Draft of resource creator role unifications in tDAR. Comments are welcome.
A Creator can be a Person or an Institution. We will be relating Resources, Creators, their roles, and a sequence number (used to distinguish primary authorship).
The unified role is what we'll end up with afterwards. The "appropriate for" column give us a way to filter out roles that aren't appropriate for the given relationship between a Creator and a Resource. For example, the Repository role may not be appropriate for Persons.
Another issue is that for Documents, do we want to be able to see things like "Principal Investigator" and "Field Director" in the Author / Editor / Contributor section?
The current design utilizes the type of the Creator (e.g., Person or Institution) to determine whether or not a role should be displayed.
Resource Creator Data Entry Locations
Role | Creator | Section? | Resource Type | Definition / Description | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Both | Authorship | Document | The writer of the document. | ||
Contributor | Person | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | An individual who contributes to, but is not the primary creator of an edited or multi-authored document, dataset, image, coding sheet, ontology, or project. | ||
Editor | Both | Authorship | Document | The editor of the document. | ||
Translator | Person | Authorship | Document | The translator of the document. | ||
Field Director | Person | Contributors | All | The individual primarily responsible for implementing the fieldwork (reports to Project Director).Omit if same as Principal Investigator or Project Director | ||
Lab Director | Person | Contributors | All | The individual primarily responsibility for managing the lab work. | ||
Principal Investigator | Person | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | The individual primarily responsible for the overall investigation. |
|
|
Project Director | Person | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | The individual responsible for implementing the project (reports to the Principal Investigator).Omit if same as PI. |
| |
Landowner | Both | Contributors | All | |||
Sponsor | Both | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | An agency, organization, or individual contributing financial or material support to the project or effort producing the information resource. |
|
|
Permitting Agency | Institution | Contributors | All | An agency that issues a project permit. | ||
Repository | Institution | Contributors | All | Institution at which physical collections related to the project or information resource are maintained. | ||
Contact | Both | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | Individual or institution to contact with questions, concerns, or comments regarding the project or information resource. |
|
|
Creator/Analyst | Both | Contributors | Dataset | Individual or institution that identified, measured, assayed, recorded, or otherwise compiled the dataset. | ||
Image Creator | Both | Contributors | Image | Individual or institution that creates the image.(Examples: photographer, illustrator, cartographer, or a digital imager/artist) | ||
Creator | Both | Contributors | Coding Sheet, Ontology, Ontology Mapping | Individual or institution responsible for creating the content of the information resource. | ||
Prepared by | Institution | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | Firm, agency, or other organization that conducted the project or conducted the investigation that produced the information resource. |
| F |
Submitted to | Institution | Contributors | All (including coding sheet and ontology) | Agency, firm, or other organization for which the project was conducted or for which the investigation producing an information resource was conducted. |
|
|
How To Read This Table
Creator relationship data-entry will be broken down into two separate sections: an "authorship" section, which is strictly for displaying resource authors; and the "contributors" section, which includes all of the persons/institutions that contribute to a resource in any other non-authorship role. Note that some resource types will contain both an "authorship" and "contributors" section.
All above does not include Ontology, Coding Sheet, or Ontology Mapping. Those information resources only have Creator and Contact fields in the Contributor section
Please see the creator relationship UI page for visual examples of these sections.
Creator Roles included search results, by Resource
This table defines which roles should be included in search results.
Page | Creator Roles | Notes |
|---|---|---|
Coding Sheet | Creator |
|
Dataset | Creator / Analyst |
|
Document | Author |
|
Image | Image Creator |
|
Ontology | Creator |
|
Project | Project Director |
|
Mapping of old roles
Current Role | Mapped Role |
|---|---|
ANALYST | Creator/Analyst |
SERIES_EDITOR | deleted |
COLLABORATOR | Contributor |
REPOSITORY | Repository |
PUBLISHER | not needed; in citation |
LEAD | Prepared by |
PERMITTER | Permitting Agency |
OTHER | deleted |
Labels
15 Comments
Hide/Show CommentsDec 08, 2010
Mary Whelan
This looks great. For NADB, there are a large number of records with "sent from" and "sent to" information. These are usually institutions (corporate names) like a CRM firm sending its report to the Bureau of Land Management. Do you want to create separate "from" and "to" roles? - thks, Mary
Dec 08, 2010
Allen Lee
Do any of the existing Institutional roles capture the from/to aspect properly? For instance, is the CRM firm the "Collaborator" and the BLM is the "Sponsor"? But yes, I think the idea would be to have distinct roles that capture the "from-ness" and the "to-ness" of it all.
Dec 26, 2010
Keith Kintigh
The sponsore is who pays for it in my view. The CRM firm would be the lead. The permitter is the agency that issues the permit under which the work was done. There is a from to with that but I am not sure we need to capture that precisely.
Dec 09, 2010
adam brin
I think that a bunch of the Institutional credit options can be applied logically to people as well. Lead, Landowner, Collaborator, Sponsor are all more generally applicable.
Dec 09, 2010
Matt Cordial
I agree. I think that Editor & Series under documents could also be Institutions.
Dec 10, 2010
adam brin
Adding ResourceProviderContact -- we forgot it
Dec 26, 2010
Keith Kintigh
Can anything other than a document (ie in individual credit) have an author or should we call that something else. It seems to me an image or database or whatever might have a creator or maybe some other term but "author" seems a bit odd to me for that.
Seems to me primary and secondary author and editor on individual credit are left over from when we were using individual credit for documents. I'd think we could delete these in favor of "creator, though.
I think I established the term lead to be the institution firm, agency, whatever, that does the work. I think this isn't a great term and we could substitute another one if someone can come up with a better one.
Landowner is often an individual too.
Sponsor would usually be an institution but I suppose it could be an individual.
Analyst is a role that seems to be lost. It is usally an individual but could be an institution as well. For example, the analyst for radiocarbon dates could be "Beta Analytic"
I wonder if we couldn't just have a credit repeatable field and not separate individual and institutional. I think that might lead to more clarity
Collaborator is probably not wll defined. What I had in mind originally was having a lead institution, e.g., a CRM firm and then they might have a subcontractor that would be a collaborator. Howver, that could be a person I suppose, though probably not very well defined.
I am not sure how much we need lab and field director, or how clearly we can make the distinction between PI and project director, though that distinction is certainly made by crm firms. I don't know how a forest archaeologist who actually does a project would consider his or her role. SOme input from Josh and Shelby and others in CRM would be helpful.
Above: Another issue is that for Documents, do we want to be able to see things like "Principal Investigator" and "Field Director" in the Author / Editor / Contributor section? KK: I don't think so.
I am not sure I understand what the current design is. I think this would benefit from some discussion in January, and I think probably a simplified resolution.
Keith
Jan 13, 2011
Keith Kintigh
I made a large number of changes to the table. I am assuming that the authorship section is at the top of the document and includes all the fields associated with a normal bibliographic ntry, thus including series editor and publisher and translator etc.
We need also to consider also which roles appear on the project form. I don't see the need for nearly all the authoriship roles in project, but I may be missing something.
I take contributor to be a special role associated with a bibliographic entry--common on reports
Collaborator would to me be a non-authoriship role
I would reserve author for documents and images (photographer, artist, drafts-person etc). I don't think databases should have authors because I think it will be confusing with analyst. Analyst should be available for other categories and project though.
Jan 14, 2011
Keith Kintigh
We need some other form of creator, or maybe use that term, for image, ontology, coding sheet. Aso I think creator or whatever we call it and contact should be the fields for ontology and coding sheet, and probably the mappings when we make those separate objects.
Jan 14, 2011
Francis McManamon
Did you intend that "Analyst" would apply to "All" resource types or just for dataset? Seems like the latter should be the case. What is the definition of "Analyst?" Simplist would be: "The individual(s) or institution(s) that created the dataset." Is this our understanding? It will be important to make this clear to those doing data entry, because this definition is not necessarily what would come to everyone's mind immediately upon seeing the term "analyst."
If more than one invidividual contributes to assembling and analyzing a dataset, can each of them be identified as "Analyst" or should the second contributor be identified as "Contributor?"
For image, do we need a set of roles, such as: photographer, cartographer [for images that are maps], artist/illustrator [for images that are drawings]?
I agree, "Editor" "Series Editor" and "Translator" go with "Document" not with other Resource Types.
Another role that we should consider is "Compiler." This would apply to documents that are assemblages of texts, data, images, other documents which the compiler has brought together, but for which he/she is not author.
I agree, "Field Director" "Lab Director" "PI" "Project Director" go with All Resource Types, not just Datasets.
I agree, "Collaborator" and "Landowner" can be Person or Institution.
For "Lead" should we add a little clarification by adding to title, "Lead Agency" or "Lead Organization?"
I agree that "Sponsor" can be Institution or Person, but in large majority of instances it will be the former. More importantly for this role, we need to specify that this is the institution or person that is providing funding for the investigation/research that created the digital object being described.
For "Permitter," as with "Lead" how about "Permitting Agency" and a definition that makes it clear that this is the institution granting an ARPA pemit, or other kind of use permit that allowed the investigation that generated the digital object being described?
What is the definition for "Preparer?"
For "Repository" do we want to distinguish "Physical Repository" where material collections and paper records are archived from "Digital Repository?" And, since we would be entering the digital object into tDAR, would there be any other digital repository?
Jan 14, 2011
adam brin
Two issues here:
Jan 20, 2011
Francis McManamon
Based on the 20 January meeting of the Resource Creators Roles definitions work group, draft definitions and further culling of the roles has been entered into the table above.
Jan 20, 2011
Keith Kintigh
I don’t have titles for these roles but I do have descriptions to suggest.
_____ Company, agency, institution organization or individual contracted to or responsible for conducting the project or producing the information resource. There will usually be only one entry with this role, but in the case of multiple contractors or subcontractors there may be more than one entry with this role.
_____ Agency, institution, organization, company, or individual for which the project was conducted or the information resource produced (e.g., under contract or permit). Multiple entries may share this role. The sponsor that funded the work may have this in addition to the sponsor role, but other parties could as well.
On recent changes:
Prepared by and submitted to. I think both the short name and the description of prepared by and submitted to invite responses that are individuals when we want the institutions nearly all the time. This problem is enhanced by making individual first on the list. In the example I just sent around, the prepared by on the cover page is Todd Howell, not the Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise. This is what I was trying to get at with the idea of contracted for.
This is one of the key roles that we have and we have to get it across. Maybe we should restrict this to institutions and tell people to put single person projects under PI.
Why is repository not needed? Seems to me we need it for the physical repository. The copy locatated at for documents (Is this a separate field?) could probably be the same thing for documents but for projects especially it would be good to identify the physical repository.
Dataset creator is NOT the person analyzing the dataset. I would say: Dataset creator is the person who identified, measured, assayed, recorded or otherwise compiled the data contained in a database
Lead should be gotten rid of. It should be replaced by prepared by though that term should be changed. At least some of us using that term mean the same thing as prepared in the sense of an institution. The definition offered is totally indeterminate, among other thing because the agencies probably think they are ultimately in charge of a contract and the contractor probably think the same thing.
Jan 21, 2011
Francis McManamon
I've revised the terms and definitions discussed by Keith in his comment again. The changes are designed to address the clarifying comments that Keith provided.
Where it seemed to me that alternative definitions or terms should be considered, I have put in [brackets] the alternative that I came up with.
Jan 21, 2011
Keith Kintigh
I have made extensive suggested edits to the two tables above.