search

WGBH / PBCore2.0

Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project
http://www.pbcore.org
33 stars 9 forks source link

new element for acquisition? #73

Open Rowntree opened 10 years ago

Rowntree commented 10 years ago

Knowing where an asset came from (and how it was acquired it) can be very import. I am at a loss as how to convey this in the current version of PBCore. The source of acquisition of a item does not fit entirely with "rights" or "creator" as the person or organization from which materials were obtained may not be the creator nor hold any copyrights (although it could help us as a starting point in locating a rights owner in the cases where copyrights are unknown).

An "annotation" attribute would definitely be useful if this became an element and adding "acquisition" to the vocabulary of attribute dateType would be helpful as well.

Thanks, David

caseyedavis12 commented 10 years ago

+1

From: Rowntree notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 7:38 AM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto:PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com> Subject: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

Knowing where an asset came from (and how it was acquired it) can be very import. I am at a loss as how to convey this in the current version of PBCore. The source of acquisition of a item does not fit entirely with "rights" or "creator" as the person or organization from which materials were obtained may not be the creator nor hold any copyrights (although it could help us as a starting point in locating a rights owner in the cases where copyrights are unknown).

An "annotation" attribute would definitely be useful if this became an element and adding "acquisition" to the vocabulary of attribute dateType would be helpful as well.

Thanks, David

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73.

awead commented 10 years ago

Might be useful to borrow something from EAD here.

AllisonAnn commented 10 years ago

Hi David -

I'm wondering - Is the concept of a "Credit Line" too formal (or limiting) for your needs? Because I think that some communities might want to have such a field to hold a formal credit line for the object, and also have an accompanying note field for more clarification about it.

<pbcoreAcquisition type="gift" source="" ref="" version="" annotation="">
                <creditLine>Gift of Mr. and Mrs. So and So, 2014</creditline>
                <note>See Donor file for more information</note>
</pbcoreAcquisition>
```xml

The more detailed acquisition information (source, date acquired, etc.)
that you are looking to export into pbcore though, is generally modeled in
a "lots/acquisition/incoming" type class of fields, which is defined
separately from the Objects class, and generally not shared with the public
(in some communities).  Many times, donors just wish to remain anonymous,
and in the case of unknown origins of collections material, most
institutions would rather not advertise this.

It doesn't mean though, that this information can't be exported to pbcore.

With that said, if the pbcore community decides that acquisition
information should be included in pbcore 3.0, we need to determine if that
information lives at the Intellectual content level, or, at the
Instantiation level (where some users are including copies of assets that
live at different locations/institutions, and therefore, may have different
acquisition source information), or, at both levels.

Allison

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Rowntree <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> Knowing where an asset came from (and how it was acquired it) can be very
> import. I am at a loss as how to convey this in the current version of
> PBCore. The source of acquisition of a item does not fit entirely with
> "rights" or "creator" as the person or organization from which materials
> were obtained may not be the creator nor hold any copyrights (although it
> could help us as a starting point in locating a rights owner in the cases
> where copyrights are unknown).
>
> An "annotation" attribute would definitely be useful if this became an
> element and adding "acquisition" to the vocabulary of attribute dateType
> would be helpful as well.
>
> Thanks, David
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73>.
>
Rowntree commented 10 years ago

Hi Adam,

Thanks. I like the EAD suggestion and the tag (Acquisition Information) seems right. The fact that it is comparable to the data element 3.2.4 in ISAD(G) is an added bonus. Given that chain of custody ownership is important it also pairs nicely with the Custodial History element .

Allison, I like your "credit line" concept and see how many communities would want to have that field. However, for the communities I am working with (judicial records) this would be less appropriate. Materials are often obtained through loans, donations (produced as evidence for a case), materials can be seized, obtained through a judge's order, etc.

I definitely see it as being at the instantiation level.

Thanks, David

AllisonAnn commented 10 years ago

It may work better then for people, if we created a "statement" element, instead of a "creditLine" element, and documented that the field could be used for credit lines if necessary.

<pbcoreAcquisition type="gift" source="" ref="" version="" annotation="">
                <statement>Gift of Mr. and Mrs. So and So, 2014</statement>
                <note>See Donor file for more information</note>
</pbcoreAcquisition>
```xml

The following are acquisition type terms that I commonly use, which may be helpful, if we adopt this new set of elements: 

Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown

I agree that Acquisition makes sense at the Instantiation level, especially if the pbcore model remains FRBR-like only.  However, if the CIDOC / CRM model for physical works is adopted as a pbcoreObjectClass option, than Acquisition would need to be available at the Intellectual content (Physical Object - parent) level.  See issue 52.
lelayz commented 10 years ago

Just to bring this back to the world of broadcast video: acquisition often means licensed.

Thus, a repository has a physical tape or a digital file of a complete program that they can air for a certain number of times within a specified time period and/or geographic area.

Often, they keep the tape or file and if they want to rerun the program, they will renew the license.

This means that the credit line is the copyright/owner and a tag about the presenting station.

Although this is the case with most Masterpiece Theatre programs, I am thinking of a lot of local programs that smaller stations may have licensed to air and may be in their holdings.

Just another term: license to add to the Acquisition element idea. Leah

From: AllisonAnn notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:48 AM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto:PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

It may work better then for people, if we created a "statement" element, instead of a "creditLine" element, and documented that the field could be used for credit lines if necessary.

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. So and So, 2014 See Donor file for more information 

The following are acquisition type terms that I commonly use, which may be helpful, if we adopt this new set of elements:

Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown

I agree that Acquisition makes sense at the Instantiation level, especially if the pbcore model remains FRBR-like only.  However, if the CIDOC / model for physical works is adopted as a pbcoreObjectClass option, than Acquisition would need to be available at the Intellectual content (Physical Object - parent) level.  See issue 52.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53893850>.
AllisonAnn commented 10 years ago

Hi Leah -

I think that the Rights/Summary area of pbcore might be a better place for licensing agreement/info. Does anyone else have an opinion about that?

The proposed Acquisition element/section for pbcore would be more about provenance I think.

While you are probably right that Credit Line can be used for many types of statements, depending on the collection and the cataloguers preference to map data where they see fit, in this context, I meant for Credit Line to be used for provenance type statements.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:57 AM, lelayz notifications@github.com wrote:

Just to bring this back to the world of broadcast video: acquisition often means licensed.

Thus, a repository has a physical tape or a digital file of a complete program that they can air for a certain number of times within a specified time period and/or geographic area.

Often, they keep the tape or file and if they want to rerun the program, they will renew the license.

This means that the credit line is the copyright/owner and a tag about the presenting station.

Although this is the case with most Masterpiece Theatre programs, I am thinking of a lot of local programs that smaller stations may have licensed to air and may be in their holdings.

Just another term: license to add to the Acquisition element idea. Leah

From: AllisonAnn notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>

Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" <reply@reply.github.com<mailto: reply@reply.github.com>> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:48 AM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" <PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto: PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com>> Subject: Re: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

It may work better then for people, if we created a "statement" element, instead of a "creditLine" element, and documented that the field could be used for credit lines if necessary.

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. So and So, 2014 See Donor file for more information 

The following are acquisition type terms that I commonly use, which may be
helpful, if we adopt this new set of elements:

Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown

I agree that Acquisition makes sense at the Instantiation level,
especially if the pbcore model remains FRBR-like only. However, if the
CIDOC / model for physical works is adopted as a pbcoreObjectClass option,
than Acquisition would need to be available at the Intellectual content
(Physical Object - parent) level. See issue 52.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53893850>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53894971>.
lelayz commented 10 years ago

Allison, True, the license rights info can go into Rights/Summary. But the idea of License needs to be part of Provenance … because the physical or digital asset may be in your possession but it doesn't fall into any of the previously stated terms:

Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown

I am bringing this up because I see licenses for local broadcast of programs and films from small and independent filmmakers. And we actually get people asking about those shows that may be in our possession. Never clear cut, is it?

Thanks!

Leah

From: AllisonAnn notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:33 PM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto:PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com> Cc: Leah Weisse leah_weisse@wgbh.org<mailto:leah_weisse@wgbh.org> Subject: Re: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

Hi Leah -

I think that the Rights/Summary area of pbcore might be a better place for licensing agreement/info. Does anyone else have an opinion about that?

The proposed Acquisition element/section for pbcore would be more about provenance I think.

While you are probably right that Credit Line can be used for many types of statements, depending on the collection and the cataloguers preference to map data where they see fit, in this context, I meant for Credit Line to be used for provenance type statements.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:57 AM, lelayz notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Just to bring this back to the world of broadcast video: acquisition often means licensed.

Thus, a repository has a physical tape or a digital file of a complete program that they can air for a certain number of times within a specified time period and/or geographic area.

Often, they keep the tape or file and if they want to rerun the program, they will renew the license.

This means that the credit line is the copyright/owner and a tag about the presenting station.

Although this is the case with most Masterpiece Theatre programs, I am thinking of a lot of local programs that smaller stations may have licensed to air and may be in their holdings.

Just another term: license to add to the Acquisition element idea. Leah

From: AllisonAnn notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>

Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com<mailto: reply@reply.github.commailto:reply@reply.github.com>> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:48 AM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto:PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto: PBCore2.0@noreply.github.commailto:PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com>> Subject: Re: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

It may work better then for people, if we created a "statement" element, instead of a "creditLine" element, and documented that the field could be used for credit lines if necessary.

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. So and So, 2014 See Donor file for more information 

The following are acquisition type terms that I commonly use, which may be
helpful, if we adopt this new set of elements:

Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown

I agree that Acquisition makes sense at the Instantiation level,
especially if the pbcore model remains FRBR-like only. However, if the
CIDOC / model for physical works is adopted as a pbcoreObjectClass option,
than Acquisition would need to be available at the Intellectual content
(Physical Object - parent) level. See issue 52.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53893850>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53894971>.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53913975.

AllisonAnn commented 10 years ago

Hi Leah -

No, nothing is ever clear cut.

Did you see however, that there is a proposed rightsType vocabulary (issue 62)? I would think that the "Terms of Use" type might work well for the license agreement for said resources.

But, in this context, if you didn't purchase the resource, and it wasn't loaned, transferred, or gifted to you by the filmmaker, do you feel strongly that "License[d]" is the accurate term to use? My concern is that people would become confused that the Acquisition elements would be the proper place to document the agreement specifics, when I really think that Rights would be the better, more standard, accurate place for it to live (IMHO).

You should double check the rightsType proposed terms, to see if there is anything you might want to add there, too, and whether or not Terms of Use fits for you, or, if the concept of License needs to be added in some form.

Allison

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:43 PM, lelayz notifications@github.com wrote:

Allison, True, the license rights info can go into Rights/Summary. But the idea of License needs to be part of Provenance … because the physical or digital asset may be in your possession but it doesn't fall into any of the previously stated terms:

Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown

I am bringing this up because I see licenses for local broadcast of programs and films from small and independent filmmakers. And we actually get people asking about those shows that may be in our possession. Never clear cut, is it?

Thanks!

Leah

From: AllisonAnn notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>

Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" <reply@reply.github.com<mailto: reply@reply.github.com>> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:33 PM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" <PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto: PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com>> Cc: Leah Weisse leah_weisse@wgbh.org<mailto:leah_weisse@wgbh.org> Subject: Re: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

Hi Leah -

I think that the Rights/Summary area of pbcore might be a better place for licensing agreement/info. Does anyone else have an opinion about that?

The proposed Acquisition element/section for pbcore would be more about provenance I think.

While you are probably right that Credit Line can be used for many types of statements, depending on the collection and the cataloguers preference to map data where they see fit, in this context, I meant for Credit Line to be used for provenance type statements.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:57 AM, lelayz <notifications@github.com<mailto: notifications@github.com>> wrote:

Just to bring this back to the world of broadcast video: acquisition often means licensed.

Thus, a repository has a physical tape or a digital file of a complete program that they can air for a certain number of times within a specified time period and/or geographic area.

Often, they keep the tape or file and if they want to rerun the program, they will renew the license.

This means that the credit line is the copyright/owner and a tag about the presenting station.

Although this is the case with most Masterpiece Theatre programs, I am thinking of a lot of local programs that smaller stations may have licensed to air and may be in their holdings.

Just another term: license to add to the Acquisition element idea. Leah

From: AllisonAnn <notifications@github.com<mailto: notifications@github.com>mailto:notifications@github.com>

Reply-To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" <reply@reply.github.com<mailto: reply@reply.github.com><mailto: reply@reply.github.commailto:reply@reply.github.com>> Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:48 AM To: "WGBH/PBCore2.0" <PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com<mailto: PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com><mailto: PBCore2.0@noreply.github.commailto:PBCore2.0@noreply.github.com>> Subject: Re: [PBCore2.0] new element for acquisition? (#73)

It may work better then for people, if we created a "statement" element, instead of a "creditLine" element, and documented that the field could be used for credit lines if necessary.

<pbcoreAcquisition type="gift" source="" ref="" version="" annotation="">

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. So and So, 2014 See Donor file for more information ``` xml The following are acquisition type terms that I commonly use, which may be helpful, if we adopt this new set of elements: Gift | Bequest | Purchase | Loan | Transfer | Unknown I agree that Acquisition makes sense at the Instantiation level, especially if the pbcore model remains FRBR-like only. However, if the CIDOC / model for physical works is adopted as a pbcoreObjectClass option, than Acquisition would need to be available at the Intellectual content (Physical Object - parent) level. See issue 52. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53893850>. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub . ```

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53913975>.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/73#issuecomment-53915056.