Clarify wording (from workshop)

Some confusion about the phrase 'for inspection on request' at workshops I attended, so this should be rephrased. The intent is simply for this information to be collected and available for use (provably so if the service is being peer-reviewed), not that it should be publicly available.

Slightly different but still language-related, perhaps intellectual property would be more inclusive than copyright?

Why the contribution is important

Minimising confusion, maximising usefulness!

Current rating

3.5
Average score : 3.5
Based on : 2 votes
Posted by cwilliams1 April 03, 2012 at 16:17
... and such a requirement could be demonstrated and measured by a meaningful accessions return in response to The National Archives' annual Accessions to Repositories survey: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/ With the current shift towards open and linked data and an emphasis on networking resources, the better the accessions information, the better the access to such information for users.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by cmstaylor April 05, 2012 at 16:10
I would favour IPR rather than copyright as it is not only more inclusive but is also more comprehensive.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by pbirch April 06, 2012 at 08:56
Definitely should be changed from 'inspection on request'. I have always believed this information to be collected for internal use only and our depositors are assured that any personal details kept on the accession register will not be released to other people.

I'm not sure the annual accessions return to TNA would be a very good measure of how good your accession register is as it only asks for limited information about the collection rather than about the intellectual control of it.

I agree IPR rather than copyright.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Please login to add comments and rate ideas