1.5. Delimitación del Estudio
2.2.13. La adolescencia como etapa del desarrollo humano
Half of the institutions in the study indicate that they share their collections data in some form of networked access. Though not a factor in selection for participation in the study, AMICO members compose exactly 1/3 of the sample. Five out of the ten AMICO members are among those using controlled vocabularies. Several non-AMICO member institutions expressed interest or plans to contribute to the library in the future. Costs and time involved to prepare data for export were frequently cited as drawbacks or barriers to AMICO membership, but overall it was highly desired among those who are not currently members. From an administrative point of view however, the idea of contributing resources to a large-scale networked initiative is generally secondary to providing information via institutional websites. Once museums achieve an accepted level of data quality, they may revisit the decision to contribute to data sharing projects such as AMICO as a way of extending their internal efforts toward data quality and access.
Other types of partnerships mentioned by study participants include
contributions to union library catalogs as previously stated, and established consortiums such as CIAO. Two museums indicated they are in the planning and pilot phases of data sharing projects with other museums or regional institutions.
A representative from one museum indicated that their institution’s interest in networked access is shifting toward metatagging projects, standards initiatives and search engine tools for cross-database querying. “We’re moving away from wanting to contribute physical datasets to other databases.” Instead, the idea is for a sophisticated portal that links numerous distributed databases, searchable with one engine that has
built-in vocabulary tools to handle differences in terminology as well as spelling variants and synonyms. The portal concept would alleviate some of the costs and time required to export customized datasets, and it is, in theory, infinitely scalable. Developments in metadata crosswalks among disparate element sets will also help to increase the
accuracy and precision of retrieved sets from distributed databases.54 Controlled
vocabularies, while still of great importance locally, may prove to be not as necessary in the networked realm when it comes to guaranteeing high precision retrieval capabilities. Conclusion
Assuming that just over half of the nation’s fine art museums have adopted vocabulary control as a regular cataloging practice, the professional museum community still has a long way to go to achieve objectives toward this particular aspect of data standardization. End-users can no longer claim that they are waiting for electronic versions of the vocabularies or that they are blindly following in the footsteps of their predecessors. The advent of the Internet has made both excuses obsolete, for now access to both vocabularies and best practices for museum data standards is ubiquitous.
Additionally, the role that collections management software plays within
museums will continue to evolve. Personnel in education, user services and exhibitions departments are finding ways to adapt the software for their unique purposes, and in doing so, challenge the traditional view that these databases are to be used as exclusively as registrar’s tools. In 1997 Besser observed, “. . . recent advances [re: technological
54 See for example Murtha Baca, ed. “Metadata Standards Crosswalks,” Introduction to Metadata:
Pathways to Digital Information, J. Paul Getty Trust, © 2000, (17 June 2001).
limitations] are likely to promote the convergence between these two camps.”55 With increasing levels of use for more diverse purposes, museums may learn through
experience how valuable a standardized vocabulary can be when it comes to wanting to capitalize on their data assets.
Murtha Baca, Head of Vocabulary Standards for the Getty Research Institute, cites knowledge – or lack thereof – chief among the obstacles to using vocabularies. “Vocabularies have to be available and museums have to know about them and know that they are important.”56 She also points to the changing roles of museum personnel, noting that previously non-existent job titles such as “Data Standards Administrator” will start to become more prevalent, and with them, more comprehensive and
enforceable data standards programs. Additionally, Baca indicated that a work on a new Getty publication is currently underway – one that addresses subject access for image collections.
The gap between awareness of vocabularies and skill in using them perhaps could be further narrowed if institutions commit to continuing professional education for staff that extends beyond introductory training seminars. Dissemination of innovation also could be greatly enhanced if collections management personnel were to develop local, regional, or national networks among themselves to foster support and
collaboration.
No single profile accurately characterizes the type of museum that is a good candidate for successful implementation of vocabulary control standards, though the
55 Howard Besser, “The Transformation of the Museum and the Way It’s Perceived.” In The Wired
Museum, ed. Katherine Jones-Garmil. (Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, 1997), 160.
results of this study strongly indicate that the presence of individuals with information and library science education is a factor in improving adoption behavior. While this study also shows that institutions with smaller numbers of records and fewer staff actively involved in cataloging are more likely to use vocabularies, actual
implementation varies widely with regard to the nature of their collections, the priorities of their administrations, and individual staff workloads. Among those participants who are currently using vocabularies, many indicated that they are actively writing their own documentation and conducting small training seminars within their museums to
supplement training received from vendors.
The results of this study show long-standing habits and institutional traditions emerging as the most significant barriers that need to be overcome before a museum can objectively approach terminology control. The advent of networked resources and the drive to the Internet have sparked a great deal of change in the way museums view their intellectual capital, but the realities of change remain governed by availability of
resources including staff time, training, financial and administrative support. Close behind tradition are the tools themselves. Complaints of complexity, inaccuracy, steep learning curves and insufficient scope are serious concerns for many, and factors that have a profound affect on an institution’s decision to adopt one or more vocabularies. Finally, the time involved presents a substantial obstacle to museum personnel who are barely managing to complete daily workloads without the added burden of a terminology control project.
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
(For items marked with ‘*’ please estimate if exact figures are not known or readily available)
1. What software package is your institution currently using for collections management?
What version?
2. Is this the first commercial database system your institution has purchased? 3. How long have you had this system? ___yr(s) ____mo.(s) *
4. Total number of objects owned by the museum? *
5. How many museum-owned objects are currently recorded in the database? * (For instances of multiple objects with one accession number, estimate the number of accession numbers)
6. How many total object records are currently in the database? (accounting for instances where the museum records loans, potential acquisitions, etc.) *
7. How many staff enter new data into the database? *
In general, what positions do these staff members hold? What is their level of academic/professional training?
8. Have you personally used any vocabulary tools in your own career or training? If yes, what tools, and describe your impressions or experiences.
9. Was the availability of vocabulary tools or a built-in vocabulary browser (such as the Getty’s Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Union List of Artist Names, Thesaurus of Geographic Names, ICONCLASS, or Library of Congress Thesaurus of Graphic Materials) a factor in your institution’s decision to purchase this system?
10. Are any vocabulary tools (such as those named above) installed on your system? If yes, which ones? continue to question 11.
If no, why not? Skip to question 13.
11. Do catalogers at your institution regularly use formal vocabulary control sources when entering new records?
If yes, which ones?
12. Do database users at your institution regularly use vocabulary tools when querying
the database? (e.g. Querying on a broader or narrower term in a hierarchy)
13. Do catalogers at your institution regularly use authority control (i.e. an in-house or customized list of terms, not a formal thesaurus) when entering new records?
14. Does your institution offer staff training in how to use the database?
If yes, describe the nature and availability of training. In what aspects? (e.g. data entry, querying, report writing, world wide web access, etc.) 15. Please rank the following based on your personal experience, and feel free to comment on any of the selections:
Satisfaction with the vocabulary browser tool included with the database? (If applicable/installed) Highly Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with the quality of data contained in the database? (in regard to consistency, thoroughness, accuracy, etc.)
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with the data contained in query results? (in regard to consistency, thoroughness, accuracy, etc.)
Highly
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied
Overall satisfaction with the database for daily use to accomplish job objectives?
Highly
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied
16. Is the database, whether in part or whole, accessible to the public? If yes, how? (check all that apply):
__ kiosks located in gallery space in conjunction with objects on view __ a designated computer area apart from the collection
__ by appointment only __ via the museum’s website
__ via another website ____________________________ __ other________________________________________
17. Does your institution currently collaborate or have future plans to collaborate in any form of networked access to your collections data with any other institution? (i.e. museum-library partnerships, AMICO membership, union catalogs or databases, etc.) 18. Do you have any other comments or experiences relating to your institution’s use of controlled vocabularies or vocabulary tools that you would like to share?
Appendix B: List of Participating Institutions Albright-Knox Art Gallery
Birmingham Museum of Art Corning Museum of Glass Dallas Museum of Art Delaware Art Museum Denver Art Museum High Museum of Art Hood Museum of Art Huntington Museum of Art Indianapolis Museum of Art J. Paul Getty Museum
Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University Joslyn Art Museum
Los Angeles County Museum of Art Metropolitan Museum of Art
Minnesota Museum of American Art Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Nelson-Atkins Art Museum North Carolina Museum of Art Philbrook Museum of Art Phoenix Art Museum Seattle Art Museum
Smith College Art Museum
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute University of Wyoming Art Museum Walters Art Gallery
Weatherspoon Art Gallery Yale University Art Gallery
Appendix C: Demographic Breakdown of Sample
Geographic Region No. of Employees Annual Attendance Collection
41 72000 31000 50 79155 11000 90 288275 40000 120 135524 5500 140 300000 30000 Midatlantic 2530 4900000 3000000 Regional Mean 495.2 962492.3 519583.3 107 273676 5700 203 259339 50000 Midwest 403 307631 30000 Regional Mean 237.7 280215.3 28566.7 30 38352 59500 40 35003 24000 54 100970 100000 95 160000 4000 New England 796 1132705 350000 Regional Mean 203 293406 107500 9 40000 3500 20 50000 7000 106 248553 12000 224 500000 20000 235 586971 55000 Plains 606 1500000 35000 Regional Mean 200 487587.3 22083.3 24 28000 6000 28 33072 9000 63 105440 8500 90 214849 21000 140 552603 11000 Southeast 148 311355 3600 Regional Mean 82.2 207553.2 9850 104 567000 17000 245 505264 22000 296 80000 96000 West 348 1547310 80000 Regional Mean 248.3 674893.5 53750 Total Mean 246.2 498434.9 138243.3
Bibliography
American Association of Museums Services: Accreditation.20 April 2001. <http://www.aam-us.org/accredproginfo.htm> (11 March 2001).
AMICO: The Art Museum Image Consortium. <http://www.amico.org> (2 July 2001). AMICO Data Specification, v. 1.2, 4 June 2001,
<http://www.amico.org/AMICOlibrary/AMICO.dd.9902.html> (2 July 2001). The Art & Architecture Thesaurus Browser. J. Paul Getty Trust, ©2000.
<http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/aat/> (2 July 2001).
Artefacts Canada, Canadian Heritage Information Network, ©2001. <http://www.chin.gc.ca/Artefacts/e_artefacts_canada.html> (5 July 2001). Baca, Murtha, ed. “Metadata Standards Crosswalks,” Introduction to Metadata: Pathways to Digital Information. J. Paul Getty Trust, ©2000.
<http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/standards/intrometadata/3_crosswalks/ index.html> (17 June 2001).
---. Telephone interview by author. 21 June 2001.
Benedetti, Joan M. “Words, Words, Words: Folk Art Terminology – Why It (Still) Matters.” Art Documentation 19(1):14-21, 2000.
Berg, Jörgen van den. “Subject Retrieval in Pictorial Information Systems.” Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Historical Sciences, Round Table 34: Electronic Filing, Recording, and Communication of Visual Historical Data: Montreal, 1995. <http://www.iconclass.nl/texts/montreal.htm> (17 April 2001).
Besser, Howard. “The Transformation of the Museum and the Way It’s Perceived.” In
The Wired Museum, ed. Katherine Jones-Garmil. (Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, 1997), 153-169.
Blackaby, James R. The Revised Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging : A Revised and Expanded Version of Robert G. Chenall's System for Classifying Man-Made Objects.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1998.
Canadian Heritage Information Network. Collections Management Software Review: Comparative Analysis, 3rd ed., Canada: 2000.
Conceptual and Intermedia Online (CIAO). <http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/ciao> (1 July 2001).
Dunn, Heather. “Collection Level Description - the Museum Perspective.” D-Lib Magazine 6(9):2000. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september00/dunn/09dunn.html> (5 July 2001).
The Getty Vocabulary Program. J. Paul Getty Trust, ©2000.
<http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/vocabulary.html> (22 June 2001).
Greenberg, Jane. “Intellectual control of visual archives: a comparison between the Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic
Materials.” Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 16(1):85-117, 1993.
Harpring, Patricia. “Resistance is Futile: Inaccessible Networked Information Made Accessible Using the Getty Vocabularies.” ASIS Annual Conference Proceedings: 833- 847, 1999.
---. “How Forcible are Right Words! Overview of Applications and Interfaces Incorporating the Getty Vocabularies.” Museums and the Web 1999 Conference Proceedings, 18 March 1999.
<http://www.archimuse.com/mw99/papers/harpring/harpring.html> (11 December 2000).
ICONCLASS. March 2001. <http://www.iconclass.nl/> (2 July 2001).
Lanzi, Elisa. Introduction to Vocabularies: Enhancing Access to Cultural Heritage Information. The Getty Information Institute, 1998. Online:
<http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/vocabulary/introvocabs/>.
---. “The REACH and VISION Projects: Improving Access to Art Information,” Art Documentation, 17(1):15-18, 1998.
The Library of Congress Thesaurus of Graphic Materials I & II. 3 Nov. 2000. <http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tgm1/> & <http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/tgm2/> (2 July 2001).
McRae, Linda. “Indexing Images for Subject Access: Controlled Vocabularies in the VISION Project.” Art Documentation, 19(2):4-9, 2000.
MDA Software Survey. MDA ©2000. <http://www.mda.org.uk/software.htm> (27 June 2001).
Miller, Uri. “Thesaurus Construction: Problems and Their Roots.” Information Processing and Management, 33(4):481-493, 1997.
Muddamalle, M.R. “Natural Language versus Controlled Vocabulary in Information Retrieval: A Case Study.” JASIS, 49(10):881-887, 1998.
The Museum Documentation Association. MDA, ©2001. <http://www.mda.org.uk/> (3 July 2001).
Museums and the Online Archive of California (MOAC). <http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/moac> (1 July 2001).
The Official Museum Directory. Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, 2001.
REACH Project Summary Report. 20 Jan. 1999. <http://www.rlg.org/reach.html> (2 July 2001).
Rinehart, Richard. “Access to Art Collections Using Encoded Archival Description and Beyond: The Future of Large-Scale Consortium Projects.” Art Libraries Journal, 26(3):33-39, 2001.
RLG REACH Element Set. 2 Sept. 1998. <http://www.rlg.org/reach.elements.html> (2 July 2001).
Schulman, Judith L. “The Detroit Art Registration Information System (DARIS),” in
Museum Documentation Systems: Developments and Applications, ed. R.B. Light, et. al. (London: Butterworth & Co., Ltd., 1986), 77-88.
Seren, Tasha, Deirdre Donohue, and Lynn Ann Underwood. “Integrated Art
Documentation: the Guggenheim Perspective.” Art Documentation, 20(1):31-35, 2001. Spencer, Karen. “Authority and Vocabulary Control in Image Collections.” 1995, <http://sunsite.berkely.edu/Imaging/Databases/Fall95/papers/kspencer.html> (27 October 2000).
Survey of Terminology in [UK] Museums, 1996. MDA, ©1996. <http://www.mdocassn.demon.co.uk/survey.htm> (27 June 2001).
Svenonius, Elaine. “Unanswered Questions in the Design of Controlled Vocabularies.”
JASIS, 37(5):331-340, 1986.
The Thesaurus of Geographic Names. J. Paul Getty Trust, ©2000. <http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/> (2 July 2001). The Union List of Artist Names Browser. J. Paul Getty Trust, ©2000. <http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/ulan/> (2 July 2001).