arctos
arctos copied to clipboard
ArctosDB
New attribute proposal: portfolio or series
Issue Documentation is http://handbook.arctosdb.org/how_to/How-to-Use-Issues-in-Arctos.html
Goal To enhance Arctos for use by art collections by following best practices. See #2478.
Context Describe why this new value is necessary and existing values are not. There are works in the UAM:Art collection that are part of portfolios and/or series and these often have titles. We would like a designated place to record the titles of these portfolios/series. It is standard in other art databases to include a field for this information. Portfolio/series is the term we’ve seen used in the examples we’ve looked at for other institutions. We also would like to create a new reciprocal relationship for same series as, as well as same edition as. Same set as can encompass portfolios. See #2440
Table ATTRIBUTE_TYPE
Value ~~portfolio/series~~
portfolio or series
Definition A portfolio is a number of prints presented as a group and often, though not necessarily, by the same artist and based on a related theme. A series can be defined as more than one related work grouped by the artist or in some logical way. Use if there is a title for the portfolio or series.
Attribute data type free-text
Priority Please assign a priority-label.
I'm not crazy about the / in the term; seems like it'll probably find a way to break something somewhere. Is there an acceptable [a-z]-ish representation of this concept? portfolio or series maybe?
Are there any new thoughts on whether it would be okay to add this new attribute?
Woooooooo! Thank you!
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:49 AM Karinna Gomez [email protected] wrote:
Awesome, thanks!
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2568#issuecomment-748255476, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR4JJW6G2DOYGB5LUD3SVOP2VANCNFSM4LUQKEBQ .
-- Mareca Guthrie (she/her/hers) Curator of Fine Arts & Associate Professor of Art University of Alaska Museum of the North 1962 Yukon Drive P.O. Box 756960 Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 [email protected]
University of Alaska Museum of the North: www.uaf.edu/museum UAF Art Department: https://www.uaf.edu/art/ https://www.uaf.edu/art/
*At UAF, we acknowledge the Alaska Native nations upon whose ancestral and unceded **lands our six campuses reside. Here in Fairbanks, *our Troth Yeddha' Campus is located on the lands of the Dene Athabascan people of the Tanana River.
Reopening, I think perhaps this should have been added as identifiers, not attributes??
@DellaCHall, FYI:
I think perhaps this should have been added as identifiers, not attributes??
I don't think that's consistent with what Karinna and Mareca discussed above. I just searched for the implementation of this in the art collection and found 297 cases of use. Here are a couple so you can see the structure of the data as integrated:
Simple title of series: https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA1982-007-016
This one is an excellent example showing the "same set as" relationships in identifiers: https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA1984-003-133C I don't think the collection can communicate all the info in identifiers as currently seen using the combination of identifiers and attributes. Della will need to make that decision, however.
Thanks @AJLinn, the docs + mention of 'reciprocal' above had me going in circles. This is why we need functional documentation.
It'd be awesome if ya'll could help beef that up.
Current:
A portfolio is a number of prints presented as a group and often, though not necessarily, by the same artist and based on a related theme. A series can be defined as more than one related work grouped by the artist or in some logical way. Use if there is a title for the portfolio or series.
Super-tentative proposal:
Title of the portfolio or series, often used in conjunction with Identifiers. Generally applied to more than one related work of art grouped in some logical way. https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2568
https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA1984-003-133C
Could make use of an Entity that is the set?
Could make use of an Entity that is the set?
I'm still not on the Entity bandwagon yet. I'm not sure how that gives the user any more/less information than the way the set seen in https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA1984-003-133C is currently set up with relationships?
Arctos:Entity:2 is not consistent with the protocols of cataloging cultural materials and in my mind, creates an additional level of complexity that I am not sure adds anything useful that can't be more directly seen in a catalog record with "same set as" relationships created. I'm willing to hear more justifications for why they're useful but at this time I don't see the value-added for yet another number.
It'd be awesome if ya'll could help beef that up.
Happy to help with documentation to make it more useful across different collections. Seems way too specific as it stands, given the potential usefulness of "same set as" relationship used in conjunction.
I'm still not on the Entity bandwagon yet.
At its core, an Entity is a way to get a good identifier. It also provides a place to describe the THING (wolfpack, host+parasites, art installation - of which individual pieces may be cataloged - or whatever). More or less, what you're doing with portfolio or series (I think), but an Entity provides access to a lot more structure. It'd definitely work here, I'm not sure it's necessary.
creates an additional level of complexity
Yep - which, like most of Arctos, should be avoided when possible and used when necessary.
more useful across different collections.
Yea, this is probably expandable, I'm OK with ignoring that for now. There's definitely enough here for future-me to understand why this exists, I'd still like some help in distilling that down into a definition.
I think I need some more time to mull this over as I get familiar with how this is used in the art collection. I'll be going on maternity leave for a few months here soon, so if this isn't urgent, I'll weigh in when I get back. Thanks!
This seems dead - do we need to update the definition of the term or can we just close?
I could still use some explanation as to why this isn't an identifier, and the definition needs a link to this Issue.
I agree with what Angie said above on May 22nd
I don't think the collection can communicate all the info in identifiers as currently seen using the combination of identifiers and attributes.
What do you mean by this?
the definition needs a link to this Issue
Seems to me this can be left alone as it is and this issue can be closed - I see no problems with how it stands currently!
I figured that I could add the issue link to the code table and close this, so
but then I get
@dustymc what am I doing wrong?