Questions
Note that it is better to place discussion points inline as sub-bullets, tan than to put them in comments where the context and flow is harder to reconstruct.
- In the workshops, the ability to create sets of objects (or groups as they are called here) emerged as a fundamental theme. Some groups are short-lived; others are relatively permanent. People talked about being able to associate documents and annotations with sets. I'm being long-winded! My question is: Is "group" the right name given that people might assume this relates to groups of users and people? Or would this group service extend to those kinds of entities?
- Unlicensed user: Thanks for raising this question, Chris. My thinking is that the name 'group' is a generic name used only at the service layer, and likely wouldn't be user-facing. Terms such as "sets" might be applied to CollectionObjects in the user interface, while terms such as "groups" (and other concepts, such as "roles") would apply to Persons and Principles.
You've also raised an important point - that there may need to be a time dimension for groups. - Aron
- Can the creation of a group of CollectionObjects also trigger the application of access restrictions, either to the physical/digital objects or their metadata? In other words, should we create behaviors for various kinds of 'locking groups' within the group service? If not, in which other service, at the service layer, should those behaviors occur?
The need for 'locking groups' might occur, for example, when a group of objects has been selected for a loan or exhibit, and are thus "frozen": they should not otherwise be moved, loaned or exhibited elsewhere, sent out for conservation, etc. Similarly, when a group of objects has been created with the intent to review their information, perform retrospective cataloging, etc., no other changes to their information should be permitted for a temporary period of time.