Refine
Keywords
- Koha (7)
- Kulturerbe (7)
- Lokales Bibliothekssystem (7)
- Open Source (7)
- Bibliotheksinformationssystem (6)
- Thesaurus (6)
- Inhaltserschließung (5)
- Metadaten (5)
- cultural heritage (5)
- BAM-Portal (4)
Language
- English (37) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (37)
Same same, but different? Challenges and solutions in the opening process of the GND authority control for cultural institutions.
The growing online presence of cultural heritage institutions such as museums, archives, libraries and other research institutions requires efficient ways to interlink the collections of our cultural treasures in web portals like Europeana or the German Digital Library (DDB). One precondition for interlinking datasets is the shared use of authority files and controlled vocabularies. The Integrated Authority File (GND) is a widely recognized vocabulary for description and information retrieval in German speaking library communities. It is a tool to guarantee true disambiguation of persons, corporations, geographica, subject headings, works etc. being referred to in all media types. Published as linked open data, the GND fosters semantic interoperability and re-use of data. Objects kept in different collections can be retrieved, and cross-disciplinary research is facilitated. However, authority control for the Semantic Web goes beyond the needs of librarians. In order to open the GND for interdisciplinary use, it needs to be adapted and actively transformed by the communities.
The opening process of the GND is accompanied by the project "GND for cultural data" (GND4C) funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Together with the German National Library and the DDB, four project partners of the museum, archive and cultural heritage domain define their specific needs on the organisational structure, the data model and application profiles, the technical infrastructure and the community network beyond the library community. We like to focus on the challenge how to create an environment for true cross-domain authority control beyond shared vocabularies.
How to keep the bugs out
(2018)
As a community we have established a multi-step development process that requires a lot of testing, both human and automated, for patches to make their way into Koha. This can look overly complicated and time consuming from the outside, but makes a lot of sense if you take a closer look. This presentation will explain how the process works, the purpose of the various steps, what testers and QA are looking out for and how it comes all together in the release of a new Koha version.
After moving to Germany nearly two years ago, I
discovered that the German library landscape, which is based on centralised
union catalogues, was quite different to what I was used to in the UK.
This presentation will look at the setup of the union catalogues
(Verbundsystem), introduce how libraries in Germany use centralised
cataloguing to manage their data and explore what that means for libraries
working with Koha.
Part 1: Community
- What is BSZ?
- BSZ
- Koha Installations
- History
- HLT
- Koha - the name
- International Community
- Communication
Part 2: Development
- Release Cycle
- Release Team
- Development Workflow
- Development
- Releases
- Highlights
- Release
- In progress
- Development
- Tools
- Ways to help out
- How to get code into Koha
- Links
The ICOM Statutes of 2007 define the museum as an institution that acquires, conserves, researches, communicates, and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity. What is missing in this catalogue of tasks – and consequently in the definition – is documentation.
This is important to notice as documentation is what can be called the “missing link” between the museum’s five central assignments. This can be visualized by the following illustration [...]: The diagram shows that documentation is the fundamental task that serves as a foundation for all other assignments to the museum. This fact is quite well-known to the staff responsible for the collection management system. However, it is obviously not in the focus of attention of the other museum departments. Especially when planning personnel and budget for both projects and routine activities, the important role of documentation is often neglected. Consequently, it is essential to reconsider its function and significance for the daily museum work as a cross-sectional task.
A clearly structured collection documentation can be used for many purposes inside and outside the museum. How would museum work look without documentation? The answer is obvious. Gaps in knowledge where ever you look and objects without contextualizing information. As CIDOC rightfully states: “Documentation is essential to all aspects of a museum’s activities. Collections without adequate documentation are not true "museum" collections.”
Since the mid 1990s, MusIS (Museum Information System), a service of the Library Service Centre Baden-Wuerttemberg (Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden Württemberg BSZ) runs a documentation network for museums.
Among the members are the State Museums of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg and several larger and smaller institutions from other branches. MusIS hosts a wide range of services for museum documentation and management. An important goal of the network is to create high quality documentation in a consistent form that can be used for multiple purposes inside and outside the participating museums. In order to achieve this goal, MusIS established a set of strategies and guidelines for quality control in museum documentation:
- Quality measures during data migration
- Consulting in documentation
- Application of controlled vocabulary
- Rules for entering data from index cards or inventory catalogues
- Data revision
These measures, techniques, and strategies lead to a certain degree of consistency and quality of data and documentation.
This article analyses some major issues of the complex relationship between real and virtual museum exhibitions.
While museums have a long tradition and experience in setting up physical exhibitions, they seem to be reluctant in creating virtual exhibitions. A hindering aspect seems to be the relationship between object and reproduction on the one hand and mediated and unmediated museum experience on the other, including the intricate issue of the aura of the original object. With the exhibition traditionally being the discursive space of museum communication, information technology is about to change the relationship between museums and visitors, culminating in the question of whether virtual exhibitions will replace the real ones.
For a deeper understanding of this issue, it is necessary to take a closer look at the motivations for visiting in person and online. In order to create content that is intellectually accessible for both physical and virtual visitors, it is important to consider the relationship between digital collections and virtual exhibitions.
Many museums and other cultural institutions offer online exhibitions on a regular basis; in addition to this hands-on experience there is a considerable amount of research literature describing the venture of creating exhibitions in the digital world of the Internet. Nevertheless, a handbook, guidelines or evaluation tools are still missing. Instead, there exist some popular rules of thumb, often considered to be tricks of the trade, which will not result in successful online exhibitions but in really bad user experiences for virtual visitors.
This article describes the major pitfalls that should be avoided in creating online exhibitions. It is based on a review of the research literature covering a wide range of publications and studies in the museum field.
1 Introduction
2 Some popular rules of thumb for creating online exhibitions
3 Why these rules of thumb do not work out
4 Conclusions
5 References
This paper is a revised and extended version of the German language paper "Wie gestaltet man in bester Absicht eine schlechte Online-Ausstellung? Hinweise aus der Forschungsliteratur" published in the journal: Museumskunde, Bd. 76, 1/2011. 90-99.