museum-digital/translation-json
36
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Approval in quality-web

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Joshua Ramon Enslin
2023-10-06 21:57:45 +00:00
committed by md translation bot
parent af0077100d
commit d4a9d84cba
5 changed files with 10 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
quality-web/ru/quality_web.json
View File

@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
"faq_q_birth_death_dates_via_vocabs": "Birth and death dates of related actors are not covered by our object metadata, but we do link them to norm data repositories. Will the plausibility checks still work?",
"faq_a_birth_death_dates_via_vocabs": "Yes. museum-digital:qa will also check references to norm data repositories against museum-digital's controlled vocabularies to gather additional data - such as birth and death dates - if any such references are supplied.",
"outlook_text": "museum-digital:qa offers a platform to parse and process museum data from a multitude of sources - specifically, to check them for their quality. The strictly modularization of components - the parsing of the data on one hand, the checks themselves on the other, and finally the communication between these two - makes it simple to integrate further tools and checks.\r\n\r\nUsing the API, specified using the OpenAPI format, researchers and software vendors can easily reuse the tools made accessible through museum-digital:qa.",
"tech_background_text": "museum-digital:qa accepts data from common and consistent input formats, converts them into an internal, uniform format, and finally evaluates them with regard to their completeness and plausibility. Input formats may either be the software-specific export formats of various collection management systems, if these are formed in the same way across all museums using the same application, or the common open standards for the exchange of museum object data. \r\n\r\nDifferent collection management systems have different approaches to dealing with the task of customization. While museum-digital:musdb purposefully does not allow museums to freely define fields in order to ensure a consistent database design across institutional boundaries, and thus to be able to offer a variety of evaluation functions tailored to the shared set of data fields on the one hand, and to enable export and search functions across multiple museums on the other hand, other collection management systems allow customization up to the level of defining a fully custom database structure. This customizability may either work on the user interface level or directly at level of the underlying database. If the database structure is also customizable, this simultaneously means that exports from the same software can come in a variety of formats similarly custom to the given museum. Where only the user interface is customizable, there are often software-specific export formats that are consistent across museum boundaries, well maintained, and possibly more complete than other export options (and thus particularly well suited for data migration, for example).\r\n\r\nIn order to simplify the exchange of data across institutional and software boundaries, various open standards have been developed. The single one most relevant for museums is certainly LIDO; in related areas, EAD (mainly archives) and MODS (mainly libraries) are used. In most cases, these standards are intended for the exchange of publishable data. They thus rarely cover all locally available data fields. Open standards, on the other hand, are implemented in many collection management solutions. With the EODEM published in 2023, early steps towards fascilitating the exchange of primarily internal data have begun to be taken.\r\n\r\nFor the purpose of importing data (be it for data migration or simply for publication), museum-digital offers an import tool that - in addition to the common exchange formats - also supports some software-specific formats (on the one hand, because not all collection management systems support the common exchange formats \"out of the box\", on the other hand, because these are often more complete, as discussed above). This import tool, in turn, consists of three components: 1) basic data types relevant to museum work (such as object, keyword, loan), 2) functions for reading data from the aforementioned formats and transferring the input data into the data types just mentioned, and 3) a module for actually transferring the data into the database.\r\n\r\nThe import tool's modules for defining data types and parsing data from different input formats are reused in museum-digital:qa. Thus, museum-digital:qa can support all import formats that are also supported by the importer of museum-digital with a minimum of additional effor (for museum-specific import formats, however, it is not worthwhile to undertake such adaptations). Without relevant own code for reading the incoming data, museum-digital:qa thus also remains very low-maintenance. Conversely, reusing the parsing functionalities of the importer also means that all data that can be checked for quality using museum-digital:qa can be imported into museum-digital without any further adjustments as well.\r\n\r\nThe input data are subsequently available in a structured form and can easily be processed further. Here, it is passed on in a slightly adapted form to the functions for checking data quality. As museum-digital:qa was written, these functions were moved from museum-digital:musdb to a separate library into a standalone, open-source library."
"tech_background_text": "museum-digital:qa accepts data from common and consistent input formats, converts them into an internal, uniform format, and finally evaluates them with regard to their completeness and plausibility. Input formats may either be the software-specific export formats of various collection management systems, if these are formed in the same way across all museums using the same application, or the common open standards for the exchange of museum object data. \r\n\r\nDifferent collection management systems have different approaches to dealing with the task of customization. While museum-digital:musdb purposefully does not allow museums to freely define fields in order to ensure a consistent database design across institutional boundaries, and thus to be able to offer a variety of evaluation functions tailored to the shared set of data fields on the one hand, and to enable export and search functions across multiple museums on the other hand, other collection management systems allow customization up to the level of defining a fully custom database structure. This customizability may either work on the user interface level or directly at level of the underlying database. If the database structure is also customizable, this simultaneously means that exports from the same software can come in a variety of formats similarly custom to the given museum. Where only the user interface is customizable, there are often software-specific export formats that are consistent across museum boundaries, well maintained, and possibly more complete than other export options (and thus particularly well suited for data migration, for example).\r\n\r\nIn order to simplify the exchange of data across institutional and software boundaries, various open standards have been developed. The single one most relevant for museums is certainly LIDO; in related areas, EAD (mainly archives) and MODS (mainly libraries) are used. In most cases, these standards are intended for the exchange of publishable data. They thus rarely cover all locally available data fields. Open standards, on the other hand, are implemented in many collection management solutions. With the EODEM published in 2023, early steps towards fascilitating the exchange of primarily internal data have begun to be taken.\r\n\r\nFor the purpose of importing data (be it for data migration or simply for publication), museum-digital offers an import tool that - in addition to the common exchange formats - also supports some software-specific formats (on the one hand, because not all collection management systems support the common exchange formats \"out of the box\", on the other hand, because these are often more complete, as discussed above). This import tool, in turn, consists of three components: 1) basic data types relevant to museum work (such as object, keyword, loan), 2) functions for reading data from the aforementioned formats and transferring the input data into the data types just mentioned, and 3) a module for actually transferring the data into the database.\r\n\r\nThe import tool's modules for defining data types and parsing data from different input formats are reused in museum-digital:qa. Thus, museum-digital:qa can support all import formats that are also supported by the importer of museum-digital with a minimum of additional effor (for museum-specific import formats, however, it is not worthwhile to undertake such adaptations). Without relevant own code for reading the incoming data, museum-digital:qa thus also remains very low-maintenance. Conversely, reusing the parsing functionalities of the importer also means that all data that can be checked for quality using museum-digital:qa can be imported into museum-digital without any further adjustments as well.\r\n\r\nThe input data are subsequently available in a structured form and can easily be processed further. Here, it is passed on in a slightly adapted form to the functions for checking data quality. As museum-digital:qa was written, these functions were moved from museum-digital:musdb to a separate library into a standalone, open-source library.",
"go_back": "Go back"
}
}