CIMI:%20Consortium%20for%20the%20Interchange%20of%20Museum%20Information - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation



CIMI: Consortium for the Interchange of Museum Information Dublin Core (DC) Metadata Testbed Lynn Ann Underwood July 1999 Museum Records Manager – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:159
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 47
Provided by: Solo169


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CIMI:%20Consortium%20for%20the%20Interchange%20of%20Museum%20Information

CIMI Consortium for the Interchange of Museum
  • Dublin Core (DC) Metadata Testbed
  • Lynn Ann Underwood July 1999
  • Museum Records Manager
  • Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

What is CIMI?
  • A group of institutions and organizations that
    encourages an open standards-based approach to
    the management and delivery of digital museum
  • Formed 1990.
  • Recent Projects
  • Z39.50
  • IIM (Integrated Information Management)
  • Dublin Core (DC) Metadata Testbed

Metadata? What Are We Talking About?
  • Metadata is a fashionable term.
  • Used to describe People, Places, Objects
  • Structured data about data.
  • Cataloguing, indexing, documentation is one type
    of Metadata.
  • Commonly associated with electronic and networked
  • Databases Web Pages
  • CIMIs definition acknowledges museums document
    objects/items, collections, programs, staff,
  • Purpose for CIMI is information retrieval.

How is Metadata Used?
  • Information Retrieval
  • Fielded searching facilitates resource discovery.
  • Document Administration
  • Rights Management
  • Sales Service
  • Security Authentication
  • Archival Status

Metadata as part of a Resource Description
  • A resource description community is characterized
    by common semantic, structural and syntactic
    conventions used for the exchange of information.
  • Through the use of detailed standards MARC
    AACR2 the library community promotes
  • While the art community formed the Art
    Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) and the Categories
    for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA),
    specifically the art museum community can use
    these in addition to metadata to share resources.

Why Use Dublin Core?
  • A useful tool to refine web searching.
  • Repurpose information that already exists.
  • It is easier to adopt an interdisciplinary
    standard already in use.
  • Interoperability Allows different communities
    (libraries, archives, businesses, museums, etc.)
    to search for data using a common basis.
  • Establishes a basis for next-generation projects.

  • Semantics
  • The meaning of the elements
  • Structure
  • human-readable
  • machine-parseable
  • Syntax
  • grammars to convey semantics and structure

The Dublin Core
  • Title
  • Creator
  • Subject
  • Description
  • Publisher
  • Contributor
  • Date
  • Type
  • Format
  • Identifier
  • Source
  • Language
  • Relation
  • Coverage
  • Rights

DC Simple
  • Simple or unqualified DC is comprised of the 15
    elements with no further content definition.
  • Current simple definitions are based on IETF
    (Internet Engineering Task Force) RFC 2413
  • The CIMI working group resisted the temptation to
    move directly to qualified DC.
  • Instead CIMI rigorously tested DC Simple and it
    is considered the primary application testing
  • This process heightened the groups awareness for
    the need for qualifiers (element value).

DC Qualified
  • Qualified adds descriptive precision in
    retrieving a resource. This is achieved through
    the development of a substructure. For instance
    Role is a desired term to further describe, or
    qualify, the CREATOR element.
  • CreatorName.Creator RoleArtist
  • Qualified also allows for terms to be drawn from
    controlled vocabularies (LCSH, AAT) or
    classification schemes (DDC). The use of
    hierarchies provides further definition (semantic
  • Guggenheim family -- art patronage
  • Caution of using DC Qualified is that elements
    must degrade gracefully to preserve

DC Qualified
  • DC Qualified is a currently under development by
    DC Working groups.
  • Working Groups
  • DC- Agents (Creator, Contributor, Publisher)
  • DC-Coverage
  • DC-Date
  • DC-Format
  • DC-Relation (Source, Relation)
  • DC-Subdesc (Subject Description, Language)
  • DC-Title (Title, Identifier)
  • DC-Type
  • no working group for rights

DC Requirements
  • All 15 DC elements are optional.
  • All 15 DC elements may be repeated.
  • Proposed changes to the 15 core elements must be
    made through the framework of the DC working

DC Requirements11 Principal
  • object (or collection), resource, or
    instantiation can only be described within a
    single metadata record.
  • 11 is not formally adopted.
  • This principal, along with the DC Type field,
    assists with description of the resource.
  • RDF (Resource Description Framework) reinforces
    the 11 rule.

XML eXtensible Markup Language
  • Based on SGML.
  • Encoding syntax.
  • Tools under development.

RDF Resource Discovery Framework
  • A scaleable or extensible data model.
  • It provides a framework for exchanging different
    types of metadata.
  • Types of Metadata (GLIS, INDECES, IMS)
  • Intended to be machine generated and
  • The Request for Comment (RFC) was announced in
    March 1999

The Dublin Core Serves as a Filter
DC.title DC.creator DC.subject DC...
A User
A Resource
Dublin Corefilter
mapping/ crosswalk
Using DC Simple, we can map data from detailed
records directly to the Dublin Core.
Artists Name Type of Work Period depicted Place
depicted ...
Creator Subject Coverage ...
Surname Forename Title ...
Why DC for Museums
  • Museum community requires a method to access
    databases with different underlying schemas
    because the community historically lacks content
  • Web provides museums with an opportunity to share
    with other museums, libraries, archives,
    individuals, through the use of commonly
    understood semantics.

What is Museum Specific?
  • Emphasis on attributes of physical objects.
  • Associate physical object with persons, places,
    and events.
  • Need to describe items, collections,
    institutions, people, and events.
  • Need to account for surrogates such as

Museum Metadata Model
(No Transcript)
(No Transcript)
CIMI Assumptions for Museums
  • DC is appropriate for use in describing both
    physical and digital resources.
  • DC is easy to learn and simple to use Is it
    usable by non-cataloguers?
  • Information can be meaningfully and efficiently
    extracted from existing museum systems in order
    to populate DC records.
  • The creation of a DC record to describe a museum
    is cost-effective.
  • DC aids the discovery of resources more than
    access to the underlying Collection Management
    System might.

CIMI Identifies DC Challenges for Museums
  • Tension functionality and simplicity.
  • Tension extensibility and interoperability.
  • Human and machine creation and use.
  • Community-specific functionality, creation,
    administration, access.

Testbed Participants
  • Involvement of over 18 participants both 1998
  • Access Providers
  • Software Vendors
  • Technical Support Personnel
  • Content Providers
  • Cultural Heritage
  • Art
  • Natural History

Guggenheim Records
  • The Guggenheim has approximately 5,600 records
    in an Access database.
  • Of the 15 DC Elements only a handful could be

Guggenheim Records
  • Due to the fact that Guggenheim records scarcely
    populated the 15 DC elements, my methodology to
    test DC elements was to build 134 records from
  • This process of creating more robust records
    helped identify documentation projects, such as
    the addition of subject terms, etc.
  • It also helped address information integration
    issues within the museum.

Guggenheim Records
  • Creating Object, Collection, Institution, Event
    records required information to be brought
    together from different departments.
  • For object records I combined information from
    the database with data from the curatorial and
    registrar files.
  • Data for collection records was drawn from
    electronic and paper files in addition to our web
  • Institution records were created using our web
    site and print catalogue information.
  • For event records I used exhibition publications,
    brochures, and our web site.

Guggenheim Contribution
  • The 134 full or rich records describe
    individual artworks, collections, the museum, and
  • Also contributed were over 5,600 collection
    records exported from the collection database.
  • Intended to be an exporting routine, most museums
    may find, as we did, that their DC records are
    not very robust.
  • By providing the testbed with both rich and
    sparse records further user testing will benefit.

Testbed Products
  • Guide to Best Practice Dublin Core
  • http//
  • Drafted Winter 1998
  • Peer Review Spring 1999
  • Published Summer 1999
  • Over 300,000 record repository
  • Contains museums, collections, artifacts
  • DC Simple records both created by hand or
    exported from legacy systems.

  • DC is (sort of) easy to use.
  • DC works for museum information.
  • DC is a machete, not a Scalpel.
  • Further evaluation is necessary.
  • Need to express more complexity.
  • Can be mapped to other standards.
  • Community will require guidance.
  • 15 simple elements will work for museum data.
  • Lose ability to express complexities (dates).
  • Non-intuitive fielding of information (materials,
    methods, techniques, and creators of surrogates.)

Outcomes CIMI Institute
  • Responses included
  • Need for more concrete examples, DC, XML, RDF.
  • Would like guidance on how to implement including
    storage strategies for archiving, retrievablity
    and architecture.
  • Fuller description of tools.
  • More discussion on cost.
  • Practical examples from the end users
    perspective. What does this look like to the
    user who is searching for the resource (delivery

  • DC is useful for museum information needs.
  • Qualification of DC is developing.
  • Web Infrastructure is developing (HTML, XML,
  • Tools are beginning to appear and evolve.
  • Interoperability testbeds are underway.

WWW Infrastructure Evolving
  • Resource Description Framework (RDF)
  • will allow rich metadata semantics for documents
  • http//
  • Extensible Markup Language (XML)
  • will allow highly structured documents and rich
    linking (relationship) capabilities
  • http//
  • Uniform Resource Names (URNs)
  • will allow for persistent, globally unique

  • DC Home Page
  • http//
  • Metadata Matters
  • http//
  • IFLA Metadata Resources page
  • http//
  • Dlib Magazine (all DC workshop reports)

  • Dublin Core Homepage
  • http//
  • Proposed Recommendation of the DC Metadata
  • http//
  • Modifications to this document will replace RFC
  • RFC 2413
  • http//

Resources Metadata Tools
  • DC Dot (UKOLN)
  • http//
  • Reggie (DSTC)
  • http//
  • The aim of the Reggie Metadata Editor is to
    enable the easy creation of various forms of
  • metadata with the one flexible program. As it
    stands, the Reggie applet can create metadata
    using the
  • HTML 3.2 standard, the HTML 4.0 standard, the RDF
    (Resource Description Framework) format
  • and the RDF Abbreviated format.

Resources Metadata Tools
  • Nordic DC Metadata Template
  • http//
  • http//

Resources Metadata Tools
  • SEED (Search Engine Evaluation Development),
    University of Wolverhampton
  • Researched the automatic classification of web
    pages, initial work focused on Dewey Decimal
  • http//

DC Example Record
DC Example Record
DC Dot Dublin Core Generator
ltlink rel"schema.DC" href"http//"gt
ltmeta name"DC.Title" content"GUGGENHEIM
MUSEUMS"gt ltmeta name"DC.Publisher"
content"CERFnet"gt ltmeta name"DC.Type"
content"Text"gt ltmeta name"DC.Format"
content"text/html"gt ltmeta name"DC.Format"
content"550 bytes"gt ltmeta name"DC.Identifier"
DC Dot Dublin Core Generator RDF
ltrdfRDF xmlnsrdf"http//
-rdf-syntax-ns" xmlnsdc"http//
ements/1.0/"gt ltrdfDescription
dcpublisher"CERFnet" dctype"Text" gt
ltdcformatgt ltrdfBag
rdf_1"text/html" rdf_2"550 bytes"
/gt lt/dcformatgt lt/rdfDescriptiongt lt/rdfR
DC Dot Guggenheim Enhanced (1 of 2)
ltrdfRDF xmlnsrdf"http//
-rdf-syntax-ns" xmlnsdc"http//
ements/1.0/"gt ltrdfDescription
about"http// Solomon R.
Guggenheim Museum" dctitle"Solomon R.
Guggenheim Museum" dccreator"Guggenheim,
Solomon R." dcsubject"Bilbao, Spain Berlin,
Germany New York, New York, USA Venice, Italy
Guggenheim, Solomon R. artworks Krens, Thomas
Kandinsky, Wassily Brancusi, Constantin
Calder, Alexander Chagall, Marc Delaunay, Robert
Klee, Paul Miro, Joan Picasso, Pablo Hilla
von Rebay Foundation Museum of Nonobjective
Painting Thannhauser, Justin K. Thannhauser,
Hilde Guggenheim, Peggy Peggy Guggenheim
Collection Panza di Biumo, Giuseppe Robert
Mapplethorpe Foundation Mapplethorpe, Robert
Conceptual art Twentieth Century post-1945
fine arts styles and movements nonobjective
art organizations, nonprofit Art Museums
Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation Messer, Thomas
M. Thannhauser collection"
DC Dot Guggenheim Enhanced (2 of 2)
dcdescription"The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
is comprised of five related museums. In
addition to the New York City Fifth Avenue
location, there is also Guggenheim SoHo, NYC,
Guggenheim Bilbao, Spain, Deutsche Guggenheim,
Berlin, and the Peggy Guggenheim Collection,
Italy" dcpublisher"Solomon R. Guggenheim
Museum" dccontributor"Thannhauser, Justin
K. Thannhauser, Hilde Guggenheim, Peggy Panza
di Biumo, Giuseppe Messer, Thomas M. Krens,
Thomas Rebay, Hilla Von Sweeney, James Johnson"
dcdate"1920" dctype"Text Image Sound
Place Physical Object Original Collection
Cultural" dcrelation"IsPartOf Solomon R.
Guggenheim Foundation References
http//" dcrights"Solomon
R. Guggenheim Museum" gt ltdcformatgt
ltrdfBag rdf_1"text/html"
rdf_2"550 bytes"/gt lt/dcformatgt
lt/rdfDescriptiongt lt/rdfRDFgt
Thank You!
  • Lynn Ann Underwood
  • Museum Records Manager
  • Documentation Records
  • Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
  • 575 Broadway, 3rd floor
  • New York, NY 10012-4233
  • Telephone (212) 423-3871
  • Telefax (212) 360-4340
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)