I would like to second this question (if that's possible). It is an issue that I, too, am struggling with, and I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas, theories or experiences any of you have to share.
amalyah keshet head of image resources & copyright management the israel museum, jerusalem www.imj.org.il board of directors, museum computer network www.mcn.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: Cathryn L. Goodwin <good...@slam.org> To: <mcn-l@mcn.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:02 PM Subject: Re: Part/Whole Relationships in Museum Collections PLUS DigImages > Guenter brings up an issue we've been batting around - is the CMS the > appropriate place to manage digital images? I've long been leaning toward > managing as much image metadata in the CMS as possible - but now am thinking > of all the other uses/types of images (not object specific, but rather > installation shots, events, people, and for that matter documents and other > digital objects) that need to be managed. Are people using separate digital > asset management systems alongside the CMS? I've been looking at various > products and would appreciate hearing about what others are doing. > > Cathryn L. Goodwin > Information Technologies > The Saint Louis Art Museum > 1 Fine Arts Drive > St. Louis MO 63110 > 314.655.5349 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guenter Waibel" <guen...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> > To: <mcn-l@mcn.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:34 PM > Subject: RE: Part/Whole Relationships in Museum Collections PLUS DigImages > > > Hi everybody, > > > > thanks for the interesting discussion on CMS and accessioning objects > > with a parts to whole relationship. I'd like to tease out some issues > > that Roland Dreyer's post has alluded to. > > > > He essentially talks about accession numbers as the basic building > > block for a filenaming convention. In and of itself, using accession > > numbers in filenames is a worthy topic for discussion - I know a lot > > of museums who create their unique filenames by using the accession > > number, and I also know from a session at VRA San Francisco I > > attended in 2000 that there are those who are up in arms against this > > practise. The pro of using the accession number as part of a digital > > filename is the instantaneous identification effect - without any > > further ado, I know what object this file represents. The cons are > > that using accession numbers in filenames amounts to embedding > > descriptive metadata in the filename, and that this type of metadata, > > even something as seemingly stable as an accession no, may change; > > plus what Roland outlined, namely that certain accession numbers may > > not be fit to be used as a filename. At BAM/PFA, we still believe > > that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and we're using a > > convention that goes like this: > > InstAcronym_AccessionNo_SequentialNo_VersionNo.FiletypeExt, or > > bampfa_1992.4.234_1_1.tif. The Sequential Number is counting off the > > digital images taken of the same object; Version Number is referring > > to whether a file is a master, sub-master, access or thumbnail file. > > > > However, back to the topic at hand. Whether you're dealing with a > > parts-to-whole relationship in your CMS or not, you'll have to deal > > with it once you digitize your collections. Even if your tea-set has > > one accession number in your CMS, you may want to take individual > > surrogate images of each (sub)item in it. Furthermore, objects for > > which no registrar would create several entries or a groupentry or > > subentries in a CMS will yield more than one master image file, for > > example the various views of a sculpture; the individual pages of an > > artist's book; the front and back of a painting (if the back has a > > historical interesting inscription) etc. > > > > To come full circle, I do believe that a discussion about issues of > > how to create records for these "complex" objects (and potentially > > *any* object is a complex object) has to tie in with a discussion > > about creating digital surrogates and managing them. One of the most > > basic challenges of managing digital assets is to keep the link > > between the surrogate and the descriptive metadata pertaining to the > > physical object intact. > > > > Just to give a brief example of how the decision to accession the > > tea-set may influence online access to the digital surrogate - if you > > were to create separate records for each part of the tea-set as in > > option 1 William outlined, you'd wind up with a situation where it > > would be hard for your access architecture / strategy to know that > > those objects should really be presented as one group with individual > > children. You probably wouldn't be able to preserve the meaningful > > grouping of the items in your presentation. If you follow strategy 2 > > and catalogue in a parent-child manner, you've definitely made more > > explicit that those items should be presented together, but then when > > it comes time to digitize them, you may find out that the divisions > > the CMS makes can not be "replicated" in digital images - the CMS may > > have one entry the cup and saucer, whereas the photographer feels > > that they need to be shot separately because there's something on the > > saucer the cup covers if you shot them together. > > > > I realize this is getting pretty ridiculous :-), but I think you get > > the general drift - databases managing digital images and collections > > management system have to be tightly integrated to operate > > efficiently, and the parent / child question is one of the many > > delicate issues in this integration - where is this relationship > > hosted? In the CMS, or in the Digital Asset Management System? At > > BAM/PFA, we use our Digital Asset Management Database to provide > > parent/child relationships for digital files - we go from the one > > record in the CMS to the many records which might be required for the > > digital surrogates. However, whenever I encounter objects with many > > different records in the CMS, it breaks my system as described above. > > I think we need to have a discussion between curators / registrars > > and digital archive managers on how digital imaging might impact > > current practises of acessioning the physical objects, and how we > > think about CMS. > > > > Just my humble 2c's. Thanks for listening - you've made it to the end! > > > > Cheers, > > Guenter > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Guenter Waibel > > Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive > > Digital Media Developer http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/ > > Digital Imaging SIG Chair, MCN http://www.mcn.edu/visig_subscribe.taf > > guen...@uclink4.berkeley.edu > > Phone 510-643-8655 > > Fax 510-642-4889 > --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
