|
PURPOSE
Over the last decade, many organizations and agencies
have been working toward developing data standards for
creating descriptions of and retrieving information
about cultural objects. Data standards not only promote
the recording of information consistently but are also
fundamental to retrieving it efficiently. They promote
data sharing, improve content management, and reduce
redundant efforts. In time, the accumulation of consistently
documented records across multiple repositories will
increase access to content by maximizing research results.
Ultimately, uniform documentation will promote the development
of a body of cultural heritage information that will
greatly enhance research and teaching in the arts and
humanities.
Standards that guide data structure, data values, and
data content form the basis for a set of tools that
can lead to good descriptive cataloging, consistent
documentation, shared records, and increased end-user
access. In the art and cultural heritage communities,
the most fully developed type of data standards are
those that enumerate a set of categories or metadata
elements that can be used to create a structure for
a fielded format in a database. Categories for the
Description of Works of Art (CDWA) is an example
of a metadata element set. The CDWA Lite XML
schema and the VRA Core Categories, Version 4.0
schema are examples of metadata element sets expressed
within an XML structure. Although a data structure is
the logical first step in the development of standards,
a structure alone will achieve neither a high rate of
descriptive consistency on the part of catalogers, nor
a high rate of retrieval on the part of end users.
Standards that govern the words (data values), and
their selection, organization, and formatting (data
content) are two other types of standards that must
be used in conjunction with an agreed-upon data structure.
Far more work has been done in developing standards
for data values than for data content, typically in
the form of thesauri and controlled vocabularies such
as the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM),
the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), the Union
List of Artist Names (ULAN), and the Getty Thesaurus
of Geographic Names (TGN). Along with the Library
of Congress Name and Subject Authorities, the Getty
vocabularies and other thesauri bring us to the second
step on the road to documentation standards and the
potential for shared cataloging.
Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) takes us to
the third step by providing standards for data content.
Until now, little published documentation on data content
standards has applied to cultural works-standards that
guide the choice of terms and define the order, syntax,
and form in which data values should be entered into
a data structure. The library and archival communities
have well-established rules for data content in the
form of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules
(AACR) and, more recently, Describing Archives: A
Content Standard (DACS). The cultural heritage community
in the United States, on the other hand, has never had
any similar published guidelines that meet the unique
and often idiosyncratic descriptive requirements of
one-of-a-kind cultural objects. Cataloging Cultural
Objects has been developed to fill this gap. Building
on existing standards, Cataloging Cultural Objects
provides guidelines for selecting, ordering, and formatting
data used to populate metadata elements in a catalog
record; this manual is designed to promote good descriptive
cataloging, shared documentation, and enhanced end-user
access. It is also intended to inform the decision-making
processes of catalogers and builders of cultural heritage
systems. In CCO, the emphasis is on principles of good
cataloging and documentation, rather than on rigid rules
that do not allow catalogers and system implementers
to make informed judgments about the information they
create and how it will be presented to their users.
We hope that, whether used locally as an aid in developing
training manuals or in-house cataloging rules, or more
broadly in a shared environment as a guide to building
consistent cultural heritage documentation, this manual
will advance the increasing move toward shared cataloging
and contribute to improved documentation and access
to cultural heritage information.
AUDIENCE
Cataloging Cultural Objects was designed specifically
for members of the communities engaged in describing
and documenting works of art, architecture, cultural
artifacts, and images of these things-museum documentation
specialists, visual resources curators, archivists,
librarians, or anyone who documents cultural objects
and their images. Although the guide is not about system
design, it may also be useful to system designers who
need to understand the nature and form of cultural object
information.
The guide attempts to balance the needs of various
audiences but recognizes that each institution will
have its own local requirements. Additionally, it is
understood that those who describe original objects
rather than analog or digital images of objects may
require some additional, specialized guidelines. Museum
registrars, for example, may require more detailed procedures
for measuring an object or describing its condition
or conservation. In addition to the bibliography that
accompanies this manual, recommendations within the
chapters include additional specialized sources for
cataloging museum collections.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Cataloging Cultural Objects focuses on data
content standards for descriptive cataloging-standards
that guide the choice of terms, and that define the
order, syntax, and form in which those terms, phrases,
values, and narrative descriptions are recorded. Other
types of data standards (for example, data structure,
data value, and interchange standards) are excluded,
except where relevant to a discussion of data content
standards. For example, each chapter references standard
tools appropriate to specific elements. Controlled vocabularies
and various thesauri are recommended for building local
authority files.
The primary emphasis of CCO is descriptive metadata
and authority control-data intended to describe a cultural
work, data used to create catalog records for that work
and images of it. Administrative metadata (data used
in managing and administering information resources)
and technical metadata (for example, data to record
digital image file properties) are excluded except where
relevant to a discussion of descriptive metadata. For
example, the guide often makes the distinction between
controlled fields and fields used for display. Although
the guide is system independent, it sometimes recommends
using one or both types of fields within a local database
based upon the needs of the cataloging institution.
CCO includes elements used to describe both works and
images, but does not include elements that involve administrative
metadata. For example, Chapter 3: Physical Characteristics
covers the physical characteristics of the work but
not of the image, because physical characteristics of
the image such as its size and format fall within the
realm of technical metadata.
CCO covers many types of cultural works, including
architecture, paintings, sculpture, prints, manuscripts,
photographs and other visual media, performance art,
archaeological sites and artifacts, and various functional
objects from the realm of material culture. CCO is designed
for museum collections, visual resources collections,
archives, and libraries with a primary emphasis on art
and architecture. CCO is not intended for natural history
or scientific collections.
The research for CCO began with a review of the literature,
emphasizing cataloging applications and best practice.
Critical elements from the VRA Core 3.0 and from
Categories for the Description of Works of Art
(CDWA) were included. A summary of practice related
to each element was compiled from the sources under
review. Whenever possible, recommendations were based
on common practice. The survey of literature produced
a short list of published sources consisting of data
dictionaries, museum documentation manuals, and standard
library and archival sources. To obtain unpublished
manuals, a call went out to various electronic discussion
lists requesting local manuals and guidelines; these
were also used in the initial evaluation of materials.
Some elements were eventually rejected on the grounds
that they dealt more with administrative, technical,
or structural metadata relating to assets than with
descriptive metadata relating to works and their images.
The elements that were retained were grouped according
to purpose and formed the basis for the nine chapters
that comprise Part 2 of this manual.
Both the form and content for the guide underwent rigorous
editorial review, as well as the critique of an advisory
committee representing all of the various target communities,
including library, archival, museum, and visual resources
professionals.
|
