Request - use condition code table value: additional notification and attribution use conditions

happiah-madson commented 2 days ago

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 "additional notification and attribution use conditions" for use_condition.

code table value: additional notification and attribution use conditions
_description of goals: summarize use conditions for materials. In this specific case, describe the situation where a third party must be consulted before a loan is made AND loan recipients must give attribution to a third party in order to work with materials.
link to valid source: n/a but the closest might be CC licensing?
definition: In order to use materials associated with this record, the loaning institution must get approval from a third party (i.e., the material donor) AND loan recipients must provide attribution to a third party (i.e., not the loaning institution) in order to receive and/or use the materials. This approval and attribution is above and beyond the standard accession and loan terms set by the loaning institution.

@dustymc @campmlc

dustymc commented 2 days ago

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 also use a better separation from https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8315

happiah-madson commented 2 days ago

edits made above in original request!

I could also use a better separation from https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8315

In https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8315, no one else needs to be contacted. As a collection manager, I can write up loan papers "immediately" based on the information that I have and no one else needs to get involved. In this particular issue, I would want to flag materials that also require approval from a third party to a potential researcher to say, there may be delay in getting these materials, etc. etc. I may even want to reach out to that third party before responding to a request.

dustymc commented 2 days ago

also require approval

Then the term should be something like 'approval and notification' ?? Or "approval; notification" possibly? (And "notification" or "attribution"; are we looking for 'hey yo i used your rats' or something a bit more 'that-rat-in-this-pub'?) I suspect this will end up with a few terms combined in several ways, then multiple permits combined in various UI, so some formula that supports lists-of-lists is probably necessary.

happiah-madson commented 2 days ago

Acknowledged. My experience with check boxes in our old database is that they are regularly forgotten or ignored, so I'd kind of like to stay away from those, if possible.

dustymc commented 2 days ago

Yes, no checkboxes, this will be (unless someone enlightens me in the hopefully-kinda-near future!) terms in a code table, zero or one of which may be attached to any given permit.

I was only trying to say that some of those terms (like this one) are "combo-terms" - "half" of this proposed term is also, I believe, reused for https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8315 - and I suspect that will be a common thing when/if this grows.

Additionally, there's a (somewhat vague at the moment) request to have these terms in various UI, and accessions may have any number of permits. (Many existing have dozens.) Therefore, I suspect that UI will have multiple terms - eg whatever this issue produces somehow joined with whatever https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8315 produces, for example. Preemptively choosing a format which anticipates that usage seems wise.

I hope that's a clarification. Possibly these (and https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8305) should be added to an AWG agenda?

happiah-madson commented 1 day ago

I was only trying to say that some of those terms (like this one) are "combo-terms" - "half" of this proposed term is also, I believe, reused for https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/8315 - and I suspect that will be a common thing when/if this grows.

Totally correct.

Preemptively choosing a format which anticipates that usage seems wise.

Extremely wise.

added to an AWG agenda?

I will add them now!

ArctosDB / arctos

Request - use condition code table value: additional notification and attribution use conditions #8316