Should Cataloguers be documented in the Record pattern?

[stephenhart8]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[KarineLeonardBrouillet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 # ??."