Adjust the schema towards transparency issues

[Jomula]

This is partly already done by implementing properties like "open access" or "sustainability plan", but as I was reading an article by Zaagsma (2022), I came across this quote:

To start with, and echoing the call of Hauswedell et al. (2020), we urgently need what could be called digital cultural heritage transparency guidelines that encourage institutions to provide more information about how their digital resources are constituted and were created. Who funded the project? What selection criteria were applied? What classification and metadata schemes were used? How is access provided? What choices were made concerning the interface and search options? And crucially (if often ignored), what relevant offline sources could be of interest to researchers? An increasing number of institutions is beginning to provide (parts of) this information, a development that will hopefully see wide adoption across the GLAM sector. (Zaagsma 2022: 844)

This is an issues especially in the NLS-related area, as due to different reasons, projects are not willing to provide too much transparency, especially not before the project's work is "publication-ready" (e.g. Bibliotheca Arabica). I think that does conflict with Open Scholarship and FAIR principles often required by funding institutions or academic guidelines and should be addressed as such. That being said, we should not use this as a stigma, as there are valid reasons for not being transparent in some cases. But some of the questions above might be interesting to weave into the schema, don't you think?

(Assigned to Xenia, but feel free to change @theodore-s-beers )

[XeniaMonika]

Very good, thank you! I think this article could be also helpful in the preparation of questions for our interview. I would read it and make notes, but I wouldn´t change the schema before consulting it with you, @theodore-s-beers

[theodore-s-beers]

I definitely support adjusting the schema to bring these issues into relief. I think it could be done subtly enough that it wouldn't look as though we were being judgmental toward projects that operate relatively less transparently.