Approval in quality-web

quality-web/de/quality_web.json

@@ -4,10 +4,10 @@
         "plausi": "Plausibilit\u00e4ts-Check",
         "plausi_legal": "Plausibilit\u00e4ts-Check f\u00fcr Rechteangaben von Objektabbildungen",
         "puqi_explica": "Der Publikations-Qualit\u00e4ts-Index (PuQI) misst die Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit und The publication quality index measures the completeness and suitability of an object record's publishable information. For example, feedback is given on the availability of an object title and a tags. Objects' descriptions are checked for their length; and linked images' license status is evaluated. Based on these evaluations, a quantitative score is provided to be able to roughly measure the completeness and quality of an object record for publication.",
-        "plausi_explica": "During this check, the objects' events (production, usage, etc.) are checked for their logical coherence based on the provided times and actors. For example, a bike that has been produced in 1950 cannot have been used in 1870. Similarly, a photograph showing Ice-T (born 1958) cannot have been taken in 1920.",
+        "plausi_explica": "Im Rahmen dieses Checks werden die mit einem Objekt verkn\u00fcpften Ereignisse (Herstellung, Benutzung, etc.) auf ihre logische Koh\u00e4renz gepr\u00fcft. Hierzu werden die angegebenen Lebensdaten und Zeiten genutzt. Zum Beispiel kann ein Fahrrad, das 1950 hergestellt wurde, nicht 1870 genutzt worden sein. Genauso ist es unwahrscheinlich, dass eine 1920 aufgenommene Fotografie Ice-T (geboren 1958) zeigt.",
-        "plausi_explica_2": "If such a logical inconsistency between or different events in the object's history is detected, a warning will be provided.",
+        "plausi_explica_2": "Wurde eine solche logische Inkonsistenz zwischen den verschiedenen Ereignissen der Objektgeschichte gefunden, wird eine Warnung zur\u00fcckgegeben.",
-        "plausi_legal_explica": "This check aims to identify and warn about obvious issues concerning the licensing status of an object's representations (mainly images). To do so, the life dates of the recorded creators are identified - either directly taken from the provided inputs or via references to central authority files and repositories like the Library of Congress Subject Headings, Wikidata or the Gemeinsame Normdatei of the German National Library. ",
+        "plausi_legal_explica": "Dieser Check versucht offensichtliche Probleme bei den Rechte- und Lizenzangaben von Objektabbildungen (etwa Objektfotos) zu identifizieren. Hierzu werden die Lebensdaten der verkn\u00fcpften Schaffenden ausgewertet - entweder wie mitgegeben oder auf Basis von ggfs. mitgelieferten Bez\u00fcgen zu kontrollierten Vokabularen und Normdatenrepositorien wie zur Library of Congress, Wikidata oder  der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek:",
-        "plausi_legal_explica_2": "The check is based on the assumption that images of museum objects are meant to be documenting - meaning that in many jurisdictions (such as the EU) no copyright protection is extended to the images themselves. It is thus likely, that images of objects older than 100 years after the death of their creator are in the public domain (here, we are using the maximum number of years by which any country extends copyright protection to a work). If a license status indicating otherwise is provided, a warning will be returned. Similarly, a warning will be displayed if images of objects created by creators who are still alive or have died only within the last 50 years (as per the Berne Convention) have been set under a non-restrictive license. These checks are of course only a rough approximation - laws are complicated and diverse, and so is object data. In sum, it is hoped however, that they cover issues appearing regularly, while not producing too many falsely positive warnings.",
+        "plausi_legal_explica_2": "Dieser Check basiert auf der grundlegenden Annahme, dass die mit den Datens\u00e4tzen verkn\u00fcpften Abbildungen rein dokumentarischen Zweckes sind - was seinerseits bedeutet, dass sie in vielen Jurisdiktionen (wie der EU) nicht selbstst\u00e4ndig eine Sch\u00f6pfungsh\u00f6he im Sinne des Urheberrechts erreichen. Unter dieser Vorraussetzung ist anzunehmen, dass Abbildungen von Objekten, deren jeweilige Schaffende schon mehr als 100 Jahre verstorben sind, gemeinfrei sind (hier wird die maximale Dauer, die irgendein Land derzeit bis zur Gemeinfreiheit eines Werkes verstreichen l\u00e4sst als Ma\u00dfstab genommen). Ist ein anderweitiger Lizenzstatus vergeben wird eine Warnung zur\u00fcckgegeben.\r\nGenauso wird eine Warnung zur\u00fcckgegeben, wenn eine nicht restriktive Lizenz vergeben wurde, w\u00e4hrend die das Objekt Schaffenden noch Leben oder erst innerhalb der letzten 50 Jahre (entsprechend Bern-Konvention) verstorben sind. Diese Pr\u00fcfungen sind offensichtlich nur eine grobe Ann\u00e4herung - Gesetze sind kompliziert und divers, und so sind es Objektdaten und etwaige Absprachen mit den Rechteinhabern. In der Summe sollte dieser Check allerdings viele oft auftretende Problemf\u00e4lle abdecken, ohne all zu viele falsch positive Warnungen zu liefern.",
         "citation": "Zitiervorschlag",
         "puqi_score": "PuQI-Wert",
         "results": "Ergebnisse",
@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@
         "alt_paste_text": "Oder einen Objekt-Datensatz als Text einf\u00fcgen",
         "text": "Text",
         "submit": "Abschicken",
-        "news": "Neuigkeiten"
+        "news": "Neuigkeiten",
+        "click_read_more": "Klicken, um mehr zu lesen",
+        "try_it_out": "Ausprobieren",
+        "intro_text": "Seit den Anf\u00e4ngen in den 1980er Jahren inventarisieren mehr und mehr Museen ihre Best\u00e4nde digital. Wo vorher auf Inventarkarten oft nur die grundlegendsten Informationen zum Objekt systematisch erfasst wurden, erlaubt die digitale Erfassung eine deutlich detailliertere Besch\u00e4ftigung mit den Best\u00e4nden ohne die dem Medium der Inventarkarte inh\u00e4renten Platzbegrenzungen. Detailinformationen, die fr\u00fcher in Katalogen oder Fachliteratur ver\u00f6ffentlicht und damit nur abseits der Inventarisierung und in oft unsystematischer Form vorlagen, lassen sich digital gemeinsam mit den grundlegenden Daten der Objekte speichern und durchsuchen. Parallel dazu ver\u00f6ffentlichen Museen ihre Best\u00e4nde zunehmend in frei durchsuchbaren Datenbanken, oft auch gemeinsam mit anderen Museen die g\u00e4nzlich andere Sammlungsfoki und Best\u00e4nde haben.\r\n\r\nDurch die Digitalisierung wird die hochqualitative und gleichzeitig systematische Erschlie\u00dfung der Best\u00e4nde also erst m\u00f6glich. Durch die oft mit der Erfassung eng verzahnte Ver\u00f6ffentlichung ist die Qualit\u00e4t der Objektdaten andererseits heute relevanter denn je.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital erm\u00f6glicht Museen und verwandten Einrichtungen seit 2009 das gemeinsame Verwalten und Ver\u00f6ffentlichen ihrer Best\u00e4nde. In diesem Rahmen entstanden Tools zur Messung und Verbesserung der Datenqualit\u00e4t.\r\n\r\nMit museum-digital:qa werden diese Werkzeuge auch \u00fcber die Grenzen von museum-digital hinaus zug\u00e4nglich und nachnutzbar gemacht. Dazu k\u00f6nnen sie einerseits direkt im Web benutzt werden - andererseits \u00fcber eine Programmierschnittstelle. \u00dcber diese k\u00f6nnen die Qualit\u00e4tschecks von museum-digital zuk\u00fcnftig auch leicht in andere Sammlungsmanagement-Systeme, die bisher keine vergleichbaren Werkzeuge anbieten, integriert werden.",
+        "summary": "Zusammenfassung",
+        "tech_background_hl": "Technischer Hintergrund",
+        "faq": "FAQ",
+        "tech_background_summary": "museum-digital:qa nutzt die Komponenten des Import-Tools von museum-digital nach, die zum Auslesen verschiedener Eingabeformate und zur einheitlichen Ansprache der Daten verwendet werden. So unterst\u00fctzt es neben g\u00e4ngigen Austauschformaten auch die softwarespezifischen Exportformate verschiedener Sammlungsmanagementsysteme und bietet eine Plattform zur Weiterverarbeitung von Museumsdaten aus verschiedensten Quellen. Die so eingelesenen Daten werden in der Folge auf ihre Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit und Konsistenz gepr\u00fcft."
     }
 }

quality-web/en/quality_web.json

@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@
         "alt_paste_text": "Or Paste the Object Record in Plain Text",
         "text": "Text",
         "submit": "Submit",
-        "news": "News"
+        "news": "News",
+        "click_read_more": "Click to read more",
+        "try_it_out": "Try it out",
+        "intro_text": "Since the 1980s, more and more museums have started managing their object data digitally. Where inventory cards oftentimes only covered the most rudimentary information systematically, digital record-keeping allows for a much more detailled description of the objects without any of the space limitations inherent to the medium of the inventory card. Detailed information that had often only been written down unsystematically in catalogues or research articles can now be stored and searched digitally alongside the rudimentary object data in a database. Simultaneously, an increasing number of museums has started to publish their collections in publicly accessible databases, often in collaboration with other museums, which have entirely different collections.\r\n\r\nA coverage of the collections that is at the same time systematic and detailled has thus only really been possible due to digitization. The increasingly close link between inventorization and publication of the object data on the other hand makes data quality more relevant than ever.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital has helped museums and related institutions in collaboratively managing and publishing their collections online since 2009. In this context, a number of tools were written to measure and improve the quality of collection data.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital:qa allows the (re-)use of these tools by users and software beyond museum-digital. They may be used directly via a web interface or via an API, which also allows for the simple embedding of the quality assessment tools into other collection management systems, which often do not feature comparable tools as of yet.",
+        "summary": "Summary",
+        "tech_background_hl": "Technical background",
+        "faq": "Frequently Asked Questions",
+        "tech_background_summary": "museum-digital:qa resuses those components of museum-digital's improt tool, which cover the tasks of parsing different input formats and converting them into a uniform format for simple processing. It thus supports reading both well-established open standards for data exchange in the cultural heritage sector as well as the specific export formats of a number of collection management systems to establish a platform for the processing of museum data from a variety of sources. The data thus read are then checked for their completeness and coherence."
     }
 }

quality-web/hu/quality_web.json

@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@
         "alt_paste_text": "Or Paste the Object Record in Plain Text",
         "text": "Text",
         "submit": "Submit",
-        "news": "News"
+        "news": "News",
+        "click_read_more": "Click to read more",
+        "try_it_out": "Try it out",
+        "intro_text": "Since the 1980s, more and more museums have started managing their object data digitally. Where inventory cards oftentimes only covered the most rudimentary information systematically, digital record-keeping allows for a much more detailled description of the objects without any of the space limitations inherent to the medium of the inventory card. Detailed information that had often only been written down unsystematically in catalogues or research articles can now be stored and searched digitally alongside the rudimentary object data in a database. Simultaneously, an increasing number of museums has started to publish their collections in publicly accessible databases, often in collaboration with other museums, which have entirely different collections.\r\n\r\nA coverage of the collections that is at the same time systematic and detailled has thus only really been possible due to digitization. The increasingly close link between inventorization and publication of the object data on the other hand makes data quality more relevant than ever.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital has helped museums and related institutions in collaboratively managing and publishing their collections online since 2009. In this context, a number of tools were written to measure and improve the quality of collection data.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital:qa allows the (re-)use of these tools by users and software beyond museum-digital. They may be used directly via a web interface or via an API, which also allows for the simple embedding of the quality assessment tools into other collection management systems, which often do not feature comparable tools as of yet.",
+        "summary": "Summary",
+        "tech_background_hl": "Technical background",
+        "faq": "Frequently Asked Questions",
+        "tech_background_summary": "museum-digital:qa resuses those components of museum-digital's improt tool, which cover the tasks of parsing different input formats and converting them into a uniform format for simple processing. It thus supports reading both well-established open standards for data exchange in the cultural heritage sector as well as the specific export formats of a number of collection management systems to establish a platform for the processing of museum data from a variety of sources. The data thus read are then checked for their completeness and coherence."
     }
 }

quality-web/ru/quality_web.json

@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@
         "alt_paste_text": "Or Paste the Object Record in Plain Text",
         "text": "Text",
         "submit": "Submit",
-        "news": "News"
+        "news": "News",
+        "click_read_more": "Click to read more",
+        "try_it_out": "Try it out",
+        "intro_text": "Since the 1980s, more and more museums have started managing their object data digitally. Where inventory cards oftentimes only covered the most rudimentary information systematically, digital record-keeping allows for a much more detailled description of the objects without any of the space limitations inherent to the medium of the inventory card. Detailed information that had often only been written down unsystematically in catalogues or research articles can now be stored and searched digitally alongside the rudimentary object data in a database. Simultaneously, an increasing number of museums has started to publish their collections in publicly accessible databases, often in collaboration with other museums, which have entirely different collections.\r\n\r\nA coverage of the collections that is at the same time systematic and detailled has thus only really been possible due to digitization. The increasingly close link between inventorization and publication of the object data on the other hand makes data quality more relevant than ever.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital has helped museums and related institutions in collaboratively managing and publishing their collections online since 2009. In this context, a number of tools were written to measure and improve the quality of collection data.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital:qa allows the (re-)use of these tools by users and software beyond museum-digital. They may be used directly via a web interface or via an API, which also allows for the simple embedding of the quality assessment tools into other collection management systems, which often do not feature comparable tools as of yet.",
+        "summary": "Summary",
+        "tech_background_hl": "Technical background",
+        "faq": "Frequently Asked Questions",
+        "tech_background_summary": "museum-digital:qa resuses those components of museum-digital's improt tool, which cover the tasks of parsing different input formats and converting them into a uniform format for simple processing. It thus supports reading both well-established open standards for data exchange in the cultural heritage sector as well as the specific export formats of a number of collection management systems to establish a platform for the processing of museum data from a variety of sources. The data thus read are then checked for their completeness and coherence."
     }
 }

quality-web/uk/quality_web.json

@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@
         "alt_paste_text": "Or Paste the Object Record in Plain Text",
         "text": "Text",
         "submit": "Submit",
-        "news": "News"
+        "news": "News",
+        "click_read_more": "Click to read more",
+        "try_it_out": "Try it out",
+        "intro_text": "Since the 1980s, more and more museums have started managing their object data digitally. Where inventory cards oftentimes only covered the most rudimentary information systematically, digital record-keeping allows for a much more detailled description of the objects without any of the space limitations inherent to the medium of the inventory card. Detailed information that had often only been written down unsystematically in catalogues or research articles can now be stored and searched digitally alongside the rudimentary object data in a database. Simultaneously, an increasing number of museums has started to publish their collections in publicly accessible databases, often in collaboration with other museums, which have entirely different collections.\r\n\r\nA coverage of the collections that is at the same time systematic and detailled has thus only really been possible due to digitization. The increasingly close link between inventorization and publication of the object data on the other hand makes data quality more relevant than ever.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital has helped museums and related institutions in collaboratively managing and publishing their collections online since 2009. In this context, a number of tools were written to measure and improve the quality of collection data.\r\n\r\nmuseum-digital:qa allows the (re-)use of these tools by users and software beyond museum-digital. They may be used directly via a web interface or via an API, which also allows for the simple embedding of the quality assessment tools into other collection management systems, which often do not feature comparable tools as of yet.",
+        "summary": "Summary",
+        "tech_background_hl": "Technical background",
+        "faq": "Frequently Asked Questions",
+        "tech_background_summary": "museum-digital:qa resuses those components of museum-digital's improt tool, which cover the tasks of parsing different input formats and converting them into a uniform format for simple processing. It thus supports reading both well-established open standards for data exchange in the cultural heritage sector as well as the specific export formats of a number of collection management systems to establish a platform for the processing of museum data from a variety of sources. The data thus read are then checked for their completeness and coherence."
     }
 }