disposition cleanup: transfer of custody #4691
Comments
dustymc
added
Priority-High (Needed for work)
|
For our one transfer of custody specimen, it is important that it keep this status. Although it has not been deaccessioned, the Navajo Nation has legal custody of the specimen and it would be incorrect to list it as on loan. I will check with our registrar on this though to see if there is any other way we can update it. |
NPS has legal custody of everything from NPS lands (according to NPS, or some of them, or something...) - not a unique situation, anyway. I think that's mostly handled by accessions, but that might not work eg if they gained custody after someone else gave it to you. #4189 (which means you don't have to call "loan-like transactions" "loans") still seems like the best solution to me - maybe this is a new kind of "we're just taking care of it" transaction. In any case, that's all (obviously?!) beyond what a simple text field can do. I maintain that the disposition is properly "in collection" (eg where the physical thing is) and the complexities (who owns it, how it got to where disposition claims it is, whatever) are best spelled out in a node capable of handling that complexity - like "loan-like transactions." (I might throw up a restrict usage Enumbrance as well, just to be paranoid.) |
|
So I actually just used this disposition in the iDigBio presentation about entities - feel free to watch it. In short, it makes it easy to connect the part with the disposition "transfer of custody" with the part found at AMNH. I get the "we are saying the same thing in different ways", but just because we don't have it doesn't mean knowing what happened to it isn't valuable. If we are going to limit disposition to "it's here" or "it's not", then we need to make sure we can facilitate finding "all the things we expect to get back, all the things that were used up in research, and whatever else. People asked for these dispositions for a reason - maybe it wasn't a good reason, but we need to make sure that we aren't simplifying to the detriment of reporting on collection activity. |
|
I do not want 'transfer of custody' to disappear. It is important to know
what one did with the thing one no longer has.
…On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:57 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < ***@***.***> wrote:
So I actually just used this disposition in the iDigBio presentation
about entities
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuXpVR8KVxpysYMdmrHLlxdkPMgt_8pe/view?usp=sharing>
- feel free to watch it. In short, it makes it easy to connect the part
with the disposition "transfer of custody" with the part found at AMNH.
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5725767/168925087-b25970cd-8afc-4644-908e-03ab98526f33.png>
I get the "we are saying the same thing in different ways, but just
because we don't have it doesn't mean knowing what happened to it isn't
valuable. If we are going to limit disposition to "it's here" or "it's
not", then we need to make sure we can facilitate finding "all the things
we expect to get back, all the things that were used up in research, and
whatever else. People asked for these dispositions for a reason - maybe it
wasn't a good reason, but we need to make sure that we aren't simplifying
to the detriment of reporting on collection activity.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4691 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFNUM2MTTDNS4GIHG5TWTDVKQP5DANCNFSM5WGKW6EQ>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Derek S. Sikes*, Curator of Insects, Professor of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum (UAM), University of Alaska Fairbanks
1962 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960
***@***.*** phone: 907-474-6278 he/him/his
University of Alaska Museum <https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/>
- search 357,704 digitized arthropod records
<http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological
Network" at
http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us
|
Exactly! And we fail at that about half the time (I'm actually a little impressed it's that good!) - 30705 of our 58548 transfer of custody parts have a loan history, the rest just say "it ain't here." |
I just cleared up several transfers of custody that should have been listed as deaccessions - thanks for the opportunity to make that fix. The remaining "transfer of custody" are not deaccessions as they have been transferred to the UAM:Art collection for curation based on our internal criteria as to which collection is best suited to curate it, or to the UAM: Mamm collection for the same reason. These items were not technically deaccessioned from the museum's collections & care, they've just had their physical custody changed to a different department. We maintain copies of the paperwork in case someone comes to me asking about the history. They also maintain reciprocal relationships with their new numbers. They're not on loan because we don't expect them back. I guess I could change to "in collection" and just expect someone to look over at the remarks field where I say it's in Fine Arts or Mammals, but I like how the 'transfer' greys out the part so no one expects to be able to access the object by coming to our collection. I would still argue it's an important disposition to maintain, we just need to improve the documentation so people use it in an appropriate manner.
|
|
I have same situation as described previously with transfer of custody of
mammal parasite lots to MSB Para cataloged items. Not on loan to Para, but
transfer. And the greyed out row is necessary to show this part is no
longer available through MSB Mamm.
…On Tue, May 17, 2022, 8:41 PM Angela Linn ***@***.***> wrote:
* [EXTERNAL]*
UAM:EH | 9
I just cleared up several transfers of custody that should have been
listed as deaccessions - thanks for the opportunity to make that fix. The
remaining "transfer of custody" are not deaccessions as they have been
transferred to the UAM:Art collection for curation based on our internal
criteria as to which collection is best suited to curate it, or to the UAM:
Mamm collection for the same reason. These items were not technically
deaccessioned from the museum's collections & care, they've just had their
physical custody changed to a different department. We maintain copies of
the paperwork in case someone comes to me asking about the history. They
also maintain reciprocal relationships with their new numbers. They're not
on loan because we don't expect them back.
I *guess* I could change to "in collection" and just expect someone to
look over at the remarks field where I say it's in Fine Arts or Mammals,
but I like how the 'transfer' greys out the part so no one expects to be
able to access the object by coming to our collection. I would still argue
it's an important disposition to maintain, we just need to improve the
documentation so people use it in an appropriate manner.
[image: Screen Shot 2022-05-17 at 6 35 02 PM]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/17605945/168945399-64e52a7e-8744-4b7e-a67f-abb39ac5c3da.png>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4691 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBCPLWSB4VCC6KCXWITVKRKE7ANCNFSM5WGKW6EQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
And the mammal part is not "used up" when it is transferred to Para. It
exists and can be loaned from a different collection. We don't want to
imply the parasite no longer exists. Sometimes there is just one worm, but
in MSB Mamm the part was "cestode" or "endoparasite", which is transferred
to MSB Para, Id'd to species, and recataloged. Same part, same critter,
transferred elsewhere where it can now be located and loaned through a
different chain of custody.
On Tue, May 17, 2022, 8:57 PM Mariel Campbell ***@***.***>
wrote:
… I have same situation as described previously with transfer of custody of
mammal parasite lots to MSB Para cataloged items. Not on loan to Para, but
transfer. And the greyed out row is necessary to show this part is no
longer available through MSB Mamm.
On Tue, May 17, 2022, 8:41 PM Angela Linn ***@***.***>
wrote:
> * [EXTERNAL]*
>
> UAM:EH | 9
>
> I just cleared up several transfers of custody that should have been
> listed as deaccessions - thanks for the opportunity to make that fix. The
> remaining "transfer of custody" are not deaccessions as they have been
> transferred to the UAM:Art collection for curation based on our internal
> criteria as to which collection is best suited to curate it, or to the UAM:
> Mamm collection for the same reason. These items were not technically
> deaccessioned from the museum's collections & care, they've just had their
> physical custody changed to a different department. We maintain copies of
> the paperwork in case someone comes to me asking about the history. They
> also maintain reciprocal relationships with their new numbers. They're not
> on loan because we don't expect them back.
>
> I *guess* I could change to "in collection" and just expect someone to
> look over at the remarks field where I say it's in Fine Arts or Mammals,
> but I like how the 'transfer' greys out the part so no one expects to be
> able to access the object by coming to our collection. I would still argue
> it's an important disposition to maintain, we just need to improve the
> documentation so people use it in an appropriate manner.
>
> [image: Screen Shot 2022-05-17 at 6 35 02 PM]
> <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/17605945/168945399-64e52a7e-8744-4b7e-a67f-abb39ac5c3da.png>
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#4691 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBCPLWSB4VCC6KCXWITVKRKE7ANCNFSM5WGKW6EQ>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
|
The absence of loans associated with transfer of custody disposition may
have many reasons, as has already been mentioned, including that
collections have not had the resources and time to load all legacy loans.
That is not a reason to discard this term. It seems to me we have way more
reasons to keep it, based on responses. I fail to see the benefit of
discarding something that obviously is of use to so many collections.
On Tue, May 17, 2022, 9:05 PM Mariel Campbell ***@***.***>
wrote:
… And the mammal part is not "used up" when it is transferred to Para. It
exists and can be loaned from a different collection. We don't want to
imply the parasite no longer exists. Sometimes there is just one worm, but
in MSB Mamm the part was "cestode" or "endoparasite", which is transferred
to MSB Para, Id'd to species, and recataloged. Same part, same critter,
transferred elsewhere where it can now be located and loaned through a
different chain of custody.
On Tue, May 17, 2022, 8:57 PM Mariel Campbell ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I have same situation as described previously with transfer of custody of
> mammal parasite lots to MSB Para cataloged items. Not on loan to Para, but
> transfer. And the greyed out row is necessary to show this part is no
> longer available through MSB Mamm.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022, 8:41 PM Angela Linn ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>
>> UAM:EH | 9
>>
>> I just cleared up several transfers of custody that should have been
>> listed as deaccessions - thanks for the opportunity to make that fix. The
>> remaining "transfer of custody" are not deaccessions as they have been
>> transferred to the UAM:Art collection for curation based on our internal
>> criteria as to which collection is best suited to curate it, or to the UAM:
>> Mamm collection for the same reason. These items were not technically
>> deaccessioned from the museum's collections & care, they've just had their
>> physical custody changed to a different department. We maintain copies of
>> the paperwork in case someone comes to me asking about the history. They
>> also maintain reciprocal relationships with their new numbers. They're not
>> on loan because we don't expect them back.
>>
>> I *guess* I could change to "in collection" and just expect someone to
>> look over at the remarks field where I say it's in Fine Arts or Mammals,
>> but I like how the 'transfer' greys out the part so no one expects to be
>> able to access the object by coming to our collection. I would still argue
>> it's an important disposition to maintain, we just need to improve the
>> documentation so people use it in an appropriate manner.
>>
>> [image: Screen Shot 2022-05-17 at 6 35 02 PM]
>> <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/17605945/168945399-64e52a7e-8744-4b7e-a67f-abb39ac5c3da.png>
>>
>> —
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <#4691 (comment)>,
>> or unsubscribe
>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBCPLWSB4VCC6KCXWITVKRKE7ANCNFSM5WGKW6EQ>
>> .
>> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
>> ***@***.***>
>>
>
|
|
I have not read through this whole thread (sorry) but it's important to distinguish between objects that we expect to get back ("on loan") vs those that we do not ("transfer of custody"). At MVZ, we use 'transfer of custody' for all tissue subsamples sent on loan because we don't expect to get them back. Using "on loan" does not apply to tissue samples per the current definition: "Object is currently on an active loan, so is not available in the collections." Since most tissue samples sent on loan involve subsampling, a portion of the object is still available in the collection. That said, I can see how we don't want to say the same thing in two places (loan type and disposition). This seems like an issue for the Code Table Committee to review and come up with recommendations for how to clean this up. There are a lot of "DO NOT USE" values per the definitions. |
|
We use "on loan" for tissue subsamples with the loan transaction type as consumable. I leave the loan open until we receive the publication, and then close the loan. We don't use transfer of custody because we retain ownership of the loaned samples and require the user to comply with our loan conditions. If some of a sample is not used, we require return - and we get compliance with this. |
|
All completely aside from the core of this Issue:
They kinda are, functionally - and #4189 will allow better UI/terminology. There's obviously been some 'usage' - someone's done something with parts - and that's what "loan-like transactions" do. They go from "we don't have it..." to "...and they do" (but you can cheat with other tools if everything's in Arctos; even then, consistency usually finds a way to be useful).
I don't think a simple text field is fully capable of expressing the situation. If you give me a skull, some subsequent user can probably borrow from me and you probably don't expect any data back - it's mine now. If you give me a tissue, I'll use it up, you probably won't (definitely shouldn't!) allow me to give it to someone else if I don't, you probably do expect data back, etc. This again just seems like something that can't adequately be done without going to the transaction (which, as above, exists about half the time, presumably in part because we figure disposition is good enough).
Parts are physical things, disposition is structurally linked to physical things, that cannot be correct in our model.
https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name#media and/or https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecpart_attribute_type#representation
That is 100% UI - it could happen in the next 5 minutes, the forms may just not look perfect. |
No, I'd say if a transaction doesn't exist it's probably because of legacy issues previously mentioned, or other things beyond our control. Our one transfer of custody specimen is an example of both. We don't have it anymore, there was no formal transaction created, and I'm not the one in charge of such things so I can't just make up a transaction, particularly for this specimen since it is a sensitive issue. |
|
I would also like "transfer of custody" to stay - this was our workaround when "'exchange" disappeared. Agree with @Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS in comment above - I am hesitant to use deaccession since we don't have accession paperwork from a 1966 specimen. |
|
I support recommending adding a loan when it is feasible and makes sense to do so, but keep transfer of custody regardless. Sometimes it is not feasible to add a loan or deaccession for the reasons previously mentioned, or because workflows and resources and staffing issues don't permit it at the time of data entry or in general. We need a backup alternative. |
|
Here is a example I just did last week with the ectoparasites: https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:341324. I created an MSB:Mamm loan for the sorting and ID'ing of the mammal ecto part, then I closed the loan and changed disposition to transfer of custody. The I cataloged the two species of fleas in MSB:Para, with relationships created between these new records and the host (and pulled the host data into the para records in data entry, so they share collecting events). Then I created another loan, this time from MSB:Para as issuer, to loan (now two different catalog records, in a different collection) these two fleas out to a researcher. I hope this sufficiently documents what was done. Note the host record now has a greyed out part for the ectoparasites, as they are no longer available through that collection, but a loan (and transfer of custody disposition) indicating what happened to the the ectoparasites and where they can be found. This info is also visible through the Other ID relationships.
|
|
I don't think this needs to go to the AWG at this point - can we craft a suitable definition for "transfer of custody" and close? |
|
It seems that any definition of transfer of custody needs to disambiguate from deaccession. Here's a crack at a definition: transfer of custody = Relocation of an object to another physical location outside the collection that may or may not include a formal loan; in any case, there is no expectation of return but the collection deems it necessary to maintain its metadata. Transfer of custody is differentiated from a formal deaccession where an accession exists but its legal and physical status is no longer the responsibility of the collection. EDIT!!! |
|
I dislike the loan verbiage - it should be clear that the term alone isn't a functionally equivalent replacement. Can that be changed to something like "should be accompanied (clarified, something) by a transaction"? That also avoids "loan," a term which should become less prominent in the UI with #4189 |
|
to address your issue... transfer of custody = Relocation of an object to another physical location outside the collection that may or may not include a formal transaction; in any case, there is no expectation of return but the collection deems it necessary to maintain its metadata. Transfer of custody is differentiated from a formal deaccession where an accession exists but its legal and physical status is no longer the responsibility of the collection. edits?! |
|
Can we work @AJLinn 's "Reasonable expectation of a related transaction" in?
|
|
I'm not sure what your proposed change is (oh just plop in a phrase....) OK how about: transfer of custody = Relocation of an object to another physical location outside the collection's facilities, in which there is a reasonable expectation of a formal transaction; in any case, there is no expectation of return but the collection deems it necessary to maintain its metadata. Transfer of custody is differentiated from a formal deaccession where an accession exists but its legal and physical status is no longer the responsibility of the collection. Vote or propose some edits! |
Ref: #2667
Problem: We have a bunch of ways of saying "we don't have it" without saying who (if anyone) might.
Proposed solution:
I can also create transactions and/or add these parts to them by request.
I'm adding this to the AWG Agenda - I know at least @campmlc has objections (but they don't really make sense to me - the "mammal part" is effectively 'used up' when the big jar of creepy-crawlies gets sorted out into new cataloged items).
Users:
Contacts:
@ebraker
@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS
@mkoo
@AJLinn
@campmlc
@ccicero
@amgunderson
@atrox10
@dssikes
@mvzhuang
@cjconroy
@wellerjes
@jebrad
@AdrienneRaniszewski
@acdoll
@jldunnum
@jrdemboski
@byuherpetology
@msbparasites
@mlbowser
@leet1984
@ewommack
@kderieg322079
@sharpphyl
@StefanieBond
@catherpes,@catherpes
@sjshirar
@lin-fred
@adhornsby
@jandreslopez
@droberts49
@crcarter00
@SerinaBrady
Data:
temp_disp_cln_toc.csv.zip
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: