Day 2, papers 6, Ooghe

4,149 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,149
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Day 2, papers 6, Ooghe

  1. 1. Analysing Selection for Digitisation Current practices and common incentives Dr. Bart Ooghe Heritage Consultant, Heritage Cell Waasland – Bart.Ooghe@interwaas.be Formerly Researcher at Flemish Theatre Institute
  2. 2. Setting <ul><li>BOM-Vlaanderen carried out research into different aspects of digital curatorship and archivalisation </li></ul><ul><li>This substudy: which choices are made when digitising analogue documents? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Why select? <ul><li>Selection, collection management and governance: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretically distinct from selection management processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- In practice: significant overlap , end-users’ altered understanding and disappearance of borders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Counter indications suggest individual institutions alone cannot make the necessary choices </li></ul></ul><ul><li>-> Closer study of selection process relevant from governance perspective </li></ul>
  4. 4. Why select? <ul><li>Notions complicating selection practices: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- All-selective optimism contrasting with practical reality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Multiple terminologies, approaches and guidelines – Europe in particular lags behind </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Restricted communication reflecting ,at times, ad hoc selection practices </li></ul></ul><ul><li>-> Common set of criteria may aid practices and ease communication </li></ul>
  5. 5. Sifting and deducing <ul><li>42 published surveys, guiding documents, project reports and best practice handbooks </li></ul><ul><li>Individual LAM’s: wesbites, policy documents, personal communication </li></ul><ul><li>-> 98 LAM’s or digitisation initiatives, direct input from 13 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sift through explicit selection criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deduce implicit criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Divide amalgamated criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose setting-independent terminology </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. 6 Categories <ul><li>Institutional frameworks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Collection policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Purposes underlying digital collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Collection design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Legal issues </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. 6 Categories <ul><li>Institutional frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Value-related selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Content, completeness, clarity: instrinsic value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Use value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Accessibility and availability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Documentary contextual value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Affiliation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Representativity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Randomised </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Aesthetics and visual appeal </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. 6 Categories <ul><li>Institutional frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Value-related selection </li></ul><ul><li>Physical criteria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Physical accessability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Physical state </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Quality after digitisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Added value through manupulation </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. 6 Categories <ul><li>Institutional frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Value-related selection </li></ul><ul><li>Physical criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Unicity and digital multiplicity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Within the collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Across collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Digital substitution </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. 6 Categories <ul><li>Institutional frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Value-related selection </li></ul><ul><li>Physical criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Unicity and digital multiplicity </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata </li></ul>
  11. 11. 6 Categories <ul><li>Institutional frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Value-related selection </li></ul><ul><li>Physical criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Unicity and digital multiplicity </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Financial frameworks </li></ul>
  12. 12. Relevance and benefits <ul><li>Making the valuation process more transparent and simplifying the workflow </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defining most relevant criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attributing weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Formulate matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possible criteria-clusters </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Relevance and benefits <ul><li>Making the valuation process more transparent and simplifying the workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Improving communication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Setting-independent terminology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Common concerns clearly highlighted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex nature of selection and necessity of cooperation highlighted </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Relevance and benefits <ul><li>Making the valuation process more transparent and simplifying the workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Improving communication </li></ul><ul><li>Good governance and institutional responsibilities: to protect, preserve and promote public understanding of cultural heritage </li></ul>
  15. 15. Relevance and benefits <ul><li>Making the valuation process more transparent and simplifying the workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Improving communication </li></ul><ul><li>Good governance and institutional responsibilities: to protect, preserve and promote public understanding of cultural heritage </li></ul><ul><li>Above all: We are still in a testing phase, adapting to the addition of the digital to the documentary lifecycle. Only through openness may trial-and-error lead to greater commonality in theory and accepted practice – this study, too, is but a test. </li></ul>

×