Approval.

de/quality_web.php

@@ -5,10 +5,11 @@ $quality_web = array (
   'plausi' => 'Plausibilitäts-Check',
   'plausi_legal' => 'Plausibilitäts-Check für Rechteangaben von Objektabbildungen',
   'puqi_explica' => 'Der Publikations-Qualitäts-Index (PuQI) misst die Vollständigkeit 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 verknüpften Ereignisse (Herstellung, Benutzung, etc.) auf ihre logische Kohärenz geprüft. 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 zurückgegeben.',
-  '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 verknüpften Schaffenden ausgewertet - entweder wie mitgegeben oder auf Basis von ggfs. mitgelieferten Bezügen 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 Datensätzen verknüpften Abbildungen rein dokumentarischen Zweckes sind - was seinerseits bedeutet, dass sie in vielen Jurisdiktionen (wie der EU) nicht selbstständig eine Schöpfungshöhe 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 lässt als Maßstab genommen). Ist ein anderweitiger Lizenzstatus vergeben wird eine Warnung zurückgegeben.
+Genauso wird eine Warnung zurückgegeben, wenn eine nicht restriktive Lizenz vergeben wurde, während die das Objekt Schaffenden noch Leben oder erst innerhalb der letzten 50 Jahre (entsprechend Bern-Konvention) verstorben sind. Diese Prüfungen sind offensichtlich nur eine grobe Annäherung - 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 Problemfälle abdecken, ohne all zu viele falsch positive Warnungen zu liefern.',
   'citation' => 'Zitiervorschlag',
   'puqi_score' => 'PuQI-Wert',
   'results' => 'Ergebnisse',
@@ -25,8 +26,21 @@ $quality_web = array (
   'select_import_format' => 'Ein Import-Format auswählen',
   'upload_a_file' => 'Eine Datei hochladen',
   'select_file_for_upload' => 'Datei zum Hochladen auswählen',
-  'alt_paste_text' => 'Oder einen Objekteintrag als Text einfügen',
+  'alt_paste_text' => 'Oder einen Objekt-Datensatz als Text einfügen',
   'text' => 'Text',
   'submit' => 'Abschicken',
   'news' => 'Neuigkeiten',
+  'click_read_more' => 'Klicken, um mehr zu lesen',
+  'try_it_out' => 'Ausprobieren',
+  'intro_text' => 'Seit den Anfängen in den 1980er Jahren inventarisieren mehr und mehr Museen ihre Bestände digital. Wo vorher auf Inventarkarten oft nur die grundlegendsten Informationen zum Objekt systematisch erfasst wurden, erlaubt die digitale Erfassung eine deutlich detailliertere Beschäftigung mit den Beständen ohne die dem Medium der Inventarkarte inhärenten Platzbegrenzungen. Detailinformationen, die früher in Katalogen oder Fachliteratur veröffentlicht 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 veröffentlichen Museen ihre Bestände zunehmend in frei durchsuchbaren Datenbanken, oft auch gemeinsam mit anderen Museen die gänzlich andere Sammlungsfoki und Bestände haben.
+
+Durch die Digitalisierung wird die hochqualitative und gleichzeitig systematische Erschließung der Bestände also erst möglich. Durch die oft mit der Erfassung eng verzahnte Veröffentlichung ist die Qualität der Objektdaten andererseits heute relevanter denn je.
+
+museum-digital ermöglicht Museen und verwandten Einrichtungen seit 2009 das gemeinsame Verwalten und Veröffentlichen ihrer Bestände. In diesem Rahmen entstanden Tools zur Messung und Verbesserung der Datenqualität.
+
+Mit museum-digital:qa werden diese Werkzeuge auch über die Grenzen von museum-digital hinaus zugänglich und nachnutzbar gemacht. Dazu können sie einerseits direkt im Web benutzt werden - andererseits über eine Programmierschnittstelle. Über diese können die Qualitätschecks von museum-digital zukünftig 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 unterstützt es neben gängigen 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 Vollständigkeit und Konsistenz geprüft.',
 );

en/quality_web.php

@@ -29,4 +29,17 @@ $quality_web = array (
   'text' => 'Text',
   'submit' => 'Submit',
   '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.
+
+A 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.
+
+museum-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.
+
+museum-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.',
 );

hu/quality_web.php

@@ -29,4 +29,17 @@ $quality_web = array (
   'text' => 'Text',
   'submit' => 'Submit',
   '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.
+
+A 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.
+
+museum-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.
+
+museum-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.',
 );

ru/quality_web.php

@@ -29,4 +29,17 @@ $quality_web = array (
   'text' => 'Text',
   'submit' => 'Submit',
   '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.
+
+A 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.
+
+museum-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.
+
+museum-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.',
 );

uk/quality_web.php

@@ -29,4 +29,17 @@ $quality_web = array (
   'text' => 'Text',
   'submit' => 'Submit',
   '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.
+
+A 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.
+
+museum-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.
+
+museum-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.',
 );