Citation: Gartner, Richard and Mouren, Raphaele (2019) Archives, museums and libraries: breaking the metadata silos. In: 85th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, 24-30 August 2019, Athens. (In Press)
![[img]](https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/text.png)
Creative Commons: Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Abstract
To overcome impediments to access for the rich collections held in cultural heritage institutions, some alignment of metadata standards and a consequent enhancement of interoperability are essential. The three sectors in which much of our cultural heritage is to be found, libraries, archives and museums, each employ different approaches to metadata which make interoperability between them, and consequently between the constituencies and communities within which they were defined, difficult to achieve. This paper introduces a metadata strategy devised for the Photographic Collection of the Warburg Institute, London, which aims to break down some of the barriers between these approaches. This strategy employs established XML-based metadata schemas from the digital library community as the basis for establishing interoperable metadata. It uses CIDOC-CRM (the core standard from the museum sector) as a conceptual backbone for metadata structures but then serializes the data model produced into standards from the library sector such as MODS for descriptive metadata and METS for packaging. The resulting metadata can also interoperate to some extent with EAD, the established standard in the archives sector, by utilising existing crosswalks. This strategy allows the metadata requirements of all three sectors to be accommodated in interoperable, easily-managed schemes. It should allow an important step to be taken towards moving metadata practices within archives, museums and libraries in the same direction.
Metadata
| Creators: | Gartner, Richard (0000-0003-1422-4067) and Mouren, Raphaele and |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | Digital Humanities |
| Keywords: | Metadata, interoperability, XML CIDOC-CRM, METS, EAD, museums, libraries, archives. |
| Divisions: | Warburg Institute |
| Collections: | Legal Biography |
| Dates: |
|
| References: | [1] E. J. Shaw, “Rethinking EAD: balancing flexibility and interoperability,” New Rev. Inf. Netw., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 117–131, 2001. [2] A. G. Taylor, The organization of information, 2nd ed. Westport: Libraries Unlimited, 2004. [3] S. Bauman, “Interchange vs interoperability,” in Balisage: The Markup Conference 2011: Proceedings, 2011, vol. 7. [4] D. Schmidt, “Towards an interoperable digital scholarly edition,” J. Text Encoding Initiat., no. 7, Nov. 2014. [5] K. H. Veltman, “Syntactic and semantic interoperability: new approaches to knowledge and the semantic web,” New Rev. Inf. Netw., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 159–183, 2001. [6] E. H. Dow, “Encoded Archival Description as a halfway technology,” J. Arch. Organ., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 108–115, 2009. [7] T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila, “The Semantic Web,” Sci. Am., pp. 29–37, Jan. 2001. [8] L. Goddard and G. Byrne, “The strongest link: Libraries and linked data,” -Lib Mag., vol. 16, no. 11/12, 2010. [9] Fedora Commons, “The Fedora Content Model Architecture (CMA),” 2007-2002. [Online]. Available: http://fedora-commons.org/documentation/3.0b1/userdocs/digitalobjects/cmda.html. [Accessed: 09-Dec-2011]. [10] Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, “Reference model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS),” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://public.ccsds.org/pubs/650x0m2.pdf. [Accessed: 07-Jun-2017]. [11] R. Gartner, Metadata: shaping knowledge from antiquity to the semantic web. Basel: Springer-Verlag, 2016. [12] R. Hawtin, M. Hammond, P. Miller, and B. Matthews, “Review of the evidence for the value of the ‘linked data’ approach: final report to JISC,” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/559/1/JISC_Linked_Data_Review_Oct2011.pdf. [Accessed: 27-Jul-2012]. [13] Warburg Institute, “Warburg Institute: Photographic Collection,” Warburg Institute: Photographic Collection, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://warburg.sas.ac.uk/library-collections/photographic-collection. [14] IconClass, “Outline of the Iconclass system,” Outline of the Iconclass system, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.iconclass.org/help/outline. [Accessed: 21-Aug-2018]. [15] Library of Congress, “Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS) - (Library of Congress),” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2011]. [16] Library of Congress, “Metadata Object Description Schema: MODS,” 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/. [Accessed: 28-Jan-2010]. [17] Library of Congress, “PREMIS data dictionary for preservation metata, version 2.0.” Library of Congress, 2008. [18] N. Hoebelheinrich, “METS Rights Extension Schema.” 2004. [19] M. Theodoridou and M. Doerr, “Mapping of the encoded archival description DTD element set to the CIDOC CRM,” FORTH-ICS Tech. Rep., vol. 289, 2001. [20] L. Bountouri and M. Gergatsoulis, “The semantic mapping of archival metadata to the CIDOC CRM ontology,” J. Arch. Organ., vol. 9, no. 3–4, pp. 174–207, 2011. [21] L. Bountouri and M. Gergatsoulis, “Interoperability between archival and bibliographic metadata: An EAD to MODS crosswalk,” J. Libr. Metadata, vol. 9, no. 1–2, pp. 98–133, 2009. [22] R. Gartner, “Intermediary schemas for complex XML applications: an example from research information management,” J. Digit. Inf., vol. 12, no. 3, 2011. [23] R. Gartner, “An XML schema for enhancing the semantic interoperability of archival description,” Arch. Sci., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 295–313, 2015. |