We've attempted a solution for this problem at the UC San Diego Libraries where we are building a digital asset management system comprised of ca. 300K heterogeneous objects with heterogeneous rights situations.
We use PREMIS rights elements to describe the rights / access status (IP, license, statutory, and restrictions) of a given object. It is our policy that restrictions must always be close-ended. Currently, restrictions registered in the database range from 1 year for an embargoed dissertation to 50 years for some donor imposed restrictions.
Rules then are implemented in the system for displaying or providing access to the objects on the basis of each object's rights status. For instance, if an item is copyrighted to an agent other than the UC Regents, the object and its metadata are not displayed, unless either we are explicitly licensed to provide access (wch is recorded in the PREMIS metadata) or we have decided to a take a "fair use" stance (wch is recorded in the object metadata but not in a PREMIS element). We have many objects wch are copyright to third parties and wch we are licensed to display, but wch we can only display after a time stipulated by the source of the content. A UCSD dissertation is a common example of such an object. Thus, if an object has current restrictions, the metadata for the object is displayed but the object itself is not. If the restrictions are not current, the metadata record is updated to reflect the restriction has been terminated (a record of the object having been restricted is retained), and the object and its metadata are displayed.
As you can see from the references just below, we have only tip-toed into these matters and have many questions yet to solve, some of wch will be solved after receiving some good user feedback. But so far, we are confident that the strategy will address some of our most immediate needs and diminish the requirement for manually reviewing the rights situations of the objects in our custody.
This strategy is described in more detail in a presentation made at last year's PREMIS Implementation Fair in San Francisco and available at http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/premis-implementation-fair2009.html. See the entry for "PREMIS Rights Implementation at University of California, San Diego.
Our rules for recording rights / access metadata in PREMIS elements are encoded in UCSD METS Profiles on the METS Profiles page at http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-registered-profiles.html. The UCSD Complex Object Profile might be the best single expression of those rules (http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/profiles/00000028.html).
An example of how restricted materials are managed in the UC San Diego Libraries DAMS can be seen in the Melanesian collection browse list (https://libraries.ucsd.edu/digital/#search&q=&fq=Facet_Collection%3A%22mscl_melanesianArchive%22&sort=titlesort%20asc; those stop signs are being reconsidered!).
Cheers,
Brad Westbrook
Metadata Librarian and Digital Archivist UC San Diego Libraries
858-822-0612
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr. Kai Naumann
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: AW: RESEARCH-DATAMAN Digest - 20 Sep 2010 to 21 Sep 2010 (#2010-124)
Hi Chris,
we had this issue on the PREMIS Implementors Group three years ago. It seemed possible to encode this kind of use restrictions in PREMIS with minor changes to the Data Dictionary. I can send an example to anybody interested.
Regards,
Kai
----
Dr. Kai Naumann
Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg
– Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg –
Arsenalplatz 3, D-71638 Ludwigsburg
Telefon: 07141/18-6331 | Fax: 07141/18-6311
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 5:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: On expressing access constraints in a data repository of mixed openness
[Apologies for cross-posting.]
I'm looking for some more help. I'm hoping that at the very least the discipline of writing down my concern will help me understand it better, and at best you guys might have a solution.
Let's imagine an institutional data repository (which I guess could be a set of different repositories). By definition, the IDR will have data that have different degrees of openness. I can distinguish at least these conditions:
a) fully open
b) closed until some condition is met (then to be open)
c) closed unless some condition is met
d) closed indefinitely.
I'm not really sure an IDR would actually want to accept data with condition (d), but there may be good reasons that escape me at the moment. But however much one would like all data to be open, there are substantial swags of data that must be temporarily or partially closed.
Independently of conditions (b) to (d), it is possible that some or all of the metadata might be open, that is to say the data might be discoverable even if not open (presumably if you found and wanted to use the data, then some sort of negotiation would have to take place).
My question is: how could constraints like these sensibly be expressed, in either a human-readable or (better) machine-readable way?
--
Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------
End of RESEARCH-DATAMAN Digest - 20 Sep 2010 to 21 Sep 2010 (#2010-124)
***********************************************************************
|