Dear All
In Finland there are investigations underway within the Museums-Archives-Libraries community with regard to co-operation in the area of long term storage. A part of this issue is the question of content standards. PREMIS and METS have received special attention at this point. To highlight the importance of CIDOC-CRM in this context an argumentation is needed clarifying the position of the CIDOC-CRM with regard to PREMIS and related standards and models. Some links for relevant background information are: PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/ METS Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/ OAIS Reference Model: http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf Another matter: There is a Nordic project underway with many of the goals stated by Nick, e.g. - Developing a service-oriented, integrated technical infrastructure to aggregate and serve up structured cultural content - Providing an SKOS/web-services based Cultural Terminology Server for museums, archives and libraries· - Liaison with Europeana A prototype of this system will be presented in the CIDOC conference in Athens. Best regards, Mika ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Synapse Computing Oy, Arabiankatu 2, 00560 Helsinki [email protected] +358-9-8569 9696 puh/tel +358-9-8569 9595 fax ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Nick Poole Sent: 25 April 2008 11:39 To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [Crm-sig] Issue: CRM compatibility Dear Nick, Many thanks to you and to Ed for opening up this discussion, which provides me with an excellent opportunity to respond on behalf of the Collections Trust (the erstwhile MDA!). Firstly, a little background to our recent changes. The change of name betokens a significant expansion, both of our UK and international remit. In the UK, we have been mandated by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and Department for Culture to coordinate all operational work in the areas of Collections, Digital Futures and Copyright for museums, archives and libraries. Among other initiatives, we have been funded to work on: · The harmonisation of standards between museums, archives and libraries · Providing a vision for the future development of ‘infomatics’ (not quite the right word, but you get the gist) standards · Developing a service-oriented, integrated technical infrastructure to aggregate and serve up structured cultural content · Providing an SKOS/web-services based Cultural Terminology Server for museums, archives and libraries Part of this work has already involved developing a future vision for the evolution of SPECTRUM (from a standard to a standards framework) better to meet the changing needs of a new generation of practitioners, new types of mixed-media collection and different modes of use. It is worth noting that we continue to engage actively with FISH, EH and a number of other national partners (including, increasingly across the library and archive domains) on these issues. We have also inherited from the MLA the responsibility for a number of European programmes including: · The EDLocal and ATHENA projects · Liaison with Europeana · The development of a trans-national partnership for Collections Mobility & international loans · Development of MICHAEL All of which means that the development of international standards, and as part of this our partnership with the various Collections Management and other software providers, is now more important than ever. In this context, we have a strong interest in the next stages of the development of the CRM and to a lesser degree museumDAT. We believe that there is potential in both the proposed approaches (automated validation as a meta-standard and direct validation of compliant systems), as well as Ed’s excellent suggestion regarding the validation of data standards, but that there is considerable work to be done in bringing this to reality – more work than either CIDOC or the CRM-SIG can undertake as unconstituted organisations, even with project funding. I would therefore like to put a proposal to the SIG that we meet with you to discuss the possibility of the Collections Trust providing an infrastructure and capacity through which a real compliance/validation programme for the CRM can be implemented. I know that this proposal is not without political implications, but equally – assuming we can get past these – it is not without merit. If we can establish a constructive partnership between the Collections Trust and CIDOC as the coordinating body for the CRM we can match vision to operation and, I believe, make significant advances towards the widespread adoption of/interoperation with the CRM. Both Gordon and I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this proposal in detail and assess whether it is feasible. Is there a forthcoming meeting which either one or both of us could attend to discuss? Yours sincerely, Nick
