Month: October 2016

By hhealy on Creating Digital Artefacts tagged , , - Leave a comment

The Importance of Metadata Standards: Why bother?

Before explaining why standardised metadata is important it is firstly important to understand what metadata is. Essentially metadata is ‘data about data’. We use metadata to describe other objects, for instance, when you open a book and see the author, publisher, contents, etc., you are looking at a book’s metadata. For digital preservation purposes standardised systems are created to record these features so that an easily searchable and detailed record are created. As Adam Rabinowitz exhibits when we accurately create and store this data we can prevent the ‘flattening process’ which compresses our history into thematic periodisation (Rabinowitz). So why not do it?

 

Resisting Metadata

The concept of metadata seems relatively straightforward yet there are dozens of articles, across numerous disciplines, outlining  how to put it to best practice and why this practice is important (Linkert, Park, Riley). This abundance of guidelines and information can only result from a resistance among the academic community to implement a strong metadata policy into their research. Perhaps the number one factor motivating this resistance is simply time consumption. Creating and fulfilling metadata standards is a time consuming process, which requires added thought and labour. As shown by Paul Edwards et al. adding metadata to a project can increase the workload significantly (Edwards 673). So the necessary question to ask really is why this extra workload is worth your time and effort?

 

The Benefits

Gideon Burton, “Metadata Sticks”, flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wakingtiger/3157622824)

There are many advantages to creating good, in depth standardised metadata forms. Each on their own could supply content to fill a journal. Simply put, yes standardised metadata requires a longer research period to begin with, but, in the end it promotes better research. This research is not only more beneficial and expedient for researches that follow but provides high quality data that results in efficient research and findings rooted in solid evidence (Corti). As in the cultural sector, metadata has vast significance to scientific research. Edwards describes extensive, highly structured data as ‘a holy grail, a magic chalice” that can make data integration and sharing seamless (Edwards 672). Not only does this make datasets easily transferrable between researchers and communities but it also enables transferability between systems. This is essential to the preservation of digital material. Without proper standardised, monitored and extensive data we run the risk of losing the digital data we’ve created. Despite the perception of technological infallibility decay can erode our digital present as it has our analogue past. Therefore, good structured metadata not only allows for efficient and expedient workflow but helps to preserve online resources which can be utilised in years to come.

 

Bibliography

Corti, Louise et al., “Managing and Sharing Data” UK Data Archive. Web. http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/media/2894/managingsharing.pdf. 25 October 2016.

Edwards, Paul N. et al. “Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration.” Social Studies of Science, 41: 5 (2011): 667–690. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41301955. 25 October 2016.

Linkert, Melissa et al. “Metadata Matters: Access to Image Data in the Real World.” The Journal of Cell Biology, 189.5 (2010): 777–782. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27811023, 25 October 2016.

Park, Jung-ran et al. “From Metadata Creation to Metadata Quality Control: Continuing Education Needs Among Cataloging and Metadata Professionals.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51.3 (2010): 158–176. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40732596, 25 October 2016.

Rabinowitz, Alan, ‘It’s about time: historical periodization and Linked Ancient World Data’ Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. Web. http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/7/rabinowitz/, 25 October 2016.

Riley, Jenn, and Kelcy Shepherd. “A Brave New World: Archivists and Shareable Descriptive Metadata.” The American Archivist, 72.1 (2009): 91–112. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294597, 25 October 2016.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

By hhealy on Digital Heritage tagged , , , , , , with 2 Comments

Authenticity and Aura: The Annotation of Replicas

 

Kirlian Photography: Hand
Kirlian Photography: Hand

In his paper on aura and democratisation Stuart Jeffrey addresses a number of concerns relating to digital visualisations and reproducing the authenticity of cultural objects (Jeffrey 144). While acknowledging that the application of aura to digital reproductions is possible in certain contexts, particularly in community engagement programmes, Jeffrey nonetheless argues that the ‘weirdness’ of the digital limits its potential (Jeffrey 151). While I agree with Jeffrey that the digital is not comparable to its analogue counterpart this post will seek to show that through creative curation, particularly with the aid of good annotation, digital replicas can adopt an aura of their own. This aura can not only stand on its own but can augment the aura of the existing original.

The Aura

Walter Benjamin defines the aura as an object’s ‘presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be’ (Benjamin, II). This definition expands to include what is termed the authenticity of an object, that is ‘the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced’ (Benjamin). Jeffrey’s adaption of ‘the aura’ is more closely associated with the people who handled an object. For Jeffrey, our connection with an object ‘ is simply the latest link in the chain and somehow connects us to every other person on the same chain’ (Jeffrey 147). While I agree that Jeffrey’s chain theory is one aspect of aura it is by no means the sole definition. Jeffrey uses the example of an uncovered crown to demonstrate aura and authenticity through its association with rulers. While monarchs usually have a reserved place in history as key figures, largely due to the importance we ourselves place on their symbolic presence rather than actual achievement, is a crown that was made but not worn by a monarch any less important or historically relevant than one that was?

Curation and Annotation

In an academic discussion relating to digital history Patrick Gallagher, a leader in the field of exhibit design, wrote about the immersion concept in museums. This concept refers to Gallagher’s attempts to create ‘real environments that tell stories, display artifacts, create emotion, and most particularly offer learning experiences.’ (The Promise of Digital History). If we consider that the feelings evoked in public exhibits are the result of thought out layout, structure and annotation, and that it is these features which enable objects to be contextualised, and therefore imbued with aura, then is it not possible to achieve the same through an online exhibit.

I would argue that the Smithsonian museum have done just this with their online tour of The Kéet S’aaxw (Killer Whale Hat) (Hollinger, SimthsonianX 3D). The application guides the user through a sixteen step tour detailing the origin of the hat, the creation of the 3D model and replica and a comparison of the original and replica. The tour is carried out in an annotation window next to the 3D digital model and each annotated step is accompanied by pictures. These pictures follow the same topics as their textual counterpart. Through this display the ‘visitor’ can compare both original and replica and understand the origins and context of each. In this way both artefacts have their own, unique, story and aura, which are both dependent on different contexts. Additionally, through the side by side comparison it is evident that the replica and original are not identical. The annotated notes explain that deterioration and colour fading has altered the original hat. While this, Jeffrey and Benjamin would argue, gives the original object its own, protected, aura, it also gives the replica a trait of its own as the visitor can see what the ‘authentic’ object looked like exactly when it was first created. To increase the authenticity of their replica the museum also record the interaction of the tribal community associated with the original in the creation and unveiling of the replica. Through this interface the visitor obtains an immersive experience, akin to that of a museum or heritage site, and this experience encourages and augments the aura of the digital.

Bibliography

Benjamin, Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. Web. 21 October 2016.

Cohen, Daniel  et al. “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” The Journal of American History 95.2 (2008): 452-491. Web. 22 October 2016.

Hollinger, Eric, Smithsonian X3D. Smithsonian Institution. Web. 20 October 2016.

Jeffrey, Stuart, “Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and Democratisation” Open Archaeology  1:1 (2015): 144-152. Web. 18 October 2016.

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

By hhealy on Creating Digital Artefacts tagged , , - Leave a comment

The Limits of Digitisation: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

https://lauraastmanbaker.wordpress.com/crisis-communication-blog-2/they-say-a-pictures-worth-a-thousand-words/
https://lauraastmanbaker.wordpress.com/crisis-communication-blog-2/they-say-a-pictures-worth-a-thousand-words/

When indexing a photographic collection the archivist must decide how to catalogue the relevant subject. Essentially, a human being must look at, interpret and describe the object before them so that a user may locate them within the repository. While this may seem a relatively simple task it is important to consider the challenge this imposes; when a picture is worth a thousand words which words do you choose? This post will seek to examine the difficulties that arise out of the necessary indexing and categorisation of photographs within digital repositories.

When examining photographs within an archival institution the process can be somewhat arduous or relatively simple. Photographs could be catalogued individually, each with associated keywords and descriptions in an online or analogue catalogue, sometimes both. Alternatively, a large bundle of photographs could be put under a somewhat broad title, “Irish Revolution 1916-1922” for example, and the user must examine each photograph separately to see which ones are relative and which are not. Either way the user is prompted to analyse each catalogue entry or each photograph. However, with a digital repository different criteria come into play. Researchers are prompted to enter dates and keywords associated with the image. As demonstrated by Murtha Baca the definitive labelling of a photograph is far from simple, when “pre-Colombian” is synonymous with “pre-Conquest” how does an indexer define a photograph. (Baca 10). According to Marcia Bates  “ideally, the challenge for the indexer is to try to anticipate what terms people with information gaps of various descriptions might search for.” (Bates) Where this is successfully accomplished a researcher can locate a relevant image within seconds. The issue occurs when it isn’t. When users are not prompted to search line by line, to scour repository search terms the same way we do catalogues, does valuable information fall between the cracks? And if it does, does digitisation do the researcher more harm than good? The creation of an online repository establishes a certain amount of trust between user and product, if a search returns no results is it unfair to assume it was never there rather than hiding?

Another fear generated by modern technology is our decreasing ability to analyse. When the goal is information and information is provided a plenty do we care where it comes from? While photographs are open to interpretation and therefore difficult to distort there is a way in which digitisation limits their scope. The most obvious way is through formatting and presentation. As Elizabeth Edwards argues the copying, mounting, standardising and indexing of photographs in the Cambridge Project removes the photograph from its original context. Her examination of materiality reflects on the importance of this context to the meaning and interpretation of a photograph, without it, she argues, “reinforces the taxonomic readings of the images, creating a cohesive anthropological object rather than a series of images with their own semiotic energies.” (Edwards 71). Essentially, does a standardized format distort the interpretation of a photograph which was previously treasured in an ornate frame or tattered photo album? Arguably, the answer is yes. Context is not a discardable detail but a fragment of the puzzle which artefacts seek to decipher. Similarly, when a photograph is limited to certain tags do we limit its potential? If a user is informed that a photograph or artwork belongs to a certain theme do we already limit their ability to interpret as it has been done for them? Why should a user critically analyse the meaning of a photograph when the database has done it for them?

In conclusion, online repositories can provide a wealth of information in a matter of seconds. Users can obtain access to resources they may never have seen otherwise. However, what of the challenges they don’t see or the questions they don’t know to ask? How do we prevent resources from falling through the metadata cracks? Additionally, in creating this metadata how do we guide a user to a resource without impacting their interpretation before they’ve seen it?

Bibliography

Baca, Murtha, “A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words: Metadata for Art Objects and Their Visual Surrogates” http://www.columbia.edu/cu/libraries/inside/units/bibcontrol/osmc/MBaca.pdf. Web. 17 October 2016.

Bates, Marcia, “Indexing and access for Digital Libraries and the Internet: Human, Database, and Domain Factors” https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/articles/indexdlib.html Web. 17 October 2016.

Edwards, Elizabeth, “Material beings: objecthood and ethnographic photographs” Visual Studies 17:1 (2002): 1-19. Web. 17 October 2016.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

By hhealy on Digital Heritage tagged , , , , with 1 Comment

Control and Copyright: Who owns the past?

Auguste Rodin, The Thinker, 1880-81, Bronze. Georges Rudier Foundry, 10/12. Posthumous cast authorized by Musée Rodin, 1972. Cantor Arts Center Stanford University.

Patents, royalties and copyright are all accepted terms within a business context, but what happens when we apply business terminology and principles to culture? Should cultural artefacts be treated as any other tradeable commodity or are objects imbued with cultural capital exempt from these impositions of authority? In an attempt to answer these questions this blog post will explore the role of copyright legislation in the context of 3D scanning.

Gaining Access : Economy and Integrity

As is exhibited in Charles Cronin’s work on copyright and cultural artefacts a large degree of copyright contentions are motivated by finance and concern for integrity (Cronin 2). While Cronin, and other expanded domain advocates like him (Matz 5, Butler 57), disagree with the validity and necessity of these practices, cultural institutions and other academics argue that their actions are not only valid but justified (Allan 964). Upon reflection it is difficult to align oneself with the latter view. While the issues of revenue will always be an integral one for cultural institutions the contention that expansion of the public domain will result in an increased use of licenses and contracts seems to ignore the fact that such arrangements already exist (Cronin 12). Similarly, the notion that copyright is responsible for higher quality reproductions ignores the desire for preservation among the cultural community, it is hard to see this desire fade as a result of increased access. Equally, Cronin’s counter-argument that poor reproductions do not diminish prestige is difficult to refute when evaluating the continued prestige of Shakespeare and Mozart despite many poor reproductions of their work (Cronin 20). Unfortunately, regardless of Cronin’s logical arguments it is ultimately clear that copyright laws advocate for the owner and not the user. As a consequence, gaining access to cultural objects to even attempt a 3D scan can be half the battle.

Who owns the digital?

While gaining access to cultural artefacts for the purpose of digitisation can be challenging it is not impossible, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the ownership of digital reproductions. In his study on the topic Michael Weinberg uses the precedent of copyright photography to establish how the legislation should and could theoretically be applied to 3D scans (Weinberg 3). According to the Copyright Association of Ireland (Frequently Asked Questions) the principal element required for artistic copyright is originality. Similarly, the focus of  Weinberg’s argument is that copyright protection is contingent upon the concept of “originality” in conjunction with the scanner’s intent. However, objectionists, such as Allan, have argued that it is not solely originality which defines the copyright issue, but that creativity has infiltrated the definition of eligibility (Allan 968).

The result of this originality clause is theoretically defined as follows: a 3D scan that was created with the intent of preservation or is simply a slavish digital model to real life object is not protected by copyright (Weinberg 9). The justification of this is that an accurate representation of a real object is simply  a transference from one medium to another, it does not require or represent originality and is therefore not protected. An important part of this definition is the acknowledgement of where originality must occur. That is, originality in method does not qualify for protection as the scanner is simply employing best practice to achieve the goal of replication. Therefore, originality is only a qualifying factor as it applies to product. This is essentially the point Weinberg is making when he speaks of intent (Weinberg 7). The exception to this copyright ruling occurs in regards to what Weinberg defines as ‘expressive scans’ (Weinberg 8). These scans are created with the intention  of distorting the original object for artistic purposes.

Conclusion

We like to think that our past and our culture is open to all. That artefacts detailing our past, our story, belong to us as a collective and can be represented as such. However, the reality is much more complicated. Where access is permissible and provided this is very much the case. 3D scans allow a universal audience to view, download and even print replicas. For many this may be the closest they can get to the original, and while this may not be everything it is hopefully enough. Conversely, where access is denied, ownership is a struggle as owners, guardians, institutions, academics and the public seek to serve very separate interests.

Bibliography

Allan, Robin J., “After Bridgeman’: Copyright Museums, and Public Domain Works of Art.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155:4 (2007): 961-89. JSTOR. Web. 7 October 2016.

Butler, Kathleen Connolly, “Keeping the World Safe from Naked-Chicks-in-Art Refrigerator Magnets: The Plot to Control Art Images in the Public Domain through Copyrights in Photographic and Digital Reproductions.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent) 21:1 (1998): 55-128. HeinOnline. Web. 7 October 2016.

Cronin, Charles, “Possession Is 99% of the Law: 3D Printing, Public Domain Cultural Artifacts and Copyright” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 17:2 (2016): 709-736. Web. 7 October 2016.

Matz, Robert, “Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 15:1 (2000): 3-23. Web. 7 October 2016.

Weinberg, Michael, “3D Scanning: A world without copyright” Shapeways (2016): 1-16. Web. 7 October 2016.

“Frequently Asked Question.” Copyright Association of Ireland. Web. 7 October 2016.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share