Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings: A Review of the Literature

Skinner, Julia

doi:10.1080/19386389.2014.891892

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we consulted several reading lists and bibliographies that focused on ethical, equitable, or critical cataloging (American University. Information Literacy Committee, n.d.; Cook, 2020;CritLib.org, 2020;Snow, 2020;University of Cambridge Library, 2019) along with the citation lists of previously-conducted reviews (Desale and Kumbhar, 2013;Diao, 2018;Dunsire, 2018;Fagan, 2010;Gardner, 2012;Hudon, 2011Hudon, , 2010Kathuria, 2011;Kazuye Kimura, 2018;Martin, 2021;Satija and Martinez-Avila, 2017;Skinner, 2014;Speller, 2007;Starr Paiste, 2003;B.L. Velez, et al, 2013;L.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handicapped has been cancelled: The terminology and logics of disability in cultural heritage institutions

Watson¹,

Beck²

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper originated from a collaborative effort between an academic and archivist and a cataloger to address the issues around the LCSH heading “Social disabilities.” In it, we examine various aspects and consequences resulting from the ways that galleries, libraries, archives, museums, and special collections (GLAMS) organize knowledge about disability and disabled users. We do this primarily through the lens of documentary analysis of cataloging and classification systems as this process, elsewhere called “the power to name” (Olson, 2002), as it is the basis for the operation of GLAMS. First, we will provide an outline and contextual information about the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the largest and most influential subject heading vocabulary system in the world. Next, we will examine the discourse around disability in library and information science via the results of a literature review. Next, we will examine the history, transformations, use, and meaning behind the LCSH heading “Social disabilities,” as an example of breakdown in terminology. Finally, and unique to the literature, we will propose an alternative hierarchy of terms for the Persons hierarchy in LCSH and discuss other methods that catalogers may use for organizing holdings about disability.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handicapped has been cancelled: The terminology and logics of disability in cultural heritage institutions

Watson¹,

Beck²

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The initial intended purpose and the value of metadata in the cultural heritage sectors were to facilitate the consistency and interoperability of sharing object records throughout systems and infrastructures, as well as references for conservation (Wentz 1995;Baca 2008;Skinner 2014). At the same time, standardizing metadata and building and sharing vocabulary and terminology related to museum objects are strategies for solely making their associated actors' agency far more durable.…”

Section: Digital Objects At the Museum: The Outliers Disordering The Network Of Cmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Actor-Network Perspective on Collections Documentation and Data Practices at Museums

Park

2021

M and S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The improvement of digital technology over recent decades has advanced the ability of museums to manage records of their collections and share them online. However, despite the rise of research in the area of digital heritage, less attention has been given to a sociotechnical perspective on such technology. Drawing upon concepts from Actor-Network Theory, this paper presents actors associated with the V&A’s collections management system and its online catalogue. Digital design objects, the museum’s new type of collection, are seen as a driving force for change in collections documentation practices. This paper argues for models of documentation to change from closed to open and participatory in order to (re)present such objects’ materiality in collection records through the voices of multiple actors. This paper, highlighting the agency of data and technology, increases our awareness of the potential consequences of museums’ data practices where the integration of advanced technology (e.g., AI) will be implemented in the future.

show abstract

“…This is especially obvious when compared to the general profusion of metadata standards in the cultural field (cf. Skinner, 2014).…”

Section: Metadata Schemes and Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradata in Documentation Standards and Recommendations for Digital Archaeological Visualisations

Börjesson¹,

Sköld²,

Huvila³

2020

Digital Culture &Amp; Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digitalisation of research data and massive efforts to make it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable has revealed that in addition to an eventual lack of description of the data itself (metadata), data reuse is often obstructed by the lack of information about the datamaking and interpretation (i.e. paradata). In search of the extent and composition of categories for describing processes, this article reviews a selection of standards and recommendations frequently referred to as useful for documenting archaeological visualisations. It provides insight into 1) how current standards can be employed to document provenance and processing history (i.e. paradata), and 2) what aspects of the processing history can be made transparent using current standards and which aspects are pushed back or hidden. The findings show that processes are often either completely absent or only partially addressed in the standards. However, instead of criticising standards for bias and omissions as if a perfect description of everything would be attainable, the findings point to the need for a comprehensive consideration of the space a standard is operating in (e.g. national heritage administration or international harmonisation of data). When a standard is used in a specific space it makes particular processes, methods, or tools transparent. Given these premises, if the standard helps to document what needs to be documented (e.g. paradata), and if it provides a type of transparency required in a certain space, it is reasonable to deem the standard good enough for that purpose.

show abstract

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings: A Review of the Literature

Cited by 11 publications

References 48 publications

Handicapped has been cancelled: The terminology and logics of disability in cultural heritage institutions

Handicapped has been cancelled: The terminology and logics of disability in cultural heritage institutions

An Actor-Network Perspective on Collections Documentation and Data Practices at Museums

Paradata in Documentation Standards and Recommendations for Digital Archaeological Visualisations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About