improvement.

If I had to manage this sort of data for things like jars of shrews or freezers of tissues, I'd probably put finding a way to get barcoded objects in barcoded containers at the very top of my wishlist. If I was already using that system for some things I'd try to use it for everything, even when there's less benefit (slides or whale skulls). If I was managing these data primarily for things that are less affected by container environment, I might just use part attributes for the sake of simplicity and be willing to deal with the hopefully-rare difficult update (flood, dermestid infestation, etc.).

Also, would the frame be most immediate the container for a work of art? Couldn't an art collection make use of containers in that way as well?

Sure, or the frame (mount, mat, whatever) could be another part (perhaps in a hierarchy), or whatever. I have no idea, but I suspect there are frames-and-such which are considered "part of the specimen" and those which are not - if that's true, cataloging the frame-like-thing (or not) could help clarify the data.

[krgomez]

It seems like, if I'm reading all of this correctly, that this would be best as a part attribute? This would work for us.

Also, would the frame be most immediate the container for a work of art? Couldn't an art collection make use of containers in that way as well?

Sure, or the frame (mount, mat, whatever) could be another part (perhaps in a hierarchy), or whatever. I have no idea, but I suspect there are frames-and-such which are considered "part of the specimen" and those which are not - if that's true, cataloging the frame-like-thing (or not) could help clarify the data.

We are not currently using containers. I think maybe a frame could be considered a container. Sometimes a frame is really important to the object and kind of part of it (like older paintings in their original frames) but sometimes a frame really is just the housing like a box would be. Because the art collection is not barcoded yet, we haven't thought about containers. If we were using a container for a barcode for framed artworks however, we would be using a tag as the container. I'm also not quite getting how you would attach a preservation need to a container, if that is actually what is being suggested, I'm not sure.

I don't see the break between "unframe" and "rehouse." I don't particularly care what the vocabulary is, but I do care about having two ways of saying the same thing - that'll prevent accuracy.

Well the reason I was thinking it would be useful for us to have rehouse and unframe separate is because it would be very useful for us to be able to search for unframe specifcally. But yes unframe really does does pretty much mean rehouse so we don't really need unframe I guess. I think you can search a part attribute and a remark for it together? If so we could search for it with a remark.

[campmlc]

I personally think that we should use collection type specific vocabulary when not doing so could lead to confusion. If unframing is the correct term for Art collections, then that should be an option in their data entry screen. We shouldn't require data entry personnel or god forbid, students, to try to guess what the name of a part or attribute would be. That leads to incorrect guesses and error.

Unframing is different from replacing an an old cracked jar with a new jar or lid or remounting a degraded slide-mounted specimen on a new slide with new media. Again, isn't this really an interface issue, requiring collection type specific interface vocab but not a change of the underlying data structure? This could all be in part attribute table "rehouse" but the art collection data interface could call it "reframe" and search on "reframe" while the parasitology divisions could use "change container" and "remount"? If not, then perhaps we need separate terms after all. I need to be able to specifically find slides that have been remounted, to know which ones were done when by whom and how many are left to be done, and separately search for jars in the fluid collection that need to be replaced or have already been recontained. I imagine Art needs the same thing for unframing.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:49 PM, krgomez notifications@github.com wrote:

It seems like, if I'm reading all of this correctly, that this would be best as a part attribute? This would work for us.

Also, would the frame be most immediate the container for a work of art? Couldn't an art collection make use of containers in that way as well?

Sure, or the frame (mount, mat, whatever) could be another part (perhaps in a hierarchy), or whatever. I have no idea, but I suspect there are frames-and-such which are considered "part of the specimen" and those which are not - if that's true, cataloging the frame-like-thing (or not) could help clarify the data.

We are not currently using containers. I think maybe a frame could be considered a container. Sometimes a frame is really important to the object and kind of part of it (like older paintings in their original frames) but sometimes a frame really is just the housing like a box would be. Because the art collection is not barcoded yet, we haven't thought about containers. If we were using a container for a barcode for framed artworks however, we would be using a tag as the container. I'm also not quite getting how you would attach a preservation need to a container, if that is actually what is being suggested, I'm not sure.

I don't see the break between "unframe" and "rehouse." I don't particularly care what the vocabulary is, but I do care about having two ways of saying the same thing - that'll prevent accuracy.

Well the reason I was thinking it would be useful for us to have rehouse and unframe separate is because it would be very useful for us to be able to search for unframe specifcally. But yes unframe really does does pretty much mean rehouse so we don't really need unframe I guess. I think you can search a part attribute and a remark for it together? If so we could search for it with a remark.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-406745421, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hGZzFiwqQQtT-RiluwGvDsR0iB9bks5uIl54gaJpZM4TzWi9 .

[marecaguthrie]

As long as we can have a way to track or search how many objects and which objects need the unframing (not just everything that needs rehousing in general) then I’m a happy camper.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:49 PM krgomez notifications@github.com wrote:

It seems like, if I'm reading all of this correctly, that this would be best as a part attribute? This would work for us.

Also, would the frame be most immediate the container for a work of art? Couldn't an art collection make use of containers in that way as well?

Sure, or the frame (mount, mat, whatever) could be another part (perhaps in a hierarchy), or whatever. I have no idea, but I suspect there are frames-and-such which are considered "part of the specimen" and those which are not - if that's true, cataloging the frame-like-thing (or not) could help clarify the data.

We are not currently using containers. I think maybe a frame could be considered a container. Sometimes a frame is really important to the object and kind of part of it (like older paintings in their original frames) but sometimes a frame really is just the housing like a box would be. Because the art collection is not barcoded yet, we haven't thought about containers. If we were using a container for a barcode for framed artworks however, we would be using a tag as the container. I'm also not quite getting how you would attach a preservation need to a container, if that is actually what is being suggested, I'm not sure.

I don't see the break between "unframe" and "rehouse." I don't particularly care what the vocabulary is, but I do care about having two ways of saying the same thing - that'll prevent accuracy.

Well the reason I was thinking it would be useful for us to have rehouse and unframe separate is because it would be very useful for us to be able to search for unframe specifcally. But yes unframe really does does pretty much mean rehouse so we don't really need unframe I guess. I think you can search a part attribute and a remark for it together? If so we could search for it with a remark.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-406745421, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AlUox--z5Q59ZwKdpoQen-zahFU-TawJks5uIl54gaJpZM4TzWi9 .

-- Sent from Gmail Mobile

[marecaguthrie]

Oops! I sent my message before I read yours Mariel. I like what you are saying. Is this possible?

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mareca Guthrie mrguthrie@alaska.edu wrote:

As long as we can have a way to track or search how many objects and which objects need the unframing (not just everything that needs rehousing in general) then I’m a happy camper.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:49 PM krgomez notifications@github.com wrote:

It seems like, if I'm reading all of this correctly, that this would be best as a part attribute? This would work for us.

Also, would the frame be most immediate the container for a work of art? Couldn't an art collection make use of containers in that way as well?

Sure, or the frame (mount, mat, whatever) could be another part (perhaps in a hierarchy), or whatever. I have no idea, but I suspect there are frames-and-such which are considered "part of the specimen" and those which are not - if that's true, cataloging the frame-like-thing (or not) could help clarify the data.

We are not currently using containers. I think maybe a frame could be considered a container. Sometimes a frame is really important to the object and kind of part of it (like older paintings in their original frames) but sometimes a frame really is just the housing like a box would be. Because the art collection is not barcoded yet, we haven't thought about containers. If we were using a container for a barcode for framed artworks however, we would be using a tag as the container. I'm also not quite getting how you would attach a preservation need to a container, if that is actually what is being suggested, I'm not sure.

I don't see the break between "unframe" and "rehouse." I don't particularly care what the vocabulary is, but I do care about having two ways of saying the same thing - that'll prevent accuracy.

Well the reason I was thinking it would be useful for us to have rehouse and unframe separate is because it would be very useful for us to be able to search for unframe specifcally. But yes unframe really does does pretty much mean rehouse so we don't really need unframe I guess. I think you can search a part attribute and a remark for it together? If so we could search for it with a remark.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-406745421, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AlUox--z5Q59ZwKdpoQen-zahFU-TawJks5uIl54gaJpZM4TzWi9 .

-- Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- Sent from Gmail Mobile

[dustymc]

use collection type specific vocabulary

incorrect guesses and error

Those are very closely related. If you can draw a hard line between art and not-art, you probably don't need collection-specific vocabulary anyway (eg, herp collections don't see tragus length, mammal collections don't see SVL, the folks who don't use the term don't care what we call it). If you can't, then this is simply another case of denormalization - users want widgets with BLA, but it turns out widgets are interesting things and have been cataloged in art collections (as BLA) and ethnology collections (BLAH) and archeology collections (BLAUGH) and etc. Users don't care about the administrative stuff, they just want widgets. If we're saying the same thing many different ways, nobody can find what they're looking for.

search a part attribute and a remark for it together

Current forms should never drive data modeling. Part attributes and their remarks are stored in the same row/are part of the same data object, and they can be queried as such (whether the current forms support that or not). If you record the data improperly (eg, record something about a part against the specimen), those data are just gone - there is no link to follow, and no form action can fix that. (And sometimes nobody cares - having something technically "wrong" but still useful and usable is sometimes the best we can do with what we have.)

If the frame is important, perhaps it should be cataloged as it's own part. (Which may or may not do anything useful for this particular issue.)

ANYWAY - I think we're settled on this as a part attribute (which is structurally "correct" so yay) - right?

We need a new entry "preservation need" in http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTSPECPART_ATTRIBUTE_TYPE. I need a definition for that. ("Flags a part as in need of preservation action."??)

We also need a new table ctpreservation_need, which will provide vocabulary for the new part attribute via http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTSPEC_PART_ATT_ATT. I'm not sure I get the values yet - from https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-387851025 we have:

• professional conservator - Object needs examination by a professional conservator.
• needs further assessment - Preservation need is undetermined. Object needs further assessment by a collections care specialist.

Are those really two things? They both seem to be variations of "need help from someone more knowledgeable than {attribute_determiner}" to me.

• unframe - Object needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame.
• rehouse - The current storage housing for the object is inadequate. The object needs new housing (box, folder, matting, framing, etc.) or improvements to the current housing should be made.

I think the decision is to merge these into "rehouse," correct?

• other - The object requires other preventative conservation measures.

What is the intent of this? Can we split it into a finite list of specific needs?

[krgomez]

For "unframe" vs. "rehouse", the art collection preference would be to keep both. It would work to use "rehouse" while making a remark like "unframe" in order to search for the objects that specifically need unframing, but it seems like it would be more straightforward to just have access to the term "unframe" from the code table.

For "professional conservator" vs. "needs further assessment", these are different things and both would probably get used, but if I had to choose I would rather keep professional conservator, being the more specific need that we might want to search for. @AJLinn? @marecaguthrie?

For "other", the only other specific need that I can think of right now is dusting or other minor cleaning. I'm not thinking of other preservation needs that could be separated out. @AJLinn? @marecaguthrie?

[marecaguthrie]

Agreed- Would like for us to have both unframe and rehouse as unframing is a specific need that I need a way to keep track of and need to be able to search for.

Also agree that "professional conservator" and "needs further assessment" are different things and I'd like both but "professional conservator" would be the most important.

Also can't think of other preservation needs other than minor cleaning/dusting, but that would certainly be valuable to be able to track!

Thanks for resurrecting this discussion.

[dustymc]

To be clear, my interest (not just here) is in having clear terms that do what you want them to do. If we have A and B then a user should know exactly what we mean by them, and picking one or the other should not be an arbitrary choice.

Adding terms most anywhere is generally trivial after the framework it set up - there's no need to think of everything now.

If someone will provide terms and definitions down here (are we still happy with https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-387851025?) I can make this happen.

[krgomez]

To be clear, my interest (not just here) is in having clear terms that do what you want them to do. If we have A and B then a user should know exactly what we mean by them, and picking one or the other should not be an arbitrary choice.

Totally see your point. I removed "other" and "needs further assesssment". We wouldn't use these right now to start with, so maybe they could just be added in later if we are finding that they are needed. I added in "minor cleaning" which I could see us using. @AJLinn does this work, or would you rather keep "needs further assessment" and/or "other"? I also added in "refill", "replace solution" and "remount" that @campmlc requested above. I can't tell from the discussion if you decided on wanting these afterall or not.

New part attribute: preservation need - flags a part as in need of preservation action.

Table values: professional conservator - Object needs examination by a professional conservator. rehouse - The current storage housing for the object is inadequate. Needs new housing (box, folder, matting, framing, etc.) or improvements to the current housing. unframe - Object needs to be removed from its current mat and/or frame. minor cleaning - Object needs minor cleaning such as dusting. refill - Refill with existing preservative solution. replace solution - Requires a change of preservative solution. remount - Replace existing mount and mounting medium; for example, microscope slides.

[dustymc]

I removed attribute preservation need and added http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTPART_PRESERVATION_NEED and http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTSPEC_PART_ATT_ATT

[AJLinn]

Also agree that "professional conservator" and "needs further assessment" are different things

These are different things and both need to be there. A student or volunteer could mark an item as "needs further assessment" (which I'd actually prefer to be "assessment required") and that could tell me, or any collections care professional, that they need to evaluate that item and use their higher-level determination to decide whether the item truly needs to be assessed by a "professional conservator". Because many of ARctos' organizations (including UAM) don't have conservators on staff, we have to hire them as contractors. When they come, we need a truly rarified list of items that they can assess... not thousands of things our students have marked as "professional conservator" because they don't necessarily know the difference between what we can do and what we need to hire out for.

It's all part of the triage process. needs assessment --> minor cleaning/rehouse/unframe -->professional conservator

Thanks. Sorry for the slow response...

[dustymc]

This (until somebody uses the values, anyway) should all be manageable in the code table editor now. I'll bow out of the terminology discussion, but please try to keep the whole "ambiguous==evil" thing in mind.

Also note that as part attributes the metadata are searchable as well - I'm not sure if the UI supports that at the moment, but that's minor details. You could search for "professional conservator" (according to AGENT after DATE) or professional conservator (but ignore the ones by AGENT) or whatever.

[marecaguthrie]

needs assessment --> minor cleaning/rehouse/unframe -->professional conservator Yes! Love this.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:33 AM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:

This (until somebody uses the values, anyway) should all be manageable in the code table editor now. I'll bow out of the terminology discussion, but please try to keep the whole "ambiguous==evil" thing in mind.

Also note that as part attributes the metadata are searchable as well - I'm not sure if the UI supports that at the moment, but that's minor details. You could search for "professional conservator" (according to AGENT after DATE) or professional conservator (but ignore the ones by AGENT) or whatever.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1517#issuecomment-463739401, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AlUoxxuFup1GujaFOG-a3fia2od2k1ZAks5vNawGgaJpZM4TzWi9 .

-- Mareca Guthrie Curator of Fine Arts & Associate Professor of Art University of Alaska Museum of the North 1962 Yukon Drive P.O. Box 756960 Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 mrguthrie@alaska.edu

University of Alaska Museum of the North: www.uaf.edu/museum UAF Art Department: https://www.uaf.edu/art/ https://www.uaf.edu/art/ Colors of Nature: http://www.colorsofnature.org/

[AJLinn]

Added "needs assessment" to CTPART_PRESERVATION_NEED; added description; minor edit to description for "minor cleaning"