Opinions on CT Loans (or any digital media loan really...)?

[ebraker]

I am creating some data loans in Arctos for recently requested CT scan downloads for media hosted in MorphoSource. Though MS handles all the approvals and downloading, I want to create data loans in Arctos to track usage/projects/resulting pubs.

As things stand at the moment, if I were to add items to a loan, I do not have a way to specifically point to the CT scan since it is not a part.

Potential options:

1. Request new code table value for preservation = media so that I can add a part 'whole organism (media)', with part_attribute_remark 'CT scan' . This however would mean that all my records have a bit of duplication since they already have attached media (URLs linked to MS), and adding a CT scan part would be replicating this information. It also means preparing two bulkloaders (media_metadata and parts for every specimen scanned on our project).
2. Figure out a way to add media records to loans via 'add items' [this feels the most appealing option to me]
3. Taking other ideas...

@dustymc @jldunnum @atrox10 or any other folks working on media loans - any ideas? How have you documented CT loans? (I of course can just add my whole organism parts but it would be nice to indicate the specific thing being loaned...).

[dustymc]

(1) but with https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecpart_attribute_type#representation is what we'd talked about previously. I don't think it's duplication, just being specific - but AFAIK this hasn't been used and it's often difficult to entirely grasp the situation without seeing it in action, so maybe. That would involve one more load, but maybe there's some magic around that too.

(2) would take some work, but doesn't seem technically implausible. This would be a weaker linkage between the loan and the catalog record - the Media would be on loan, nothing would or could prevent removing the link between it and the catalog record. I think that's probably wrong - users care about the critter, not the "representation" (same way most people who borrow liver don't much care about liver, it's just a proxy to the critter) which suggests this may not be an appropriate arrangement.

There might be an undiscovered (3) out there somewhere - neither of the above seems quite as obvious as they could be.

[jldunnum]

We haven't tracked the CT data through Arctos, just through the Morphosource download requests which we approve. So yeah, I don't have the answer either and this is the reason we are trying to archive these data in TACC and link through Arctos as opposed to Morphosource. At least we can track it then. I do like having a part to loan and track, "Whole organism (media)" but then we would also need "Skull (media)", and perhaps "skeleton, post cranial (media)", and "baculum (media)",.........

---

Jonathan L. Dunnum Ph.D. Senior Collection Manager Division of Mammals, Museum of Southwestern Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 (505) 277-9262 Fax (505) 277-1351

MSB Mammals website: http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/index.html Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MSBDivisionofMammals

Shipping Address: Museum of Southwestern Biology Division of Mammals University of New Mexico CERIA Bldg 83, Room 204 Albuquerque, NM 87131

---

From: dustymc @.> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:05 PM To: ArctosDB/arctos @.> Cc: Jonathan Dunnum @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [ArctosDB/arctos] Opinions on CT Loans (or any digital media loan really...)? (Issue #4014)

[EXTERNAL]

(1) but with https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecpart_attribute_type#representation is what we'd talked about previously. I don't think it's duplication, just being specific - but AFAIK this hasn't been used and it's often difficult to entirely grasp the situation without seeing it in action, so maybe. That would involve one more load, but maybe there's some magic around that too.

(2) would take some work, but doesn't seem technically implausible. This would be a weaker linkage between the loan and the catalog record - the Media would be on loan, nothing would or could prevent removing the link between it and the catalog record. I think that's probably wrong - users care about the critter, not the "representation" (same way most people who borrow liver don't much care about liver, it's just a proxy to the critter) which suggests this may not be an appropriate arrangement.

There might be an undiscovered (3) out there somewhere - neither of the above seems quite as obvious as they could be.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4014#issuecomment-946204474, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AED2PA3SCBWXX3HGK5JEZODUHSK2TANCNFSM5GHUOT6A. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOShttps://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Androidhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

[dustymc]

"Skull (media)", and perhaps "skeleton, post cranial (media)", and "baculum (media)",.........

Yes, that's what https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecpart_attribute_type#representation does.

[ebraker]

Thanks @dusty. Yes, (1) would be the representation route (left that piece out of my comment)...I think we still need preservation = 'media' to make it happen, so we can confirm this at the code table admin meeting this week. Also your points to (2) are taken and make sense.

@jldunnum good point.... parts can get a bit gnarly (but I guess that is inevitable/inherent to the process of doing all these value-add products). Thanks!

[dustymc]

we still need preservation = 'media'

No, representation does that (assuming I'm understanding what "that" is) - a preservation attribute would indicate something you've done to the representation (which isn't relevant with "cloud" media - it might be if you had a thumb drive or 35MM slide instead). We agreed to the new attribute rather than a new value of preservation just to make that possible. (Probably also makes it more discoverable/easier to filter, but maybe that's "just UI" too.)

[Jegelewicz]

I think we still need preservation = 'media' to make it happen

I thought that using "representation" and then "CTScan in remark for that attribute would work?

[Jegelewicz]

"Skull (media)", and perhaps "skeleton, post cranial (media)", and "baculum (media)",.........

We don't do that anymore. Part would be skull and the stuff in parenthesis is a part attribute of some sort.

[ebraker]

@Jegelewicz that works. I thought we' had talked about a 'media' value for preservation but we probably threw it out after some discussion ...

[campmlc]

I very much support tracking loans through parts. A CT image is essentially a child part of the whole organism, made when the whole organism was itself loaned. But regardless, using parts allows us to track how many times an image or it's child derivative was loaned. This would also enable linking pubs to parts as was previously discussed.

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 4:31 PM Jonathan Dunnum @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

We haven't tracked the CT data through Arctos, just through the Morphosource download requests which we approve. So yeah, I don't have the answer either and this is the reason we are trying to archive these data in TACC and link through Arctos as opposed to Morphosource. At least we can track it then. I do like having a part to loan and track, "Whole organism (media)" but then we would also need "Skull (media)", and perhaps "skeleton, post cranial (media)", and "baculum (media)",.........

---

Jonathan L. Dunnum Ph.D. Senior Collection Manager Division of Mammals, Museum of Southwestern Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 (505) 277-9262 Fax (505) 277-1351

MSB Mammals website: http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/index.html Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MSBDivisionofMammals

Shipping Address: Museum of Southwestern Biology Division of Mammals University of New Mexico CERIA Bldg 83, Room 204 Albuquerque, NM 87131

---

From: dustymc @.> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:05 PM To: ArctosDB/arctos @.> Cc: Jonathan Dunnum @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [ArctosDB/arctos] Opinions on CT Loans (or any digital media loan really...)? (Issue #4014)

[EXTERNAL]

(1) but with https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecpart_attribute_type#representation is what we'd talked about previously. I don't think it's duplication, just being specific - but AFAIK this hasn't been used and it's often difficult to entirely grasp the situation without seeing it in action, so maybe. That would involve one more load, but maybe there's some magic around that too.

(2) would take some work, but doesn't seem technically implausible. This would be a weaker linkage between the loan and the catalog record - the Media would be on loan, nothing would or could prevent removing the link between it and the catalog record. I think that's probably wrong - users care about the critter, not the "representation" (same way most people who borrow liver don't much care about liver, it's just a proxy to the critter) which suggests this may not be an appropriate arrangement.

There might be an undiscovered (3) out there somewhere - neither of the above seems quite as obvious as they could be.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub< https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4014#issuecomment-946204474>, or unsubscribe< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AED2PA3SCBWXX3HGK5JEZODUHSK2TANCNFSM5GHUOT6A

. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS< https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android< https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub .

— 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/4014#issuecomment-946219557, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBEB3755MQ6VLSVUHHTUHSN3ZANCNFSM5GHUOT6A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

[AJLinn]

I agree with Mariel. I don’t see this as being any different from any of the dozens of media loans I make to authors every year who reproduce images of our objects in publications around the world. This is also why I use media as a part, whether it’s a 35mm slide (or the scan of that slide) or a born-digital studio shot high res photograph of an object. When I pull up the catalog record I can instantly see how many times a single object has been used for publications because the media part has multiple loans listed in the loan column, and hopefully the publications are also listed under citations! (And this is also why I don’t think representation as a part attribute is the best way to document images or other forms of media related to an object.)

[ebraker]

@AJLinn after playing around with the different options, it does seem that using part=media is the most simple route and shows up on my record and loan invoice they way I want it. In concept I like pointing to the specific part and adding a part_attribute of 'representation,' but it also comes across as if I have two skulls for one individual if a user doesn't read the fine print. (I guess ultimately there is flexibility to whichever approach works best for a collection...).

[dustymc]

flexibility

From a user's perspective, "flexibility" is generally expressed as an inability to find relevant data. Some will search for media parts, some will search for representation parts, few/none will do both.

@ccicero IIRC the representation attribute was for you, can we somehow reconcile this? @jegelewicz the CT says you made this, but I'm not sure I understand the definition and Include the GitHub discussion link/URL in the definition. didn't happen so ???

[Jegelewicz]

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3164 added to definition.

[Jegelewicz]

I agree that having two ways to do things is confusing and will result in missing information, but I am not currently seeing a clear path here - or the one I do see has been thrown out as too much work/also confusing. I think @ebraker stated it:

I have a digitial CT Scan of a skull that I want to track in a loan.

part = skull disposition = in collection (and if the skull is elsewhere, it needs some other disposition, but the disposition code table is a mess - https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctcoll_obj_disp

part = media parent part = skull part remark = CTScan

[Jegelewicz]

I like pointing to the specific part and adding a part_attribute of 'representation,' but it also comes across as if I have two skulls for one individual if a user doesn't read the fine print.

This statement makes me think we need a disposition other than "in collection" that more directly demonstrates that this is not an actual skull in the collection, then preservation would be "CT Scan"

I liked the "representation" attribute, but it is a very round-a-bout way of getting the idea across.

The question will remain - how do I find all the skulls and all the skull-based media?

[dustymc]

part = media parent part = skull

That isn't great when you send out a skull and get back a CT scan (photo, cast, whatever) of the auditory bulla, but maybe the remark is sufficient to cover that as well.

This statement makes me think we need a disposition other than "in collection" that more directly demonstrates that this is not an actual skull in the collection, then preservation would be "CT Scan"

Consider:

1. It's a cast (not all representations are "in the cloud"),
2. the cast is in the collection, and
3. the cast itself has a preservation history

The "part name of what's being represented plus dedicated attribute" really seems to be the only approach that covers such a situation. I'm not suggesting it doesn't warp my brain a bit, but it also doesn't confound any data - it's recoverable/reversible if someone comes up with a better idea at some point.

One option might be to just periodically toss a "representation" attribute on all parts of type "media," which would make them available to a "[is|isnot] representation" search. (I'm not sure that doesn't have it's own fatal flaws, but I can't quite articulate them at the moment...)

[dustymc]

Merging with https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/discussions/5378 - I think the options are

1. Clearly articulate what needs done, come up with some structure that can do that, or
2. Do something that can never be entirely justified and hope it doesn't find a way to bite you