Mariella Guercio

Evaluating Cultural Heritage Information Access
Systems: a contribution from the archival domain
Mariella Guercio
Digilab, Sapienza Università di Roma
IRCDL 2013
panel topics
1. Cultural Heritage Information Access System vs Digital
Library: similarities and differences
2. Accessing Raw Material vs interpretation and curated
presentation of such material
3. Dimensions of the User Experience
4. Evaluation coordinates: quality and completeness of the
information, tools to make sense out of it, usability,
accessibility, open access,…
the definition proposed by DELOS Manifesto
(2007)
“a tool at the center of intellectual activity having no logical,
conceptual, physical, temporal or personal borders or barriers to
information” which has shifted “from a content-centric system
that merely supports the organization and provision of access to
particular collections of data and information, to a personcentric system that delivers innovative, evolving, and
personalized services to users”
key questions still unsolved for the evaluation
process
• A framework for the evaluation not yet well defined
• Not enough attention for the efficient capacity of retrieving
and managing DL contents when peculiar frameworks have
to be supported
• Advanced functionality is rarely supported
• The role of the intermediation has been not adequately
considered and investigated
the complex translation into the web of archival
finding aids systems and resources
•
uniqueness of the archival resources and complexity of their reciprocal relations (strategic for
making them understandable)
• massive volumes (approximately 8000 km in Italy) which limit the role of the digitization process
in this area: the future (and the present) finding aids system will focus (at least for the next
decade) on analogue records to be accessed in the traditional reference services: only few
resources will have the privilege of a digital fruition in its contents
• risk of fragmentation and arbitrary criteria for selection: i.e. the thematic channels can be useful
for attracting audience but not for providing services to the scientific communities and to the
citizens needs
The ambiguity of the concepts involved has prevented the archival sector by using the term DL:
archival websites or archival information systems are the preferred terms and the preferred scenario
for developing services and functionality, while the term DL is at the moment rarely used for
proposing online publication of digital archival resources in dedicated environment<
challenges and best practices
•
•
It is crucial to identify and evaluate the best research projects and, if possible, good
practices already available to sustain future cooperation in the field and to support .
The Italian scientific projects and good practices here identified (just as examples of
promising services for future development and a more comprehensive analysis)
include:
– SIAR (Sistema informativo archivistico regionale del Veneto)
– Biblioteca digitale della Lombardia
– Sistema archivistico nazionale in connection with CulturaItalia
– Sapienza Digital Library
the SIAR (Sistema informativo archivistico
regionale del Veneto) experience
• As noted by the researchers involved in the project (Agosto,
Ferro, Silvello) the SIAR has been created with the aim of
integrating distributed archives by using both standards,
methodology and tools developed for digital libraries and for
specific domain, but also for exchanging or sharing metadata
• At the moment the integration for research services is not
explicit and the catalogues are maintained separate
Biblioteca digitale della Lombardia
The aim is the digitization and online publication of cross-domain
cultural resources able to testify the regional cultural heritage.
Basic requirements are:
• acquisition and online availability (through a regional web
portal) of significant resources of regional culture
• integration of resources preserved and created in different
environment, including archival documents
• long-term preservation of digital resources
• compliance with the main standards
• cooperation with the main national and international projects
(Europeana, CulturaItalia and Sistema archivistico nazionale)
Sapienza digital library: mandate and mission
• Aggregating and making accessible in a digital form cross domain
information content with various nature and provenance created
by Sapienza University research communities or made available
by corporate bodies or individuals in relation to the academic
environment.
• Harmonizing the descriptive practices for new resources (not
easily ascribable to a specific domain) by adopting with some
degree of “creativity and imagination” national standards and
recommendations
Sapienza digital library: vocabolari controllati
•
•
•
•
•
•
PICO (Portale della Cultura Italiana) 4.3 MibAc
TGN (Thesaurus of geographic names) Getty e Geonames
Nuovo soggettario di Firenze
VIAF Virtual International Authority file
Vocabolari controllati disciplinari
Authority file dei soggetti produttori/conservatori/versanti
Sapienza digital library: tracking contextual
information – archivio IRTEM - 1
Sapienza digital library: tracking contextual
information – archivio IRTEM - 2
Italian projects: a critical state of art
• provenance and context are not always identified as crucial components
• archival standards are recognized but not yet completely implemented
outside the archival information systems
• compliance with European standards is ensured but mainly as a static and flat
model for representation: more attention should be dedicated to the critical
analysis of the European network APANET, now APEX
• the main difficulties concern
– the differentiation of digital resources (many projects are limited to the
identification of single resources and have developed simple research interfaces),
– the low level of integration and cooperation among institutions both at regional
and at national level and of course
– the lack of financial resources
Integration (and not convergence) among heterogeneous cultural information
access systems is the key word
DL retrieval: it cannot be a question of miraculous
fishing
• A balance is required between specificity, details and
general perspective
• The functionality for retrieval must be easy but not trivial
• New forms for intermediation are required (particularly
when digital resources are complex and articulated)