Skip to first unread message
taehyung Kim
Apr 25, 2018, 11:43:42 PM4/25/18
to AtoM Users
Hi, i'm Taehyung_KIM
I am doing an archive system project as an atom model.
Can not set all Visible elements of the template registered in the plugin?
Dan Gillean
Apr 26, 2018, 10:46:37 AM4/26/18
to ICA-AtoM Users
Hi again Taehyung,
The Visible elements module can be used to hide certain fields in the ISAD and RAD archival description templates from public view. See:
At this time, support has only been added to the Visible elements module for those modules listed on the configuration page - that is:
- ISAD headers
- ISAD fields
- RAD headers
- RAD fields
- Physical storage information
- Digital object metadata
Adding support for more description templates would require development. As a new feature, this would likely require community sponsorship for Artefactual to be able to implement it.
Regards,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-atom-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ica-atom-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/334f8444-1e93-49b0-90cb-4d7b8e769808%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
GR Mulcaster
May 17, 2018, 2:07:09 AM5/17/18
to AtoM Users
Dan and Taehyung,
This thread is timely because as we add to the SPARC archive at UTAS with large numbers of digital objects; when using Draft status input to prototype what fields and elements we will populate, we are mindful of what can and cannot be seen.
We have locked away digital storage and physical storage information so we do not inadvertently reveal the physical whereabouts of a treasured item (and also to prevent digital mischief), but increasingly, we have found there are particular elements such as "Alternative identifers" and "Existence and location of originals" that we would like to click off when managing "Visible elements".
Taehyung, our approach, at this stage is to use either the "Archivists note" or "Notes" elements that we can check off as blind to the public.
Some digital objects and Archival Descriptions we uploaded last year have been sought out by visitors seeking to view material we could not publish because of rights restrictions. We were motivated a couple of months ago, to make the original digital material easily traceable internally, so any staffer can help with queries about the resource.
However, in future, for archival integrity, we would not like to park important information in the AtoM equivalent of Post-It Notes purely because we cannot find a more suitable field - because certainly those ISAD fields exist; it is just that we need to keep them for internal use
So, Dan, perhaps can you indicate what sort of development task or effort is required? Would it be a plug-in? A wait for something to occur in release 2.5?
Ideally, all elements within an Archival Description ought in future to be checkable; rather than an AtoM user or institution requesting ad hoc inclusion of newly managable "Visible elements".
The two I want to check off now, will be followed others in the future.
regards
Glenn
Librarian (Access and Discovery)
University of Tasmania Library
Phone: +61 3 6324 3061
Email: Glenn.M...@utas.edu.au
Mail: Locked Bag 1312, Launceston TAS 7250
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.
Dan Gillean
May 21, 2018, 1:50:57 PM5/21/18
to ICA-AtoM Users
Hi Glenn,
It sounds like what would be needed to meet your specified use case would be a re-design of the Visible elements module - we'd probably want to reconsider the UI to make it easier to hide fields across templates, but also review how permissions are checked so that the module can remain performant at scale. There's also the question of exports - right now, physical storage information is also removed from exports when hidden via Visible elements for security purposes, but other fields are not - and we'd likely want to reconsider this.
This means it would likely end up being a fairly significant development project, requiring some initial analysis to determine scope and best approach. If this is something that your institution is seriously considering sponsoring, please feel free to contact me off-list, and we can discuss next steps. I'm out of office right now with only sporadic email address, but will be back at work this coming Thursday, the 24th of May.
Regards,
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:07 AM, GR Mulcaster <thegrillp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan and Taehyung,
This thread is timely because as we add to the SPARC archive at UTAS with large numbers of digital objects; when using Draft status input to prototype what fields and elements we will populate, we are mindful of what can and cannot be seen.We have locked away digital storage and physical storage information so we do not inadvertently reveal the physical whereabouts of a treasured item (and also to prevent digital mischief), but increasingly, we have found there are particular elements such as "Alternative identifers" and "Existence and location of originals" that we would like to click off when managing "Visible elements".Taehyung, our approach, at this stage is to use either the "Archivists note" or "Notes" elements that we can check off as blind to the public.Some digital objects and Archival Descriptions we uploaded last year have been sought out by visitors seeking to view material we could not publish because of rights restrictions. We were motivated a couple of months ago, to make the original digital material easily traceable internally, so any staffer can help with queries about the resource.However, in future, for archival integrity, we would not like to park important information in the AtoM equivalent of Post-It Notes purely because we cannot find a more suitable field - because certainly those ISAD fields exist; it is just that we need to keep them for internal useSo, Dan, perhaps can you indicate what sort of development task or effort is required? Would it be a plug-in? A wait for something to occur in release 2.5?Ideally, all elements within an Archival Description ought in future to be checkable; rather than an AtoM user or institution requesting ad hoc inclusion of newly managable "Visible elements".The two I want to check off now, will be followed others in the future.regardsGlenn
Email: Glenn.Mulcaster@utas.edu.au
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-atom-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ica-atom-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/7fdd3b93-7f31-41dd-b57f-3e6a062e8339%40googlegroups.com.
GR Mulcaster
May 23, 2018, 7:46:16 PM5/23/18
to AtoM Users
Hi Dan
Thanks for the reply.
Your comments about the Exports function also highlight an issue about visibility.
During a workflow revision last year, we wanted to export physical storage information to eventually output as physical labels and when doing a dummy run, could not work out why the export would not work.
I can understand why the security issue has been made consistent.
It was not a pressing issue, at the time, but I will now be able to document it on our Trello project board, as part of our future projects list, and then link it to some potential updates required for that Visible elements module.
We will be in contact off list should UTAS find the wherewithal to look at this further as a sponsor.
regards
Glenn
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages