new record attribute restricted data

[dustymc]

Help us understand your request (check below):

• a new term for data entry or management

Describe what you're trying to do

This is a replacement for ArctosDB/arctos#8338, and possibly a home for some encumbrances which cannot survive #160.

I think there's a general positive consensus regarding the need for 'curatorial remarks' functionality, but the name and intended usage could use some refinement.

My name suggestion is in the title, there are some functional constraints on attributes (mostly length and ASCII letters) but otherwise I'm up for whatever.

I'll suggest some initial usage of this in some upcoming issues; I think that fewer (1 is a nice number...) more-general 'restricted' fields are probably a better solution for nearly everyone, but this could also be shaped more narrowly.

This also introduces a time constraint; the attribute change is coming together quickly, and I'll need something to do with some encumbered data.

[acdoll]

This seems like a good place to start. Keeping it at just 1 field is probably going to be tough.

[dustymc]

Keeping it at just 1 field is probably going to be tough.

• there are no (imminent) technical limitations on this, we could (probably) immediately add a thousand private fields without melting any components
• there are definitely complexity considerations, I already can't tell some attributes apart (and the data suggests neither can anyone else!), if we add a thousand new we'll near-certainly melt some users.

I think that all adds up to this: if someone has some compelling reason for a 'private foot length' or whatever then I don't think it'll be a problem, but I'd also suggest we always start that conversation by really fleshing out how and why (in functional terms) the generic thing that's being proposed here isn't suitable.

[Jegelewicz]

Keeping it at just 1 field is probably going to be tough.

What about a single attribute = curatorial data, with the values in a code table:

NAGPRA
curatorial remarks
measurement

Then put what ever the hidden thing is in the attribute remark.

Or for wild west, just have the one attribute and let the collections add whatever to the value to allow them to sort through them.

NAGPRA: blah blah blah
curatorial remark: blah blah blah
measurement: total length, tail bobbed: 00xx

Only those with collection access can see them anyway....

This means only a single attribute to keep up with.

[campmlc]

What about a single attribute = curatorial data, with the values in a code table:

NAGPRA curatorial remarks measurement

Then put what ever the hidden thing is in the attribute remark.

I like the idea of a single attribute "curatorial data", preferably as above. Would this also include commercial value?

[campmlc]

Issues Meeting 3-6-2025: "restricted data"

[AJLinn]

What about a single attribute = curatorial data, with the values in a code table:

NAGPRA
curatorial remarks
measurement

Then put what ever the hidden thing is in the attribute remark.

Definitely not going to work for cultural collections.

NAGPRA has other information that we need to include in the various attribute fields, and we need to be able to search for the code table values.
Value needs to be able to be exported and tabulated

I prefer the private flags on the above"Restricted Data" for those other private things you want to write in there as a free text field, of any format and content.

[campmlc]

Issues Meeting 3-6-2025: "restricted data"