Thank you for the post and suggestions.
Short answer, there is no such feature precisely as suggested by yourself. We do have a “chown” command (command line only feature), which I suppose you know about, see https://docs.openmicroscopy.org/omero/5.6.1/users/cli/chown.html please.
Did you know that this “chown” can be performed by the Group Owners as well as Administrators and Restricted Administrators ? This might help your workflow.
For the workflow as suggested by yourself, I have created a new github issue for that https://github.com/ome/omero-blitz/issues/88
Possibly, you did not explicitly specify that the feautre should be present in Graphical clients (because the user types youi are mentioning would hardly use command line), for that, we are having a PR in progress, see below please. The PR would have to be adjusted to accommodate all the users, not just Group Owners and admins.
2- A less common situation where I’m working at the moment. Data has been acquired and annotated with measurements. Those measurements are double checked and validated. That validation is such that the user should not be able to modify them again (quality management thing). What I’m thinking of doing is:
The workflow Ad 2. in your post, I am not sure I can fully follow.
Do I get it right that after acquisition, the data belong to some kind of super-user ? This means not to the target user ? Then, when the quality assurance steps have been taken, this super-user is passing the ownership of the data to the target user ? In such case, I do not see what gives you the protection that the target user will not change the validated data (the data are theirs at the end of the process).
Or maybe you mean the data belong first to the user which I call “target user” above, and then get manipulated by a super-user, quality-checked and disowned, so that the “target user” is not able to change the data anymore ? In that case, I do not see how do the target users work with the data which does not belong to them. Or is only a part of the data owned by somebody else, but the images are owned by the target users ?
In principle, this could be done at the same time by the user owning the data.
I am afraid I am puzzled by this sentence. The same user should do a quality assurance steps on their own data and then pass the ownership on somebody else ?
Would you see any issue with such a functionality?
With a caveat that I do not really get your example Ad 2. as I said, I see one more question for the general issue of change ownership as sugested by you : How would you prevent or cater for cases where the users transferred their data to someone else in errror ? As you mention, there would be no way to get them back… Would a simple warning in the graphical client be sufficient ?
All the best