Using the CIDOC CRM: RLG’s Cultural Materials Initiative Tony Gill Research Libraries Group, Inc.

Using the CIDOC CRM:RLG’s Cultural Materials

Initiative

Tony Gill

Research Libraries Group, Inc.

2Research Libraries Group

Overview

1.Brief introduction to RLG

2.RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance

3.CMA and the CIDOC CRM

4.Our experiences with the CRM


RLG in brief…

Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) is a non-profit corporation founded in 1974

~160 members in 12 countries World HQ in Mountain View, California

• UK agent Nancy Elkington based in London Networked information services

• Online access to >100 million items Collaboration

• Member Programs & Initiatives


RLG’s mission:

Through collaborative action,

improve access to information

that supports research and learning


The problem space...

World-class collections of cultural materials held by RLG member institutions:

• Primary, often unique works and artifacts that document shared global culture

• Increasingly used to support research and learning by RLG members and their clients

• Traditionally found in the collections of museums, library special collections, archives & historical societies

• E.g. illuminated medieval manuscripts, Soviet political posters, Charlie Chaplin movies, oral histories, lunar landers

“…stuff really is important. Scholars use it to separate fact from fiction and

to interpret the human record.”

John W. HaegerRLG Vice President Emeritus

RLG News Issue 49, Fall 1999


The problem space…

Providing access to collections is central to the mission of most “memory institutions”

• Access to physical collections constrained by physical factors (space, location, resources, preservation etc.)

Increasing demand for access to digital collections for:

• Research, teaching, personal use, commercial use

• Access to digital collections constrained by factors such as fragmented access, lack of consensus on standards, rapid technological change etc.


The problem space…

Complex issues in delivering coherent, integrated access to digital collections:

• Diverse descriptive practices

• Meaningful integration across collections

• Digital representation of materials (“surrogates”)

• Reliable, distributed infrastructure

• Institutional rights and responsibilities

• Ongoing content development


Cultural Materials Initiative - goals Develop a solution to address user

demands, institutional needs and complex issues that is:

• Collaborative

• Multi-institutional

• International

• Standards-based

• Sustainable


Cultural Materials Alliance

An Alliance of RLG members committed to:

• Providing integrated access to cultural content through the development of a collective digital resource

• Enhancing the value of content through rich cross-collection links

• Establishing appropriate rights management framework

• Developing powerful, user-friendly web-based discovery and retrieval tools

• Identifying and promoting best practice

• Developing sustainable business models that will support long-term development of the service


Alliance members (1 of 2)

American Antiquarian Society Bayerische Staatsbibliothek British Library Brooklyn Museum of Art Chicago Historical Society Columbia University Cornell University Duke University Hebrew Union College -

Jewish Institute of Religion Huntington Library, Art

Collections, and Botanical Gardens

Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine

Indiana University, Bloomington

International Institute of Social History

Library of Congress Linda Hall Library London School of Economics National Library of Australia National Library of Scotland National Library of Wales Natural History Museum


Alliance members (2 of 2)

New York State Archives and Records Administration

Pennsylvania State University Smithsonian Institution State Historical Society of

Wisconsin Syracuse University Temple University Trinity College Dublin University of California,

Berkeley University of Cambridge University of Edinburgh

University of Florida University of Glasgow University of London Library University of Minnesota University of Oxford University of Pennsylvania Yale University

39 members at 23 August 2000http://www.rlg.org/culturalres/allies.html


Content characteristics

Digital representations or “surrogates” of cultural materials, e.g.:

• Images

• Audio files

• Video clips

• Animations

• 3-D models Supporting/contextual materials Structured textual descriptions...


Different (descriptive) strokes...

Different curatorial approaches

• Museums

• Libraries

• Archives

• Visual Resources

• Historical Societies Different subject disciplines

• Arts & humanities

• Natural sciences

• Social sciences etc...



Different levels of granularity

• Collection level

• Group level

• Item level Different levels of detail

• Simple inventory

• Collections management documentation

• Authority reference files

• Associated contextual & research materials



Different data structures

• Flatfile

• Hierarchical

• Tagged text

• Relational

• Object-oriented Different data value standards

• AAT, ULAN, TGN

• LCSH, NAF, DDC, UDC

• MeSH, SHIC etc...


Descriptive standards

AMICO Data Dictionary

CDWA CIDOC RM & CRM CIMI DTD & Profile Dublin Core EAD

MARC MESL Object ID SPECTRUM VRA Core Categories Other, superceded

descriptive standards...


Descriptive standards

AMICO Data Dictionary

CDWA CIDOC RM & CRM CIMI DTD & Profile Dublin Core EAD

MARC MESL Object ID SPECTRUM VRA Core Categories Other, superceded

descriptive standards…

+1,001 home cooked flavours...


CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model Based on ICOM/CIDOC “International

Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CIDOC Information Categories”

Object-oriented “domain ontology”

• Formalises the semantics needed to describe objects and relationships in the cultural heritage context

Mappings to existing standards ISO reviewing for possible publication


Benefits of CRM

Elegant and simple compared to comparable Entity-Relation model

Coherently integrates information at varying degrees of detail

Readily extensible through O-O class ‘typing’ and ‘specializations’

Richer semantic content; allows inferences to be made from ‘fuzzy’ data

Designed for mediation of heterogeneous cultural heritage information...


“The primary role of the CRM is to serve as a basis for mediation of cultural

heritage information and thereby provide the semantic 'glue' needed to transform today's disparate, localised

information sources into a coherent and valuable global resource.”

Nick Croftshttp://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/cidoc/oomodel/


CIDOC CRM Overview

62 classes Classes have

properties, which are often links to other classes

Classes inherit properties from their parents or superclasses

Classes have some similarities with relational tables

CIDOC Entity

• Temporal entity

• Physical entity

• Conceptual object

• Actor

• Appellation

• Contact point

• Place

• Dimension Type Primitive value


User access points

Keyword search Who What When Where How

CIDOC Entity

• Temporal entity

• Physical entity

• Conceptual object

• Actor

• Appellation

• Contact point

• Place

• Dimension Type Primitive value


CRM learning curve

Model necessarily complex in order to model the broad domain of cultural heritage information

O-O modeling paradigm unfamiliar compared to entity-relation modeling

• Just similar enough to be confusing! Notation problems

• Difficult to express mappings textually

• UML: Universal Modeling Language

Object production information


CRM learning curve

Mappings entail “deconstruction” of original records

• Artifact-centric nature of descriptions discarded

• Implicit entities made explicit in mapping process

• SPECTRUM mapping

• Dublin Core mapping

• Others to follow...


CRM learning curve

Implementation details

• O-O models can be implemented with relational database systems relatively easily

• Initially hard to avoid thinking about physical database implementations when working with the model...

• …But (initially at least) this is confusing and unhelpful!


User access

Bias towards collections management information (as opposed to information for access and research) inherited from CIDOC Information Categories

RLG developing “use cases” for typical user access based on:

• NMS ‘Catechism’ report

• Getty ‘Points of View’ workshop report• CIMI access points in Janney & Sledge, ‘A User

Model for CIMI Z39.50 Application Profile’, CIMI 1995http://www.cimi.org/documents/Z3950_app_profile_0995.html


User access example

A search for an “actor” should yield descriptions of:

• Artifacts for which the actor is the creator (general or specific role)

• Artifacts for which the actor is the owner (past or present)

• Artifacts in which the actor is depicted

• Artifacts for which the actor is the user (past or present)

• Biographical information about the actor


Further developments

RLG attended June 2000 stakeholders meeting in Aghios Pavlos, Crete

CRM needs further refinement, particularly to enhance support for research access

Needs more introductory “outreach” material

RLG enthusiastic about:

• Raising awareness of the model

• Soliciting feedback from the community

• Testing and validating with real data and real users to help finalize the model


RLG & the CRM

RLG believes the model holds great promise as a tool for mediating between heterogeneous cultural descriptions

More information:

• “Touring the RLG Information Landscape: the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model”

RLG Focus 45, August 2000http://www.rlg.org/r-focus/i45tour.html

www.rlg.org

Using the CIDOC CRM: RLG’s Cultural Materials Initiative Tony Gill Research Libraries Group, Inc.

Documents

Transcript of Using the CIDOC CRM: RLG’s Cultural Materials Initiative Tony Gill Research Libraries Group, Inc.