Using the CIDOC CRM RLGs Cultural Materials Initiative

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

Overview 1. Brief introduction to RLG 2. RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3. CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4. Our experiences with the CRM Research Libraries Group 2

1. Brief introduction to RLG 2. RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3. CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4. Our experiences with the CRM Research Libraries Group 3

RLG in brief… w Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) is a nonprofit corporation founded in 1974 w ~160 members in 12 countries w World HQ in Mountain View, California • UK agent Nancy Elkington based in London w Networked information services • Online access to >100 million items w Collaboration • Member Programs & Initiatives Research Libraries Group 4

RLG’s mission: Through collaborative action, improve access to information that supports research and learning Research Libraries Group 5

1. Brief introduction to RLG 2. RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3. CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4. Our experiences with the CRM Research Libraries Group 6

The problem space. . . w 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 Research Libraries Group 7

“…stuff really is important. Scholars use it to separate fact from fiction and to interpret the human record. ” John W. Haeger RLG Vice President Emeritus RLG News Issue 49, Fall 1999 8

The problem space… w 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. ) w 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. Research Libraries Group 9

The problem space… w 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 Research Libraries Group 10

Cultural Materials Initiative - goals w Develop a solution to address user demands, institutional needs and complex issues that is: • Collaborative • Multi-institutional • International • Standards-based • Sustainable Research Libraries Group 12

Cultural Materials Alliance w 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 crosscollection 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 Research Libraries Group 13

Alliance members (1 of 2) w American Antiquarian Society w Bayerische Staatsbibliothek w British Library w Brooklyn Museum of Art w Chicago Historical Society w Columbia University w Cornell University w Duke University w Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion w Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Research Libraries Group w Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine w Indiana University, Bloomington w International Institute of Social History w Library of Congress w Linda Hall Library w London School of Economics w National Library of Australia w National Library of Scotland w National Library of Wales w Natural History Museum 14

Alliance members (2 of 2) w New York State Archives and Records Administration w University of Florida w Pennsylvania State University w University of London Library w Smithsonian Institution w State Historical Society of Wisconsin w Syracuse University w Temple University w University of Glasgow w University of Minnesota w University of Oxford w University of Pennsylvania w Yale University w Trinity College Dublin w University of California, Berkeley w University of Cambridge w University of Edinburgh Research Libraries Group 39 members at 23 August 2000 http: //www. rlg. org/culturalres/allies. html 15

Content characteristics w Digital representations or “surrogates” of cultural materials, e. g. : • Images • Audio files • Video clips • Animations • 3 -D models w Supporting/contextual materials w Structured textual descriptions. . . Research Libraries Group 16

1. Brief introduction to RLG 2. RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3. CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4. Our experiences with the CRM Research Libraries Group 17

Different (descriptive) strokes. . . w Different curatorial approaches • Museums • Libraries • Archives • Visual Resources • Historical Societies w Different subject disciplines • Arts & humanities • Natural sciences • Social sciences etc. . . Research Libraries Group 18

Different (descriptive) strokes. . . w Different levels of granularity • Collection level • Group level • Item level w Different levels of detail • Simple inventory • Collections management documentation • Authority reference files • Associated contextual & research materials Research Libraries Group 19

Different (descriptive) strokes. . . w Different data structures • Flatfile • Hierarchical • Tagged text • Relational • Object-oriented w Different data value standards • AAT, ULAN, TGN • LCSH, NAF, DDC, UDC • Me. SH, SHIC etc. . . Research Libraries Group 20

Descriptive standards w AMICO Data Dictionary w MARC w CDWA w MESL w CIDOC RM & CRM w Object ID w CIMI DTD & Profile w SPECTRUM w Dublin Core w VRA Core Categories w EAD w Other, superceded descriptive standards. . . Research Libraries Group 21

Descriptive standards w AMICO Data Dictionary w MARC w CDWA w MESL w CIDOC RM & CRM w Object ID w CIMI DTD & Profile w SPECTRUM w Dublin Core w VRA Core Categories w EAD w Other, superceded descriptive standards… w +1, 001 home cooked flavours. . . Research Libraries Group 22

CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model w Based on ICOM/CIDOC “International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CIDOC Information Categories” w Object-oriented “domain ontology” • Formalises the semantics needed to describe objects and relationships in the cultural heritage context w Mappings to existing standards w ISO reviewing for possible publication Research Libraries Group 23

Benefits of CRM w Elegant and simple compared to comparable Entity-Relation model w Coherently integrates information at varying degrees of detail w Readily extensible through O-O class ‘typing’ and ‘specializations’ w Richer semantic content; allows inferences to be made from ‘fuzzy’ data w Designed for mediation of heterogeneous cultural heritage information. . . Research Libraries Group 24

“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 Crofts http: //www. ville-ge. ch/musinfo/cidoc/oomodel/ Research Libraries Group 25

CIDOC CRM Overview w 62 classes w Classes have properties, which are often links to other classes w Classes inherit properties from their parents or superclasses w Classes have some similarities with relational tables w CIDOC Entity • Temporal entity • Physical entity • Conceptual object • Actor • Appellation • Contact point • Place • Dimension w Type w Primitive value Research Libraries Group 26

User access points w Keyword search w Who w What w When w Where w How w CIDOC Entity • Temporal entity • Physical entity • Conceptual object • Actor • Appellation • Contact point • Place • Dimension w Type w Primitive value Research Libraries Group 27

1. Brief introduction to RLG 2. RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3. CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4. Our experiences with the CRM Research Libraries Group 28

CRM learning curve w Model necessarily complex in order to model the broad domain of cultural heritage information w O-O modeling paradigm unfamiliar compared to entity-relation modeling • Just similar enough to be confusing! w Notation problems • Difficult to express mappings textually • UML: Universal Modeling Language Research Libraries Group 29

Object production information 30

CRM learning curve w 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. . . Research Libraries Group 31

CRM learning curve w 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! Research Libraries Group 32

User access w Bias towards collections management information (as opposed to information for access and research) inherited from CIDOC Information Categories w 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 Z 39. 50 Application Profile’, CIMI 1995 http: //www. cimi. org/documents/Z 3950_app_profile_0995. html Research Libraries Group 33

User access example w 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 Research Libraries Group 34

Further developments w RLG attended June 2000 stakeholders meeting in Aghios Pavlos, Crete w CRM needs further refinement, particularly to enhance support for research access w Needs more introductory “outreach” material w 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 Research Libraries Group 35

RLG & the CRM w RLG believes the model holds great promise as a tool for mediating between heterogeneous cultural descriptions w More information: • “Touring the RLG Information Landscape: the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model” RLG Focus 45, August 2000 http: //www. rlg. org/r-focus/i 45 tour. html Research Libraries Group 36

www. rlg. org 37