Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

archives by wulinqing

VIEWS: 68 PAGES: 13

									                                       stefano vitali




                                     archives
Stefano Vitali
                       context is everything:
                sharing knowledge among archives,
                      libraries and museums*
this paper presents a concise survey of strategies that have been developed over the last several
decades in terms of relationships among the catalogues and descriptive systems of archives,
libraries and museums. In some cases, single databases have been developed to describe
various materials. In others, a common search engine has been established to conduct searches
in the systems of archives, libraries and museums through a single query. Another option has
been the establishment of common metadata for the description of archival and bibliographic
materials, as well as museum artefacts. An example of this is the Dublin Core metadata, which
enables metadata harvesting on the basis of the OAI-PMH model. More recently, system
architectures for archival and museum domains have been proposed on the basis of the sharing
of information in historical, cultural and conceptual contexts, the focus being on materials of
cultural heritage that have been created, transmitted, utilised and interpreted over the course
of the centuries. the author seeks to identify the potential and the limitations of the various
approaches and practical solutions that have been adopted.
Keywords: Archives, libraries, museums, catalogues, descriptive systems.

   The issue of relationships among archival, library and museum systems
has a fairly long history, one which has gone through various phases in
which various solutions – both from the conceptual and from the technical
point of view – have been proposed and put into practice.
   Early on, it became evident that information technologies could be of use
in the management and description of the various components of cultural
heritage. this may seem like a remote period in time from our current point

* This paper is based on one that was presented at an international seminar, “The Common
  Use of Information and Resources: Co-operation Among Museums, Archives and Libraries in
  Standardisation”, Riga, April 2007. An earlier version was presented at an international con-
  ference, “Cultural Heritage Online: The Challenge of Accessibility and Preservation”, Flor-
  ence, 14–16 December 2006.
                           COnTExT IS EvERyTHIng                           33

of view, but it isn’t, because many significant legacies are still found in
contemporary views and practices. At any rate, early on technologies were
put to use in integration and description of archival materials, books and
other artistic or cultural artefacts in common electronic catalogues. this
seemed to be a way for developing efficient cross-domain search tools. This
integration was based on common descriptive models, data formats and
rules for archives, libraries and museums. In practice, the data models and
descriptive rules which were adopted were those that had been developed
for the cataloguing of bibliographic materials. That was the case, for
instance, with American bibliographic networks such as RLIn and OCLC.
In the 1980s, the MARC format and AACR2 were used to describe not only
books, but also archival materials.1 In other countries such as Italy, the
same approach was determined to be attractive and appropriate, and it was
adopted for a number of descriptive projects.
    very soon it became evident that the approach had a series of limits and
drawbacks. For instance, the description of specific materials (e.g., archival
materials) on the basis of formats and rules that have been developed in a
different domain (e.g., a library domain) means that the complex semantic
meanings of the relevant materials cannot be represented. Also, these kinds
of systems were often not very efficient in information search and retrieval,
because user queries often led to redundant and, sometimes, misleading
responses. More recently, the inadequacies of descriptive models which
were used for library catalogues during the last decades of the 20th century
have been laid bare by the evolution of bibliographic descriptive paradigms
that can be attributed to the development of more complex models, such
as the one represented in the “Functional Requirements of Bibliographic
Records,”2 while in the archival domain, specific descriptive formats
have been developed on the basis of traditional descriptive practices and
international standards.3
    The landscape for these processes changed dramatically in the 1990s,
when the Internet began to spread all around the world and the World Wide
Web was created. The issue of relationships among archival, library and
museum systems had to be reconsidered from scratch. Many systems began
to appear on the Web, ones that were developed by individual institutions or
by local, regional or national network systems. This led to thoughts about the
34                              stefano vitali


exchange of data and the establishment of some degree of interoperability
among systems in a single domain or in different domains. Digitalisation of
archival, library and museum collections by public institutions and private
entities made it possible to provide access not just to descriptions of books,
documents, art and cultural artefacts, but also to digital images of these, as
provided on the Web. On the other hand, Internet users soon found that a
dramatic problem on the Web could be information overload because of the
rapidly growing among of such information. The convergence of archival,
library and museum systems clearly had more serious implications in this
context, and this is a matter for political and administrative authorities that
are responsible for the cultural heritage at the national and the european
level. For the past decade, interoperability among archives, libraries and
museums has often been posited as a strategic goal to make it easier and
more efficient to discover cultural resources and high-quality digital content
on the Web. Political input seeks to overcome difficulties related to the
resistance of institutions from various domains to working together with
others, even though political and administrative pressures sometimes don’t
sufficiently take into account the origins and reasons for the difficulties and
resistance.
   In the networked environment, the search for a common data format
has been replaced by a new vision, one that involves more flexible
architectures that are capable of searching, retrieving and managing data
from heterogeneous sources through the use of common interfaces and
communication standards. The most significant effort in this direction
has probably been the Z39.50 protocol.4 Conceived before the Web, the
Z39.50 protocol supported meta-search procedures so as to provide access
from a common gateway to systems based on different data models and
formats. Largely used by libraries in concert with Web applications, the
Z39.50 protocol has been less popular among archives and museums, even
though an application profile known as the Consortium for Computer
Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI) has been developed specifically
for museums.5 Specifications for the discovery of resources across domains
have been included in upgraded versions of the Z39.50 application profiles,
such as the Bath profile.6
                            COnTExT IS EvERyTHIng                           35

   one major problem in using these communication protocols as cross-
domain search tools has to do with the difficulty of establishing true semantic
interoperability between systems that are based on dissimilar descriptive
paradigms. In particular, while the protocols are usually developed in
reference to bibliographic models, the descriptive practices that have been
traditionally used in other domains are based on other specific models.
For instance, traditional archival search aids have a hierarchical structure
which reflects the typical arrangement of archival collections. These usually
consist of series which contain a number of volumes or files which, generally
speaking, share the same physical and functional characteristics. The
complex architecture also has to be represented in digital archival systems,
and this affects the way in which the description of each archival entity
is retrieved and accessed by users. archival entities must be presented
to users in the proper archival context. This implies that along with the
single description, the complete hierarchical chain of its upper levels must
also be retrieved if the description is to be fully and correctly understood.
Moreover, information on provenance and the context of the creation
of archival materials is just as crucial in archival descriptions as is the
description of the archival material itself. Information about the creator’s
history and structure (or biography and public activities if the creator is an
individual) may help users better to understand the circumstances under
which documents have been produced, collected and arranged. This, in
turn, enables comprehension of the circumstances that must be in place if
the documents are to be interpreted properly. Communication protocols
that are developed according to descriptive bibliographic paradigms are
not able to accommodate these characteristics of archival description in an
appropriate and meaningful way.
   More recently there have been new and different approaches toward
establishing forms of interoperability among archival, library and museum
systems. Some of these initiatives have sought to create common gateways
for the discovery and access of digital libraries or collections or digital
book reproductions, archival documents and artefacts of art and culture, as
created and published on the Web by various cultural institutions.
   One of these initiatives is known as MICHAEL (Multilingual Inventory
of Cultural Heritage in Europe). The stated objective for the project is “to
36                               stefano vitali


provide simple and quick access to the digital collections of museums,
libraries and archives from different European countries”7 and to make
available “a European cultural heritage inventory” based on “a number
of national inventories using a common meta-data, data model and set of
services based on a common technical platform, localised as necessary.”8
national portals for the project have thus far been developed in great
Britain, France and Italy so as to provide access to their national databases,
while a common portal makes it possible to integrate access to the national
implementation of the project.9
   The Michael portals describe five “entities” – digital collections; the
institutions which are responsible for digitisation projects or for the
development and management of information services and products; the
services and points of access of a digital collection or collections; projects
which directly or indirectly result in the creation of digital collections or
services or products; physical collections that are sets of physical items (e.g.,
a set of museum objects, archival series, or library collections which have
been completely or partially reproduced in digital format).
   Thanks to the adoption of the Dublin Core Culture metadata,10 des-
criptions of digital collections and related entities can be accessed through
four high-level access points (“who”, “what”, “where” and “when”) that
have been identified by the CIMI/Aquarelle profile as an appropriate
framework for culture-related metadata.11 By consulting the collection
descriptions, users can acquire basic knowledge about the characteristics
and content of same. If they are interested, and if the collection is available
online, they can go straight to the relevant Web site.
   The Michael project is certainly an interesting initiative, primarily
because of its international dimension. nevertheless, the project also has
some significant limitations. The gateways work very well as a simple tool
for the aggregation of a single online service involving descriptions of
digital collections. The level of interoperability among archives, libraries
and museums is not very high, however. Unfortunately, it is restricted to the
presentation of short descriptions of digital collections that are produced
in the three domains, and this is offered on a single list. Moreover, the
conceptual definition of what a digital collection really is, as well as the
practical identification of digital collections that are to be described – these
                            COnTExT IS EvERyTHIng                           37

are rather vague and nebulous definitions, as are the relationships between
digital and so-called “physical collections.” The fact is that the elements of
information that are used in describing digital collections and their content
require substantial improvement.
   Michael does not allow for simultaneous research within all digital
collections that are described and listed on portals. other projects should
enable this process. some have recently been designed or implemented
in Italy (the Portale Italiano della Cultura (PICO) portal that is being
developed by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and a school in Pisa12), in
norway (The norwegian Archive, Library and Museum Administration13),
in Denmark (the northern Cultural and Historical Database, or nOKS14),
the netherlands (the Culture Indicator of the netherlands15), and germany
(the Portal for Libraries, Archives and Museums). These projects share a
common architecture that is based on metadata harvesting mechanisms in
accordance with the OAI-PMH protocol. They usually adopt the simple or
qualified Dublin Core as a tool for describing the resources or as an exchange
and communications format for data that have originally been recorded in
databases or xML files in accordance with domain-specific formats.
   The german Portal for Libraries, Archives and Museums, which was
put together by a consortium of such institutions, is an interesting example
of this kind of project.16 the portal uses a metadata harvesting procedure
to gather together descriptions of books, archival materials and museum
artefacts on a central server. The metadata can be searched by keywords
through the open source search engine lucene. the concise descriptions
that are retrieved are linked to the catalogues or information systems of
the participating institutions. If users want more information, they are
directed to more detailed descriptions that are in the catalogues or systems
of the relevant institution. Digital reproductions may also be available.
More complex search features should be implemented in the near future. In
particular, the use of linguistic tools and authority files will be examined so
as to improve the retrieval results.17
   The Michael portals, the BAM portal, and many of the other aforemen-
tioned national portals are typical examples of the model of interoperability
which currently exists among archival, library and museum information
systems. important and interesting improvements have been made in
38                              stefano vitali


comparison to the attempts that were made in the 1980s and 1990s. This
interoperability model should be disseminated more widely and adopted
at the regional, national and international level, because it appears to be
of much assistance in making the search for high-quality digital resources
on the Web far easier and more efficient. nevertheless, there are a few
conceptual limitations to the developed solutions, and these require some
attention, too.
    the model that has been adopted in those projects is essentially based on
a technical conception of interoperability, as opposed to offering a cultural
view of the relationships which exist among archives, libraries and museums.
Instead of offering true integration and a combination of information and
knowledge that are incorporated in the catalogues and information systems
of archives, libraries and museums, the model is aimed at assembling lists
of research results, with entries having the same kind of relationships as
those in a google-produced list. It is also true that the metadata sets that
have been adopted – sets such as Dublin Core, whether simple, qualified or
refined with added elements or qualifiers – are very poor in semantic terms.
They can only establish superficial relationships between the resources that
are described in the systems. these metadata sets focus on the description
of single items rather than the relationships among them, as well as on
the relationships of the resources, as described in terms of their historical
context. This is a particularly significant problem when archival materials
are at issue. Sadly, Dublin Core cannot appropriately accommodate all of
the information which is required by archival descriptive standards – ISAD
(g) and ISAAR (CPF) – for descriptive purposes. Moreover, some elements
in Dublin Core can be misleading when they are used to describe materials
from different domains. A typical example might be the element “creator,”
which should be used for entities that, in an archival context, play a role that
is very different than it would be in a bibliographic or museum context.
    In this architecture of interoperability, more in-depth relationships of
a contextual (i.e., of an historical or conceptual) nature among archives,
bibliographic materials, and artistic and cultural artefacts are not used to
develop more significant strategies for research and information retrieval.
As one author has put it: “All metadata formats have a rigid, rather inflexible
structure. The links between the metadata elements disappear because the
                           COnTExT IS EvERyTHIng                           39

elements are ordered in parallel, and not hierarchically. Retrieval strategies
must use complex combinations in order to achieve precise and/or complete
results. [..] The information of a complex structure cannot be modelled
appropriately by flat metadata structures.”18
    There have been oversimplified descriptions of digital resources which
have “been so extensively used and misused in recent years” by digital
libraries and in cross-domain interoperability projects.19 It is surprising,
therefore, that more and more sophisticated and complex representational
models have been developed to serve as a foundation for catalogues and/
or information systems in archival, library and museum domains. We
can mention the “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,”20
the ISAD (g), ISAAR (CPF), EAD and EAC in the archival domain,21 and
the Conceptual Reference Model that was developed by the International
Committee on ICOM Documentation of the International Council of
Museums (CIDOC CRM).22
    One might wonder why the semantic wealth of these models is lost when
interoperability projects are designed and implemented. As mentioned,
one of the main objectives for interoperability projects is to make it easier
to search out cultural resources on the Web. The reason for connections
among the descriptions of archival, library and museum collections has to
do with more than just more efficient search processes, however. It is thanks
to these connections that the overall set of general and specific knowledge
that is embodied in archival, library and museum information systems that
information can be shared across domains so that new forms and levels
of knowledge are created as a result of this convergence process. As one
author has put it: “The value of information is generally enhanced when
it is put in relation with other pieces of information. This is particularly
evident with respect to cultural heritage. Descriptions of individual objects
are, in themselves, of only limited interest. Additional references to other
objects, and to an object’s historical, geographical, and cultural origins
help to place it in a context and give it meaning. Typically, the contextual
information, which can help bring collections to life, is distributed across
several institutions. Without some form of interaction between the different
information systems, much of the potential interest of the collections is
lost.”23
40                              stefano vitali


    This means that if projects related to the interoperability among archives,
libraries and museums are to achieve the goal of generating new forms of
knowledge without using the document-centric approach that is based
exclusively on the description of single cultural artefacts, they’re going to
have to come up with a different approach, one that is aimed at linking
and integrating information about people, places, events and all other
elements which define the historical context in which archival materials,
books, artworks and other museum artefacts have been created, transmitted
over time, utilised and interpreted. A focus on contextual information can
enhance understanding of the actual relationships which have existed
among the various cultural artefacts over the course of the centuries. this
can help to reveal the strengths or weaknesses of those relationships in the
present age, irrespective of which institution holds the relevant artefact
because of historical events, cultural points of view, or choices related to the
physical format of the artefact.
    Actually, this richer and contextual interoperability paradigm has been
suggested in some of the standards that have been developed within
archival and museum domains. ISAAR (CPF), which is the standard for
archival authority records, promotes an interoperability architecture that is
based on the sharing of files related to people, corporate bodies and families
among systems which are used to describe and manage heritage objects
and/or their digital representations. According to this model, convergence
among systems is achieved via information about context. The model has
been used not only by archives, but also by museums such as the Museum
of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Roverto in Italy.24 it has
also been used in European Commission-funded projects such as the LEAF
project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files), which has brought together
archives and libraries from a number of european countries over the last
several years. the leaf project developed a system architecture for the
uploading of the authority records of persons and corporate bodies. these
are stored in the catalogues of the participating institutions, and via the
central system, there are automatic links among those records which relate
to one and the same entity.25
    the interest of libraries i the development of cross-domain interopera-
bility that is based on the sharing of authority data was also seen in a feasi-
                            COnTExT IS EvERyTHIng                             41

bility study that was launched two years ago on the creation of the autho-
rity file for the central catalogue of Italian libraries. The suggestion was that
this model be adapted so as to establish links between the catalogue and the
information systems of archives, museums, and other public and private
cultural agencies, including publishers (the ADE project).26 More recently,
the national Library of Australia has launched a project aimed at “creating
an online resource directory service called People Australia. The service will
allow users to access information about significant Australian people and
organisations, as well as related biographical and contextual information.”
This information will come from the systems of institutions which take part
in the project. It will be gathered together in a common repository, with
records being linked to the relevant cultural resources, including libraries,
museums and archives.27
   a similar approach to interoperability has been proposed by the
Documentation Committee of the International Council of Museums,
which has recognised that “the challenge of integrating information from
different sources and providing well-adapted access goes far beyond the
question of homogeneous data formatting. [..] Different disciplines, such
as natural history, fine arts and ethnography, as well as different types of
collections – museum information systems, archives and libraries – provide
complementary information and viewpoints. Their combination, rather
than their compilation, has the potential to provide new insights into our
cultural heritage. Combining and integrating data in a meaningful way,
so that subject matter can be readily identified, requires more advanced
mechanisms than are needed for straightforward compilation.”28
   “Combining information from different sources” requires that “domain-
specific assumptions and presuppositions about the semantic value of
data need to be respected”, and that “a discipline-neutral viewpoint” should
be developed at “a high level of abstraction” and with sufficient “flexibility
for different viewpoints to be respected and expressed.”29 according to this
view, the correct level of abstraction can be achieved if ontology proves able
to define the general concepts that are needed to describe and exchange in-
formation about cultural heritage objects, irrespective of the specific schema
or data model which is used for their specific representation in each domain.
The Conceptual Reference Model which CIDOC prepared is an ontology
42                                       stefano vitali


which aims to provide “a formal definition of assumptions about what
sorts of things exist, and the relationships between them, in the context of
cultural heritage information.”30 The CIDOC RAM has many interesting
features which are worth more extensive examination and discussion than
is possible here. In particular, the CRM is largely focused on contextual
information – “historical, geographical and theoretical background in which
individual items are placed and which gives them much of their significance
and value.”31 According to this perspective, convergence and integration
among information systems from different domains should be based on the
“complex interrelations that exist between objects, actors, events, places and
concepts in the various fields of cultural heritage.”32
    If the kind of ontology that is envisioned in CIDOC CRM is to be
established, the experts who work in the various archival, library and
museum domains must learn from one another and respect different points
of view. This is not always an easy thing to do. Quite often it is more difficult
for professionals from different domains to understand each other than it
is to ensure communications among computers.

                                              notes
1
  For further details on the use of bibliographic formats in the description of archival materials,
  see Hickerson, H. Thomas. Archival Information Exchange and the Role of Bibliographic
  networks. Library Trends. 1998. 36(3): 553–571; Hensen, Steven L. Squaring the Circle: The
  Reformation of Archival Description in AACR2. Library Trends. 1998. 36(3): 539–552; Hensen,
  steven l. RAD, MAD, and APPM: The Search for Anglo-American Standard for Archival
  Description. Archives and Museum Informatics. 1991. 5(2): 2–5.
2
  Plassard, Marie-France (ed.). IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
  Records [International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions]. Functional requirements
  for bibliographic records: final report. München : Saur, 1998.
3
   see ISAD (G): general international standard archival description: adopted by the Committee on
  Descriptive Standards, Stockholm, Sweden, 19–22 September 1999. 2nd ed. Ottawa: International
  Council on Archives, 2000; and ISAAR (CPF): International Standard Archival Authority Records
  for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families. Adopted by the Committee on Descriptive Standards
  Canberra, Australia, 27-30 October 2003. 2nd ed. Paris: International Council on Archives, 2004;
  ISAD (G) and ISAAR (CPF) – see the ICA web site: http://www.ica.org/. Descriptive archival
  formats for representing archival materials and the creators thereof are, respectively EAD:
  Encoded Archival Description, and EAC: Encoded Archival Context. Both have been developed in
  xML. For further details, see EAD. Encoded Archival Description. version 2002 Official Website,
  http://www.loc.gov/ead/ and Encoded Archival Context Beta, http://www.iath.virginia.edu/
  eac/.
4
  ISO23950: 1998, Information and documentation – Information retrieval (Z39.50) – Application
  service definition and protocol specification. For further details see the Z39.50 Maintenance
  Agency page on the web site of the Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency
                                     COnTExT IS EvERyTHIng                                            43

5
   The CIMI Profile “is a set of technical specifications for using [..] [Z39.50 protocol] to search
   and retrieve cultural heritage information. Cultural heritage broadly defined includes art,
   architecture, cultural history, and natural history. [..] A profile can be understood as a set
   of technical specifications that govern the interaction of clients and servers for information
   retrieval from one or more distributed repositories. The CIMI Profile defines specifications for
   searching a database, selecting information to be retrieved from the database, and structuring
   and packaging of the information to transfer from the server to the client”: The CIMI Profile,
   release 1.0H. A Z39.50 Profile for Cultural Heritage Information. Prepared by Consortium for the
   Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI) CIMI Z39.50 Working Group, November
   1998. See, http://www.unt.edu/wmoen/projects/CIMI/HarmonProfile1.htm.
6
   “The Bath Profile is an international Z39.50 specification supporting library applications
   and resource discovery. [..] The Profile defines searching across multiple servers to improve
   international and extranational search and retrieval among library catalogues, union
   catalogues, and other electronic resources worldwide. The Profile also describes and specifies
   a subset to allow basic cross-domain search and retrieval of networked resources including
   library catalogues, government information, museum systems, and archives”: “The Bath
   Profile, About the Profile”. See http://www.collectionscanada.ca/bath/ap-bath-e.htm.
7
  See http://www.michael-culture.eu.
8
   “goals and outcomes” of the MICHAEL project, see http://www.michael-culture.eu/project/
   goalout.html.
9
   the european portal is available at http://www.michael-culture.eu/. the french portal is
   available at http://www.numerique.culture.fr/mpf/pub-fr/index.html; the Italian portal is
   at http://michael-culture.it/mpf/pub-it/index.htm; the British portal is available at the Web
   address http://www.michael-culture.org.uk/mpf/pub-uk/index.html.
10
    This is an “adaptation of the Dublin Core Simple for cultural meditated”, as developed by
   the British “24 Hour Museum Metasearch Project”. See http://www.minervaeurope.org/
   DC.Culture/xMLSchema/1.0/MetasearchSchema.pdf. The Web site of the project itself is at
   http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk.
11
    The CIMI/Aquarelle profile is a specification of the CIMI profile, developed in the 1990s, by
   the Aquarelle project with support from the European Union. The aim to share information
   among the catalogues and information systems of museums and other cultural institutions.
   see ERCIM News, no. 33, April 1998, at http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim-news/
   enw33.
12
    Scuola Normale Superiore. Documento di sintesi del progetto tecnico-scientifico per il Portale della
   Cultura Italiana del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (in Italian). See http://www.otebac.
   it./culturaitalia/documenti/PICO_2_1sintesi.pdf.
13
   See http://www.abm-utvikling.no/?set_language=en.
14
   See http://www.noks.dk. Only in Danish.
15
   See http://www.cultuurwijzer.nl. Only in Dutch.
16
    See http://www.bam-portal.de. The portal has been put together by relevant institutions in
   Berlin, Baden-Württemberg and Mannheim.
17
    For more on this, see Sieglerschmidt, J., Hagel, F. von. Convergence of Internet Services in the
   Cultural Heritage Sector – the Long Way to Common Vocabularies, Metadata Formats and Ontologies.
   See http://www.2.bsz-bw.de/cms/museen/bam/BAM_CIDOC_2006_text.pdf.
18
   Ibid. P. 4.
19
   Baca, M. Cataloguing Cultural Objects and CDWA Lite: new Data Content and Data Format
   Standards for Art and Material Culture Information. Digitalia. 2006. 1: 50.
20
   see note 3.
21
   See note 4.
22
   See http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr. gill, Tony. Building semantic bridges between museums, libraries
   and archives: The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. First Monday. 2004. 9(5). See http://
   www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/gill/index.html.
44                                        stefano vitali


23
   Doerr, Martin, Crofts, nicholas. Electronic esperanto – The Role of the o[bject-]o[riented] CIDOC
   Reference Model. See http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/doerr_crofts_ichim99_new.pdf. P. 3.
24
   The Catalogo Integrato of the Museo di arte moderna e contemporanea di Trento e Rovereto. See http://
   cim.mart.tn.it/cim/home.do.
25
   See http://www.crxnet.com/leaf.
26
   Weston, P. g., galeffi, A. Il controllo d’autorità come raccordo fra sistemi descrittivi dei beni
   culturali: prospettive e progetti in ambito bibliotecario (The Authority Control as a Connection
   Among the Descriptive Systems of Cultural Assets: Prospects and Plans for Libraries). Archivi
   e computer. Automazione e beni culturali. 2004. 14(2): 85–116.
27
   See http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/peopleaustralia/index.html.
28
   gill, Tony. Building semantic bridges between museums, libraries and archives..
29
    Doerr, Martin, Crofts, nicholas. Electronic esperanto – The Role of the o[bject-]o[riented]
   CIDOC Reference Model. P. 4.
30
    Crofts, n., Doerr, M., gill, T. The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model: A Standard for
   Communicating Cultural Contents. Cultivate Interactive. 2003. February. no. 9. See http://
   www.cultivate-int.org/issue9/chios.
31
   ibid.
32
   ibid.



Stefano Vitali
                                     konteksts ir viss:
                  zināšanas arhīvos, bibliotēkās un muzejos
   Raksts piedāvā koncentrētu ieskatu arhīvu, bibliotēku un muzeju
katalogu un aprakstu sistēmu attiecībās, kādas radušās pēdējās desmitgadēs.
Dažkārt viena datubāze ir tapusi, aprakstot dažādus materiālus, citkārt
to veido arhīvu, bibliotēku un muzeju sistēmu kopums. Iespējami arī vēl
daudzi varianti, piemēram, arhīvu un bibliogrāfisko materiālu, kā arī
muzeja artefaktu kopēju metadatu izveide. Tāda, piemēram, ir “Dublin Core
metadata”, kas balstās uz OAI-PMH modeli. Pēdējā laikā sāk parādīties arī
arhīvu un muzeju sistēmas, kas apkopo informāciju ar vēstures, kultūras
un konceptuālo kontekstu, tādējādi sniedzot priekšstatu par gadsimtu gaitā
radīto, pārmantoto, pārstrādāto un interpretēto kultūras mantojumu. Raksta
autors meklē iespēju, kā apvienot dažādās datubāzu veidošanas iespējas un
rast praktisko risinājumu.
     Atslēgvārdi: arhīvi, bibliotēkas, muzeji, katalogi, apraksta sistēmas.

Iesniegts 2007. gada 10. decembrī

								
To top