Request - use condition code table value: no additional use conditions

[happiah-madson]

NEEDED:

• [ ] description of goals ("add a row to a table" is not a valid goal!)
• [ ] link to valid ("scholarly" - not a dictionary) authority, ideally a prescriptive source
• [ ] Functional definition (focused on Arctos, not the concept in general)
• [ ] @ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators approval (this is all within the scope of the concept's definition, links are appropriate, there are no mis-spellings, this does not overlap other concepts, etc.)
• [ ] @ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators approval this is all within the scope of the concept's definition, links are appropriate, there are no mis-spellings, this does not overlap other concepts, etc.)
• [ ] DBA - is functionally acceptable, properly scoped, clearly defined, within constraints, etc.
• [ ] DBA - sufficient code/resources/handlers exist

---

Help us understand your request (check below):

• [x] a new term for data entry or management

Describe what you're trying to do Per https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8305 I am requesting "no additional use conditions" for use_condition.

• code table value: no additional use conditions
• description of goals: summarize use conditions for materials. In this specific case, describe the situation where there are no additional use conditions for materials
• link to valid source: n/a but the closest might be CC licensing?
• definition: there are no use conditions on any of the materials associated with the records beyond standard accession and loan terms set by the holding institution.

@dustymc @campmlc

[dustymc]

This isn't actionable until https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8305 is addresses so I'm not going to transfer to CTs yet, but we can get everything ready here. (@mkoo or CT admins feel free to change that, I'm still struggling with the timing/conditions of that transfer)

• @happiah-madson please clarify goals (summarize permit conditions??)
• this is administrative, I don't think we need or will find much of a reference

I could use more explanation: why is this probably-default-condition necessary?

[happiah-madson]

I will add goals to my initial comment for ease of tracking this issue.

[happiah-madson]

It's because I want to know that someone has done this work to establish conditions of the permit/document/terms. If the field were blank, I would not be able to differentiate data not entered from no additional terms.

[dustymc]

differentiate data not entered from no additional terms.

Gotcha, 'have already dug through paperwork' vs 'need to dig...' - seems useful but not entirely clear (maybe just to me) from the definition.

[happiah-madson]

fair, how about

term: use conditions assessed and there are no additional use conditions definition: After evaluating this permit, a collection staff member has asserted that there are no use conditions on any of the materials associated with the records beyond standard accession and loan terms set by the holding institution.

The term is super wordy...so if you can think of ways to pare it down, I'm all ears.