Designing a framework of comparison for cultural object description standards

Designing a framework of comparison
for cultural object description standards
Anirban Dutta
&
Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Dept. of Library and Information Science,
University of Kalyani
28 – 29 March 2019
Presented at Two Days National Seminar on “Librarianship in Digital Environment: Pedagogy, Ethics and
Cohesion” at Vidyasagar University
1

Standardised metadata for the development and storage of learning objects
that draw on cultural content have not been provided as yet.
There are well established standards for documenting learning objects, such as the
Dublin Core, IEEE/LOM and the LRE/LOM etc.
There are some standards but does not provide for standardised metadata objects
that exploit cultural objects and enable descriptions of various types nor do
they provide for a solid framework for databases.
Existing large repositories of digital objects have not been designed for such
hybrid objects.
A key issue for a full recording of a archaeological asset is related to the cataloguing
process, which is the action of registration, description and classification.
2
Introduction & Background:

In this paper try to carry out an assessment and crosswalks amongst different
metadata standards for Cultural Objects (CO) to maintain uniformity and
consistency.
After an analysis of the formal description of the each schema, build up the
mapping of the different schemas to each other.
To select the most comprehensive metadata schema from the selected list of
domain-specific schemas, which provides more granular level descriptions in this
domain.
As a result, the mappings described in the paper enable the interoperability
of data stored according to different metadata schemas.
Furthermore the paper highlights properties, equivalencies and confirming the
idea that of a more comprehensive documentation standard for CO.
3
Objectives

The primary criteria for selection is based on a few essential parameters, i.e.,
domain coverage, extensibility, granularity and discoverability.
The primary level includes an array of domain-specific schemas like Categories for
the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), Cataloguing Cultural Objects (CCO),
MIDAS Heritage, Lightweight Information Describing Objects (LIDO),
International Committee for Documentation-Conceptual Reference Model (CIDOC-
CRM), SPECTRUM, CARARE, and MuseumDat.
LIDO includes more conjectures to meet the requirement of SPECTRUM. It is the
expansion of CDWA-Lite, MuseumDat and further analysis of CIDOC-CRM.
CARARE is build on existing CIDOC-CRM, MIDAS Heritage, LIDO etc.
LIDO is made up of a nested set of ‘wrapper’ and ‘set’ elements which structure
records and contain ‘data elements’ which hold the information that is being
harvested and delivered to the user of the service environment. 4
Methodology
Contd…

The level I parameters are applied to select CDWA, CCO, MIDAS Heritage
and LIDO (four altogether) as candidates for comparison at the final level.
Study of the metadata elements in the final schemas;
Categorization of elements of each metadata standard in broad groups;
Establishing semantic relationship of borders groups as derived from
different schemas as listed in the final round
Developing a crosswalk framework covering border groups and metadata
elements within these groups.
5
…Contn

6
CDWA (Categories for the Description of Works of Art) [31 elements]
Contents Intellectual Property Instantiation Medium & Materials
Object / Work,
Classification,
Titles or Names,
Physical description,
Subject matter,
Descriptive note,
Current location,
Related works,
Related visual
documentation,
Subject authority,
Place / Location authority
Creation,
Critical responses,
Copyrights / Restrictions,
Ownership / Collecting
history,
Person / Corporate body
authority,
Styles / Periods / Groups /
Movements,
State / Edition,
Condition / Examination
History,
Conservation / Treatment
History,
Cataloguing history,
Related textual
references,
Context,
Orientation / Arrangement,
Generic concept authority,
Exhibition or Loan history,
Measurement,
Facture,
Inscription
Materials and Techniques,
R e s u l t s

7
CCO (Cataloguing Cultural Objects) – [24 elements]
Work type,
Title,
Culture,
Subjects,
Class,
Description,
Other descriptive notes,
Current location,
Creation location,
Discovery location,
Former location
View subject
Creator,
Creator role,
Additional physical
characteristics,
State and edition,
Measurements,
Style,
Date,
View description,
View type,
View date
Materials and techniques,

8
MIDAS Heritage - [16 elements]
Area,
Monument,
Historical event,
Location,
Management activity
documentation
Archive and bibliography,
Narrative and synthesis,
Map depiction,
Casework and
consultation,
Research and analysis,
Actor and role,
Designation and protection
Date and period,
Investigative activity,
Heritage asset
management activity
Artefact and ecofact,

9
LIDO (Lightweight Information Describing Objects) – [14 elements]
Object Work / Type,
Classification,
Title / Name,
Inscription,
Repository / Location,
Object description,
Event Set,
Subject Set,
Related Works,
Rights, State / Edition,
Measurement,
Record,
Resource

10
Features CDWA CCO MIDAS Heritage LIDO
Contents
Object / Work Work type Monument Object Work / Type
Classification Class Classification
Titles or Names Title Title / Name
Physical description Description
Narrative and
synthesis
Object description
Subject matter Subjects, View subject Subject Set
Descriptive note
Description, Other
descriptive note
Casework and
consultation
Current location Current location Area Repository / Location
Related works Culture Historical event Related Works
Related visual
documentation
Management
documentation
Subject authority Subjects, View subject Subject Set
Place / Location
authority
Discovery location,
Creation location
Location
Crosswalks amongst above mentioned four metadata standards of cultural objects:

11
Intellectual
property
Creation
Creator, Creator
role
Actor and role
Critical responses Research analysis
Copyrights /
Restrictions
Designation and
protection
Rights
Ownership /
Collecting history
Person / Corporate
body authority
Creator

12
Instantiation
Styles / Periods /
Groups / Movements
Style, Date, View date Date and Period
State / Edition State and Edition State / Edition
Condition /
Examination History
Creation location Investigative activity
Conservation /
Treatment History
Current location,
Discovery location
Heritage asset
management activity
Cataloguing history Record
Related textual
references
Context View description
Orientation /
Arrangement
View type
Generic concept
authority
Style, creator role
Exhibition or Loan
history
Measurement Measurement Measurement
Facture
Additional physical
characteristics
Inscription
Additional physical
characteristics
Inscription

13
Medium &
Materials
Materials and
Techniques
Materials and
Techniques
Artefact and ecofact Resource

14
Details elements and sub-elements of LIDO at final level

This study concludes that the metadata
elements of LIDO are much more
comprehensive in compare with other three
standards. Moreover, LIDO schema is well
ahead in describing cultural objects
description in terms of objectivity,
granularity, extensibility and discoverability.
20
Conclusion

Designing a framework of comparison for cultural object description standards

More Related Content

Similar to Designing a framework of comparison for cultural object description standards (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Designing a framework of comparison for cultural object description standards