talk@lists.collectionspace.org
WE HAVE SUNSET THIS LISTSERV - Join us at collectionspace@lyrasislists.org
View all threadsCitation Authority
First, thanks to SMK for developing this!
A couple of initial comments from limited testing:
• Our users want to be able to attach a PDF of a cited paper to the
Citation Authority record, so let that be a +1 to allowing authority
records in general to have attached media.
• We will typically have 20-50 or more objects mentioned in a given cited
work (having >1000 mentioned in larger volumes is not uncommon), but with
citation records being an authority, these records (of objects mentioned
within a citation) would have to be entered singly (i.e., object by
object). A better model for us is that of the combined LMI record +
Location Authority. The Citation Authority would be the definitive record
of the published work, but then there would be something like a Citation
Procedure that would handle associating [1-n] objects with [single]
citations, and recording additional information about those associations
(in Table 4.5, pictured on page 435, etc.).
I'll continue testing and will send along any additional observations.
Thanks for this,
Michael
Just a clarification: we at PAHMA would definitely welcome and use the
Citation Authority as is. The comments I made below are suggestions for
how to build on the new Citation Authority to make it easier to use and
more fully functioned.
Thanks again to SMK!
Michael
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.edu
Date: Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Subject: Citation Authority
To: talk@lists.collectionspace.org
First, thanks to SMK for developing this!
A couple of initial comments from limited testing:
• Our users want to be able to attach a PDF of a cited paper to the
Citation Authority record, so let that be a +1 to allowing authority
records in general to have attached media.
• We will typically have 20-50 or more objects mentioned in a given cited
work (having >1000 mentioned in larger volumes is not uncommon), but with
citation records being an authority, these records (of objects mentioned
within a citation) would have to be entered singly (i.e., object by
object). A better model for us is that of the combined LMI record +
Location Authority. The Citation Authority would be the definitive record
of the published work, but then there would be something like a Citation
Procedure that would handle associating [1-n] objects with [single]
citations, and recording additional information about those associations
(in Table 4.5, pictured on page 435, etc.).
I'll continue testing and will send along any additional observations.
Thanks for this,
Michael
Michael,
I wonder if the Use of Collections procedure (not yet developed) would fill
this need? The idea is that you use it to track all the objects related to
an exhibit or research visit, but you could add another information group
easily enough to capture information about a publication.
Schema here:
http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Use+of+Collections+Schema
-M
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.edu wrote:
First, thanks to SMK for developing this!
A couple of initial comments from limited testing:
• Our users want to be able to attach a PDF of a cited paper to the
Citation Authority record, so let that be a +1 to allowing authority
records in general to have attached media.
• We will typically have 20-50 or more objects mentioned in a given cited
work (having >1000 mentioned in larger volumes is not uncommon), but with
citation records being an authority, these records (of objects mentioned
within a citation) would have to be entered singly (i.e., object by
object). A better model for us is that of the combined LMI record +
Location Authority. The Citation Authority would be the definitive record
of the published work, but then there would be something like a Citation
Procedure that would handle associating [1-n] objects with [single]
citations, and recording additional information about those associations
(in Table 4.5, pictured on page 435, etc.).
I'll continue testing and will send along any additional observations.
Thanks for this,
Michael
Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org
--
Megan Forbes
Director of the Collection
Museum of the Moving Image
36-01 35 Avenue Astoria, NY 11106
movingimage.us 718 777 6800
Direct 718 777 6834
Hi Megan,
We're planning to use Use of Collections to capture research visits (who
was doing the research, when, who did they work with, what objects did they
interact with), class visits, and possibly behind-the-scenes tours. If I'm
understanding you correctly, we might be able to use Use of Collections as
an information group to store info about objects that are published in a
Citation Authority terms, but my concern is that then Use of Collections
would become a strange mélange of records that would be problematic to
present (e.g., finding labels that would work across the different types of
uses) and search against.
Anyhow, that's just my first impression; I need to more fully consider
the issues before deciding for or against.
On a related note — if Use of Collections does fit "bibliographic use of
collections" as well as it fits "research use of collections", but if it
would be confusing to have the same procedure serve both purposes
simultaneously, would it be reasonable to "clone" Use of Collections and
configure the labels for each of the two copies to best fit their
respective use cases, and then do the minimum necessary renaming of files
to enable it to become a new procedure?
Michael
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Megan Forbes mforbes@movingimage.uswrote:
Michael,
I wonder if the Use of Collections procedure (not yet developed) would
fill this need? The idea is that you use it to track all the objects
related to an exhibit or research visit, but you could add another
information group easily enough to capture information about a publication.
Schema here:
http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Use+of+Collections+Schema
-M
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.eduwrote:
First, thanks to SMK for developing this!
A couple of initial comments from limited testing:
• Our users want to be able to attach a PDF of a cited paper to the
Citation Authority record, so let that be a +1 to allowing authority
records in general to have attached media.
• We will typically have 20-50 or more objects mentioned in a given cited
work (having >1000 mentioned in larger volumes is not uncommon), but with
citation records being an authority, these records (of objects mentioned
within a citation) would have to be entered singly (i.e., object by
object). A better model for us is that of the combined LMI record +
Location Authority. The Citation Authority would be the definitive record
of the published work, but then there would be something like a Citation
Procedure that would handle associating [1-n] objects with [single]
citations, and recording additional information about those associations
(in Table 4.5, pictured on page 435, etc.).
I'll continue testing and will send along any additional observations.
Thanks for this,
Michael
Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org
--
Megan Forbes
Director of the Collection
Museum of the Moving Image
36-01 35 Avenue Astoria, NY 11106
movingimage.us 718 777 6800
Direct 718 777 6834
Michael -
Good questions. I am hesitant to advocate for adding more procedures - it's
getting a little crowded on that top bar! I wonder if this is a case where
the template system would be a good pairing with this - when creating a new
use of collections, selecting the research-visit template, the citation
template, or what have you. Of course, this would be much improved by
implementing http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-4308, where a
user can return to the template view of a procedure so that once it was
created as a citation use, that's all the user would see.
I know that Jesse has implemented a version of use of collections for the
Walker, so we might be able to experiment with different options as it
works its way through the code contribution process.
-M
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.edu wrote:
Hi Megan,
We're planning to use Use of Collections to capture research visits
(who was doing the research, when, who did they work with, what objects did
they interact with), class visits, and possibly behind-the-scenes tours.
If I'm understanding you correctly, we might be able to use Use of
Collections as an information group to store info about objects that are
published in a Citation Authority terms, but my concern is that then Use of
Collections would become a strange mélange of records that would be
problematic to present (e.g., finding labels that would work across the
different types of uses) and search against.
Anyhow, that's just my first impression; I need to more fully consider
the issues before deciding for or against.
On a related note — if Use of Collections does fit "bibliographic use
of collections" as well as it fits "research use of collections", but if it
would be confusing to have the same procedure serve both purposes
simultaneously, would it be reasonable to "clone" Use of Collections and
configure the labels for each of the two copies to best fit their
respective use cases, and then do the minimum necessary renaming of files
to enable it to become a new procedure?
Michael
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Megan Forbes mforbes@movingimage.uswrote:
Michael,
I wonder if the Use of Collections procedure (not yet developed) would
fill this need? The idea is that you use it to track all the objects
related to an exhibit or research visit, but you could add another
information group easily enough to capture information about a publication.
Schema here:
http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Use+of+Collections+Schema
-M
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.eduwrote:
First, thanks to SMK for developing this!
A couple of initial comments from limited testing:
• Our users want to be able to attach a PDF of a cited paper to the
Citation Authority record, so let that be a +1 to allowing authority
records in general to have attached media.
• We will typically have 20-50 or more objects mentioned in a given
cited work (having >1000 mentioned in larger volumes is not uncommon), but
with citation records being an authority, these records (of objects
mentioned within a citation) would have to be entered singly (i.e., object
by object). A better model for us is that of the combined LMI record +
Location Authority. The Citation Authority would be the definitive record
of the published work, but then there would be something like a Citation
Procedure that would handle associating [1-n] objects with [single]
citations, and recording additional information about those associations
(in Table 4.5, pictured on page 435, etc.).
I'll continue testing and will send along any additional observations.
Thanks for this,
Michael
Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org
--
Megan Forbes
Director of the Collection
Museum of the Moving Image
36-01 35 Avenue Astoria, NY 11106
movingimage.us 718 777 6800
Direct 718 777 6834
--
Megan Forbes
Director of the Collection
Museum of the Moving Image
36-01 35 Avenue Astoria, NY 11106
movingimage.us 718 777 6800
Direct 718 777 6834
Or perhaps we should be talking about a model of facets (schema chunks)
that can be added to existing procedures. What are the use cases for
search, discovery, reporting, etc. ? That should help us decide how to
model it.
Patrick
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org] *On
Behalf Of *Megan
Forbes
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:25 AM
To: Michael Black
Cc: CollectionSpace Talk List
Subject: Re: [Talk] Citation Authority
Michael -
Good questions. I am hesitant to advocate for adding more procedures - it's
getting a little crowded on that top bar! I wonder if this is a case where
the template system would be a good pairing with this - when creating a new
use of collections, selecting the research-visit template, the citation
template, or what have you. Of course, this would be much improved by
implementing http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-4308, where a
user can return to the template view of a procedure so that once it was
created as a citation use, that's all the user would see.
I know that Jesse has implemented a version of use of collections for the
Walker, so we might be able to experiment with different options as it
works its way through the code contribution process.
-M
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.edu wrote:
Hi Megan,
We're planning to use Use of Collections to capture research visits (who
was doing the research, when, who did they work with, what objects did they
interact with), class visits, and possibly behind-the-scenes tours. If I'm
understanding you correctly, we might be able to use Use of Collections as
an information group to store info about objects that are published in a
Citation Authority terms, but my concern is that then Use of Collections
would become a strange mélange of records that would be problematic to
present (e.g., finding labels that would work across the different types of
uses) and search against.
Anyhow, that's just my first impression; I need to more fully consider
the issues before deciding for or against.
On a related note — if Use of Collections does fit "bibliographic use of
collections" as well as it fits "research use of collections", but if it
would be confusing to have the same procedure serve both purposes
simultaneously, would it be reasonable to "clone" Use of Collections and
configure the labels for each of the two copies to best fit their
respective use cases, and then do the minimum necessary renaming of files
to enable it to become a new procedure?
Michael
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Megan Forbes mforbes@movingimage.us
wrote:
Michael,
I wonder if the Use of Collections procedure (not yet developed) would fill
this need? The idea is that you use it to track all the objects related to
an exhibit or research visit, but you could add another information group
easily enough to capture information about a publication.
Schema here:
http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Use+of+Collections+Schema
-M
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Michael Black mtblack@berkeley.edu wrote:
First, thanks to SMK for developing this!
A couple of initial comments from limited testing:
• Our users want to be able to attach a PDF of a cited paper to the
Citation Authority record, so let that be a +1 to allowing authority
records in general to have attached media.
• We will typically have 20-50 or more objects mentioned in a given cited
work (having >1000 mentioned in larger volumes is not uncommon), but with
citation records being an authority, these records (of objects mentioned
within a citation) would have to be entered singly (i.e., object by
object). A better model for us is that of the combined LMI record +
Location Authority. The Citation Authority would be the definitive record
of the published work, but then there would be something like a Citation
Procedure that would handle associating [1-n] objects with [single]
citations, and recording additional information about those associations
(in Table 4.5, pictured on page 435, etc.).
I'll continue testing and will send along any additional observations.
Thanks for this,
Michael
Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org
--
Megan Forbes
Director of the Collection
Museum of the Moving Image
36-01 35 Avenue Astoria, NY 11106
movingimage.us 718 777 6800
Direct 718 777 6834
--
Megan Forbes
Director of the Collection
Museum of the Moving Image
36-01 35 Avenue Astoria, NY 11106
movingimage.us 718 777 6800
Direct 718 777 6834