Request - Clarifying when to use encumberances vs permits

[happiah-madson]

Help us understand your request (check below):

• [ ] search or data request (help with SQL or provide the specific fields you are trying to retrieve for your collection)
• [ ] add a new Github user to the Arctos Users team
• [ ] a new barcode series
• [ ] a new term for data entry or management
• [ ] a change or new report or label
• [ ] update to an Agent (split, merge, or other type of change)
• [ ] bulkload changes (to Agents, Identifiers, etc that are not already available as a bulkloading tool)
• [x] new feature or otherwise a good idea to make Arctos even better
• [ ] quarantine taxon name and suggested replacement (please supply links)
• [ ] other

Describe what you're trying to do Following the permit committee meetings, I am seeking to clarify and standardize the use of permits vs. the use of encumbrances. (Notes from the meeting available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10u_2CXNaTyDIoO9DYOlEGAGLDJ946sO0MVQ35XaCk5s/edit?tab=t.0)

Based on the conversation, we came to the following understandings:

1. Encumbrances have to do with the Arctos UI and control what data the public can and cannot interact with. This means that they control what information makes it to filtered flat, is viewable on a record if a user is not logged in, or is sent to GBIF and other aggregators. You can encumber any field(s) and when fields are encumbered, they are not publicly viewable.
2. Permits will now contain a new fields (use_condition and use_condition_summary) that describe usage conditions. These fields are for any materials and the conditions and/or restrictions on their use. The usage condition fields will be viewable in flat (for curators) but NOT filtered flat (for the public).

This means that the "restrict usage" field for encumbrances is perhaps better placed in permits+usage conditions as the intent is to restrict the usage of materials.

Our hope is that this clarifies when it is appropriate to use an encumbrance (i.e., you don't want the public to see geographic coordinates or the value of an object) vs. permits + usage conditions (i.e., when you loan a sample, the recipient must acknowledge the field collector in any publications).

@dustymc @campmlc please correct me if I have mischaracterized any aspect of our conversation!

[dustymc]

I think that's accurate, but it also needs to involve a migration: restrict usage [ link ], and the encumbrances using it, need to be removed or transferred to permits. I'm happy to help move stuff, but I'm not sure if I should just do that or if this needs an AWG meeting announcement or ???

encumber any field(s)

For clarity: Records may be encumbered, or certain data within a record may be encumbered.

don't want the public to see geographic coordinates

See also https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8058 (there's now a better way to restrict place information, I'd like to remove that encumbrance).

I'll start cleanup by addressing my encumbrances. @camwebb @StefanieBond here are a couple old "problem lists" that are still hanging around for whatever reason, I'll delete my encumbrances in a few days, I think this is all of the information in case there's still anything left to do (probably not?): temp_dlmruencs.csv.zip

[happiah-madson]

I'm happy to help move stuff, but I'm not sure if I should just do that or if this needs an AWG meeting announcement or ???

@mkoo @ewommack can you advise on the best way to communicate about this?

[camwebb]

@dustymc 1. We can refind the duplicate ALAACs without the encumbrance 'ALA:DuplicateALANumber', and 2. I deleted the record in the encumbrance 'delete dups', so all good for you to delete.

[dustymc]

Here are remaining restrict usage encumbrances:

temp_ruencs.csv.zip

Looks like most are unused/expired deletion placeholders, adding to AWG for hopeful quick and painless transfer of the active/used to permits (or I can fall back to mask record if that's not as smooth as I think it should be).

[campmlc]

I'm assuming we are still going to be using Delete Record encumbrances as an ongoing bin to add records for deletion? If so, all the delete record encumbrances or mask record encumbrances here should be converted to mask record encumbrance type and left as is. If they have an expired date so be it - forcing users to choose an expiration date for ongoing encumbrance use is problematic.

For the MSB encumbrances requiring attribution (below) these can all be converted to permits. Require CIIBA Citation as Funding Source Mariel L. Campbell Require NSF# Citation for Loan Mariel L. Campbell restrict usage for ADFG marten Mariel L. Campbell Restrict usage for BCP loan items Mariel L. Campbell Restrict usage for loan items Mariel L. Campbell

For the UAM encumbrance (UAM specimens at MSB Aren M. Gunderson), @amgunderson should respond, but this is similar to a mask record and/or delete records encumbrance and my opinion is that it should be treated the same as the delete record encumbrances above and left as is.