At their core, libraries, archives, and museums have
education as a primary mission. Historically,
they are all places where patrons can go to educate themselves. If we look at mission statements from each of
these institutions we can see this. The
Boston Public Library states that their “mission is to preserve and provide access to historical
records of our society, and to serve the cultural, educational, and
informational needs of the people of the City and the Commonwealth.”[i] The Massachusetts Historical Society states
in their mission that they are “an independent research library that collects, preserves,
makes accessible, and communicates manuscripts and other materials in order to
promote the study of the history of Massachusetts and the nation.”[ii] The Museum of Fine Arts has in their mission
statement that it is a “place in which to see and to learn” and its “ultimate
aim is to encourage inquiry and to heighten public understanding and
appreciation of the visual world.”[iii] The mission statements of the BPL and the MHS
directly talk about access while the MFA only hints at it. They all have something about education or
learning in their mission. They teach
patrons by providing access to their collections. A common practice to provide this access is
by description. But the descriptive
standards used vary by the type of institution.
In a library a patron goes to look up information, the
library providing the most unbiased access to information as possible. An archive is similar to a library, an individual
will go to an archive to look up information.
A museum on the other hand, presents information to the patron that has
been curated. In this sense, libraries
and archives have traditionally had patrons as users while museums have
traditionally had patrons as viewers. The
consequence of this is the differences in the way things have been presented
and described for the patron. Museums
traditionally provide the information and interpretation on objects. Libraries intentionally stay away from this
interpretative information. Archives
will provide only enough information for a user to discover the material.[iv] But all these institutions now have collections
that could belong in any of these institutions.
The line of distinction between LAMs is blurring. With that, the expectation from patrons is
changing. They expect a similarity in
how they can discover information at each of these institutions.
This is especially the case with online content. On the web, people expect a Google-like
experience. It is expected to have a
single search box option at an institution for their whole collection. At a museum’s website people want to be able
to search their holdings themselves. It
is no longer the traditional presentation of information from a museum. And at libraries and archives, there are more
collections being presented online.
Museums now have users in addition to viewers; and archives and
libraries now have viewers in addition to users. We can see this in the physical institutions
as well. Libraries and archives will
often have exhibitions. Museums will
have interactive learning stations and books available for patrons to explore
more on their own.
I particularly thought the example from the Morgan Library
and Museum to be an interesting experience in merging the different collections
as they created an online catalog. I
think the Morgan is typical of many cultural institutions. Before the online catalog, individual
departments created their own records of their holdings and it resulted in varied
descriptive practice throughout the Morgan.[v] I found this interesting because description
for different types of objects was mainly a result of the different purpose of
description. Curators described things
so that they can find the object or for an exhibit. Initially museum collections did not have the
open access that libraries have traditionally had. They did not create records so that anyone
could search their collection. Records
were created for the curators. But with
online content, there is a necessity and expectation for information to be
shareable. There are metadata standards
and schema that allows for this sharing of records. But these standards and schema vary across
LAMs.
From the readings on the Morgan and others, it can be
concluded that a metadata schema can be adapted for varied collections. Diverse collections within a single
institution will likely need to use one standard and one metadata schema to
unite their collection descriptions. It could be jarring for an individual to
be searching online on the same website and there are differences in how a
record is presented and the content within it.
The reason we create records on the resources libraries, archives, and
museums is for people to discover information.
We should make this process as simple as possible.
I searched on the Morgan website and it was convenient to
have one database to search their holdings.
I know that there seemed to be a lot of compromise from the article and
it is possible that not everyone was happy, but I think the end result is
promising. I also looked at The
Huntington Library’s website. This
institution also has a wide variety of objects in their collection, but you
have to search the library holdings separately from the art collection. So if I wanted to see all their materials by
William Blake, I need to complete two separate searches. And the type of information found in the
records is very different.
Library record of book with illustrations by William
Blake[vi]
Art Collection record of engraving by William Blake[vii]
As these images illustrate, the information presented is
different and the display of it is different.
It is difficult to even know that these are held in the same
institution. If individual institutions
cannot collaborate to create a single interface for their collection, how will
outside institutions be able to work together successfully?
It is possible for collaboration and convergence. We saw examples of success with a few case
studies. However, we have also looked at
instances where the project fell apart or was not sustained. I believe there is higher chance of success
if we begin at the institution level. Once
institutions with variety of collections can converge, then it will be easier
to have collaboration with outside institutions. I believe there is a better chance today
because education is changing for professionals. It will soon be the norm to work with
different institutions. People coming
into these fields are more comfortable with collaborating.[viii] Learning about the different processes of our
common practices of description will enable all LAMs to better serve our
communities of users and viewers.
[i] Boston Public Library, Mission Statement, http://www.bpl.org/general/trustees/mission.htm
[ii] Massachusetts Historical Society, Mission and Vision Statements, http://www.masshist.org/mission
[iii] Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mission Statement, http://www.mfa.org/about/mission-statement
[iv] Elizabeth Shepherd and Rachael Pringle, “Mapping
Descriptive Standards Across Domains: A comparison of ISAD)G) and SPECTRUM,” Journal of the Society of Archivists
23(2002): 30.
[v] Murtha Baca and Elizabeth O’Keefe, “Sharing Standards
and Expertise in the Early 21st Century: Moving Toward a
Collaborative, ‘Cross-community’ Model for Metadata Creation,” Int Cat Bibliogr Control 34 (2009): 61.
[viii] Wendy Duff, et al., “The Changing Museum Environment
in North America and the Impact of Technology on Museum Work,” Cultural Heritage on line (2009): 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment