search

chin-rcip / collections-model

Linked Open Data Development at the Canadian Heritage Information Network - Développement en données ouvertes et liées au Réseau canadien d'information sur le patrimoine
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
12 stars 1 forks source link

Should Cataloguers be documented in the Record pattern? #34

Open stephenhart8 opened 4 years ago

stephenhart8 commented 4 years ago

For the moment, as discussed issue #10 , the museum contributing to an aggregator institution is recorded in the Record Pattern. Here again: CiC_Issue10-example2-2

The question is: should we also document the cataloguer who documented the record when it is coming from a museum? The Record would be created by Person A, and the whole dataset would be in the Named Graph of Museum A. I see no problems of doing so.

Habennin commented 4 years ago

If the cataloguer info is there, why not? Except, perhaps it is too identifying in a linked data environment? In Europe with the new personal information law (GDPR) this would be illegal.

stephenhart8 commented 4 years ago

Those legal questions need to be tackled at some point, definitely. In the mean time, I think we should keep the option of documenting the cataloger.

KarineLeonardBrouillet commented 4 years ago

Considering we have privacy and legal concerns pertaining to this issue we will explore it further with experts on the matter. In the meantime, there will be no record of information pertaining to cataloguers.

illip commented 4 years ago

@stephenhart8 @KarineLeonardBrouillet at least, could we add the cataloguer's appellation? Just want to be sure that we track the minimal allowed info.

KarineLeonardBrouillet commented 4 years ago

I guess it is a case of authorship v. privacy? From what I understand (and I am not a lawyer) it would be acceptable under Canadian law for public servants (https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/), but might not be under European law (https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is-personal-data) so if we want a dataset to be universally compliant I would guess no? Again, I am not a lawyer...

stephenhart8 commented 4 years ago

I would follow Karine on that topic. It seems safer not to mention the cataloguer in the record pattern. I don't think it offers valuable information on the actor that would require the risk.

illip commented 4 years ago

Ok, we should play it safe, so I would recommend to:

  1. Mention in the TM that we won't model cataloguers' information and that we will continue to investigate the legal aspect. Perhaps, the "to be discussed" section on page 20 is sufficient.
  2. Close this issue and open another one about this legal concerns. (or just rename this issue?)
KarineLeonardBrouillet commented 4 years ago

It is already mentioned in the TM (p. 20):

Whether it would be useful to use the same pattern to document non-aggregating contributors, such as a cataloguer responsible for the documentation of a record in an institution, is under discussion and your input on this matter would be useful. CHIN wants to explore the legal and ethical concerns of displaying personal information of individuals and will examine those with relevant experts. In the meantime, such information will not be recorded.

:)

illip commented 4 years ago

For the moment, this section is embedded in a "to be discussed" section. I would recommend to remove our current decision from the section, something like:

In the text: "The information pertaining to cataloguers won't be recorded for the moment due to legal concerns but the pattern will allow this kind of information."

In the "to be discussed" section: "CHIN wants to explore the legal and ethical concerns of displaying personal information about individuals and will examine those with relevant experts. Any inputs could be made in Github Issue # ??."