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)
Many museums and other cultural institutions offer online exhibitions on a regular basis and there is even a considerable amount of research literature describing the venture of creating exhibitions in the digital world of the Internet. Nevertheless, there are some popular rules of thumb which will result in really bad online-exhibitions.
The presentation describes the major pitfalls that should be avoided in creating online exhibitions. It is based on a literature review containing a wide range of studies and projects in the museum field. Outline Research on online exhibitions Some rules of thumb for creating online exhibitions Why these rules of thumb do not work Conclusions.
(19 slides)
Many museums want to use Web 2.0 applications or feel the pressure to do so. In doing so, they might encounter a significant problem as Web 2.0 is based on the notion of radical trust and unrestricted, equal participation, two concepts that are contrary to the museum’s traditional concepts of authority, communication and participation because until recently this institution used to be in total control of its content. The crucial question is how much control of its content the museum can afford to lose regarding the fact that it highly depends on its reputation and has to justify its trustworthiness.
The paper analyses the role of authority, its influence on traditional and future museum communication and its effects on participation and trust. The challenge for the museum is to find a way to cede authority and control over content without losing its status as a trustworthy institution and to open up for social media and user participation in order to attract new audiences and maintain existing ones.
BAM – the joint portal for libraries, archives, museums in Germany intends to become a single point of access for cultural content and serves users who do not want to search several different databases at different servers using different search interfaces and vocabularies for access. In addition to combining different information services from different institutions in one point of access, BAM can also serve as a portal for a single institution’s libraries, archives, museums and media centres. BAM also tries to increase the visibility of the digital objects in the collections of the participants by cooperating with Wikipedia Germany and enriching articles with a link to content in BAM.
Table of content:
1. Introduction
2. BAM – A Joint Portal for Libraries, Archives, Museums
3. BAM Local – Uniting Different Branches of an Institution in one Portal
4. Increasing Content Visibility by Collaborating with Wikipedia
5. BAM and its Users
6. Conclusions
Summary:
- RDF is a simple, graph-based data model for metadata on the web
- RDF has an XML syntax for:
- Exchanging RDF Models
- Embedding RDF Models into web pages
- Advantages over XML
- Data model is agnostic to syntactic variations
- Information from different models and locations can easily be linked
- Some important operations are trivial (i.e. merging two models)
- RDF Schema defines special resources and predicates for defining vocabularies
- Vokabular: Class, SubClassOf, domain, range
- Implicit information can be derived using simple derivation rules
- There is no clear separation between model and schema, schema elements can be part of an RDF model
Three general remarks about documentation:
- The kind of documentation is dependent on its purposes. Order is not an end in itself.
- Questions of documentation are never of an ideological, but of a pragmatic kind.
- Documentation should serve only (and exactly only) one aim: the enhancement of the retrieval of knowledge relevant to your daily work.
Overview and purposes of ordering devices and documentation languages.
BAM, the joint portal for Libraries, Archives and Museums in Germany, considers itself to be a digital memory institution. Currently the portal holds more than 40 million records from a wide range of cultural institutions, some 37 million data sets from six libraries or union catalogs, 2.9 million data sets from eleven archives, 300.000 data sets from twenty museums and 800.000 data sets from other institutions.
These significant differences in numbers of data sets are not only due to the size of the holdings of the participating institutions but also to “cultural differences” between libraries, archives, and museums in creating records and collaborating in union catalogs.
The paper describes those differences from the perspective of the BSZ, the hosting organization of BAM, and a major contributor to BAM, the Foundation Prussian Cultural Heritage (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz), Berlin. The point of view is specific for the situation in Germany and might differ from the situation in other countries. There are certainly other important issues that are not mentioned here as we chose to take a perspective specific for BAM.