Collect "attribution" use cases from various perspectives #37
Comments
|
As a content publisher, I want to publish our identity associated with our IIIF resources, in order to ensure that when my resources are discovered outside of my local context, that identity can be made clear to the end user. (This is the same, as far as I know, as @mikeapp's use case) |
|
As an aggregator, I want to know what organizations claim a manifest is accessible in their collections (regardless of whether they created/maintain it) in order to better understand where manifests are being used by organization other than the original publishing organization and to allow users to search/facet organizationally based on the use a manifest and not just the publishing of it. |
|
As an aggregator, I want to know what collection, if any, (based on the AS publishing organization) a manifest belongs to in order to provide a more meaningful faceting/search experience. For example finding a manifest of interest and then browsing manifests from that specific collection. |
|
As an aggregator, I want to know what organization published and maintains the manifest and what collection it belongs to in oder to provide appropriate attribution to the original publisher and ensure that the original publisher is included in the aggregation, regardless of whether they publish an AS. |
|
A Potential Use Case for Museum: As part of exhibition planning, a museum would like to publish the current working set of objects that are being considered for an upcoming exhibition that is a collaboration among four institutions. By using an art information aggregator's search engine and viewing tools, the planners in each institution would like to be able to:
|
|
As an aggregator, I need to get dataset-level information to manage my harvesting process and re-publish it to my data consumers so that they get appropriate provenance metadata. Especially, I need to know which institutions contributed to the dataset behind the activity stream I'm harvesting.
I could ask the publisher to provide this by a separate registration process, but having the connection directly from the endpoint seems safer in terms of data consistency, and easier to manage (only one harvesting process, no manual form filling).
|
|
As a data publisher, I want everyone to easily access dataset-level information for the dataset I'm publishing via my activity stream. Especially, I want data consumers to be aware that I (and maybe other organizations) contributed to build the dataset that I'm publishing.
I want to do this by minimizing my efforts. It is likely that some funders or legislators ask me to declare my datasets in some data registry. I would like to re-use as much as possible the same metadata across environments.
|
|
@beaudet Could you reformulate the use case as to the relationship between the resources and the institutions? While interesting, there seems to be several use cases wrapped together, some of which are attribution oriented, and some not. @aisaac Ditto for your second use case. The first seems to fall under attribution, the second less so? |
|
As the implementer of a registry of IIIF collections (I guess it's an aggregator, in the terminology above), passing to third-parties where IIIF resources can be harvested, I want to provide an index among the various categories of provenance, including the institution that provides or contribute to a dataset.
|
|
hi @azaroth42 I'm not sure I understand. "I want data consumers to be aware that I (and maybe other organizations) contributed to build the dataset that I'm publishing" is quite about the connection between resources and an organization, no?
|
|
Oh, then I think I misunderstood with the introduction of "Dataset" :) Is it just the same as my first one? (Which is fine to have duplicates) |
|
@azaroth42 great point. What I'm after is a set of IIIF resources, which could be the entire set of IIIF resources an organization publishes, or subsets of it based on whatever criteria (provenance, subject, type of content). It's not corresponding to an AS Collection (because it's not a set of events) and one cannot ensure that it corresponds to a IIIF Collection, considering the flexibility of that notion.
Btw this could be also the opportunity to remember a point that was voiced at the Stanford workshop about the fact that the discovery mechanism (i.e. activity streams) could also be used to publish non-IIIF resources. I suppose we all agree that we don't want to take this as a requirement by itself, but it would probably be good if we have a solution that doesn't close the door to it. In such a perspective the notion of 'dataset' may be more flexible in the future, while still allowing to cover many requirements (at least that's what I'm hoping)
|
|
Yup, let's start a new issue for the entities involved and their semantics, to keep this issue focused on the use cases. |
|
@azaroth42 and @aisaac Yes, I think a Dataset resources would be helpful. My brain started to hurt when folks mentioned all of the stuff they wanted to cram into an AS ;) |
|
Similar to Rob's first use case from the other side: As an aggregator I would like to create a facet for the content publisher (or data provider). Europeana does this already: https://www.europeana.eu/portal/en/search?q=&f[DATA_PROVIDER][]=National+Library+of+Wales&view=grid and its good for debugging/testing from a content publisher perspective and for a user perspective being able to find content that is likely geographically relevant to you and catalogued in a language you can read. Also thinking of Mirador as a small scale aggregator. On its load screen it shows the institution where the manifest came from but this is configured through the page rather than from the Manifest: Although I don't think Mirador would harvest activity streams you could imagine it being connected to an aggregator. |
|
@azaroth42 - Yes, that was intentional actually. I don't think chopping up use cases so they're laser focused on a specific requirement is the best approach here because it can result in the overall use case being forgotten. I understand you're probably looking to highlight the portions that are relevant to the particular topic being discussed, in this case, the relevance to the "attributed to" property at one or more levels within an activity stream. I think that can be done while maintaining the overall use case context, but since we're using Github to document these things, I'm wondering how you think it best to proceed here. For example, should I document the overall use case in another issue and then reference it from the reformulated language in this ticket? Thanks. |
|
Use cases collected :) Can leave the issue open in case more emerge. |
|
Closing, as seems like we're done here :) |
In order to better understand which metadata properties should be part of which documents (discovery, presentation, or external metadata), we need to understand the use cases for how those properties will be used, by which actors in the ecosystem.
This issue is to collect use cases around the relationship between organizations (or other actors) and the resources, in particular the AS Collection, AS Activity, IIIF Collection and IIIF Manifest.
Actors:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: