Make dams:license display publicly

[gamontoya]

Descriptive summary

Make CC licenses display in the object's metadata view.

Rationale

Ho Jung noted that the CC licenses to RDCP objects are not being displayed. If you log in to curator, it is displayed. Ryan thought that inserting dams:Permission=display in the RDF would solve the issue, but it did/does not.

<dams:permission> <dams:Permission> <dams:type>display</dams:type> </dams:Permission> </dams:permission>

[gamontoya]

@mcritchlow Can you assign to Longshou for when he's back from Code4Lib?

[lsitu]

@gamontoya Can you show me an example that is in question? Thanks.

[gamontoya]

@lsitu Yes, here is an example:

• http://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb78857130

[lsitu]

Thanks Gabriela. Yes, I see the weird issue with the license missing from the public view.

[lsitu]

@gamontoya It looks like that license, statute, and other_rights are displayed for curator only. Would you like to just make license for public view but leaving the other two for curator view only?

[gamontoya]

@lsitu Do you have examples of objects that use statute and other rights?

[lsitu]

@gamontoya I can't find any objects that use statute so I think we can just ignore it. Here is an example that has other rights: http://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb5257003c

[mcritchlow]

FWIW, I believe this call was made in an (old) JIRA ticket: https://lib-jira.ucsd.edu:8443/browse/DHH-225 Reading back through that though, it seems odd that we chose to made the license note curator only.

Tagging w/ this Sprint milestone

[remerjohnson]

Looking back through the archives, the display value for Permission might be misleading. From DOMM's LiSN, it seems to indicate display means UCSD-only, and is a separate notion from "visibility".

Unfortunately there are many old docs lying around and hard to tell which are definitive. I believe statute was never used because it was supposed to cover special cases like FERPA or attaching non-US statements. From the dams ontology:

A national or regional statute that pertains to content and typically limits access to it on some degree, e.g. Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which limits dissemination of student records for a specified period of time.

Also, I believe the CC licenses display publicly when you specify it as an override in DAMS Manager at time of ingest. This problem occurs when you edit the RDF, so might be sidestepping some logic somewhere (combined with above possibility of display actually limiting visibility).

[mcritchlow]

@remerjohnson Those classes can impact the access control state of an object, but not the display (or visibility) of individual properties. The display of individual properties is hard-coded, so to speak, in the application. As @lsitu noted above, at the moment only curators will be able to see those noted property values. Any overrides via DAMS Manager wouldn't have an impact.

I do agree that the display name can be misleading. I look forward to moving away from that set of classes and access control logic :)

[remerjohnson]

That gives me hope this can be solved easier than I expected. And also happy we'll have a better system for this soon.

[lsitu]

@gamontoya @remerjohnson Do we need to add OtherRights note for public view or not? I think we have more than 5000 objects that have OtherRights which will override the object access, but only those metadataDisplay object will have a note like "Please contact Mandeville Special Collections & Archives at spcoll@ucsd.edu or (858) 534-2533 for more information about this object." that is displayed on the curator view at this time. With the current damspas implementation, if we decide to add OtherRights for the public view, only those objects with metadataDisplay access will have a OtherRights note to be displayed on the object viewer.

[gamontoya]

@remerjohnson @arwenhutt Are there cases where the otherRights is private info?

[gamontoya]

@lsitu Wouldn't this be an example of something we would not want to display publicly?

<dams:otherRightsNote>Suppress public discovery</dams:otherRightsNote>

[remerjohnson]

@gamontoya @lsitu I didn't know we still had otherRightsNote... it wasn't in the Access Override Mapping so is out of sight/mind. Maybe other DOMM people would know more

[ghost]

We don't need to display otherRightsNote if it's something like "Please contact Mandeville Special Collections..." because we have contact info in "Digital Object Made Available By"

I bet most otherRightsNote values are not very useful and do not need to be displayed.

[gamontoya]

@lsitu I agree with Greg so let's not display otherRights notes.

[lsitu]

@gamontoya Sure. Do we need to remove otherRights notes from the curator view or leave it as is for now?

[gamontoya]

@lsitu No. Please leave as is - curator view. Thanks.

[lsitu]

Okay, I've created PR https://github.com/ucsdlib/damspas/pull/290 to make dams:license display publicly and leave otherRights as is in the curator view. Thank you all.