A- (see comments below and on bibliography)ISI 5121 Subject Analysis of Information Social Tagging Group 6 Meghan Dunlap Elizabeth Ross Peter Forestell Mariane Léonard Steve Museum
As a non-specialist in the field of art and sculpture, what terms would you use to locate this item in a museum’s database? • Artist/Maker: Joachim Friess ca.animal 1579-1620, m. 1610 antler • Title: Diana and the Stagstag • Object Name: AUTOMATON gold • Date: First quarter 17th statue century (about 1620) •Made in:gilded Country: Germany, City: Augsburg • Medium: Silver, partly gilt, jewels, enamel
• Based on open source software which aids developers in social tagging research in museum collections, while testing the effectiveness of tagging • Socially focused data tagging tool aimed at making museum collections and acquisitions more accessible. • Steve.museum’s goal is to build interest around museum and gallery holdings.
In 2008, Steve.Museum received aNational Research Grant for AdvancingDigital Resources from the US Institute ofMuseum and Library Service. “The goals of the grant are toenhance the existing tagging softwaretools to make steve easy to use formuseums of all sizes and types; todevelop next-generation tagging toolsthat motivate and engage users, includingmobile interfaces that allow tagging inmuseum spaces; to investigate ways toaggregate tags in order to facilitate cross-collection searching and browsing; and todemonstrate integrations of the stevetagger with commonly-used museumsystems” (www.steve.museum)
Viewer Tagging in Art Museums: Comparisons to Concepts andVocabularies of Art Museum VisitorsMartha Kellogg SmithUniversity of Washington, USAAdvances in classification research, Vol. 17: Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T SIG/CRClassification Research Workshop (Austin, TX, November 4, 2006), ed. JonathanFurner and Joseph T. TennisWhy are art museums engaging onlineusers to solicit subject keywords forvarious works of art? And howsuccessful have they been?
Motivations• Generate keywords in acost effective way • Engage online visitors • Elicit terms for “subjects” in artworks. • Closing the “semantic gap”between specialists andcasual museum visitors
Challenges• Difficulty of convincing artmuseums that this is a usefulpractice • Specialized art vocabularies • Curatorial experts differ in opinion on what subject terms to use • How useful is this to theend user? • As of 2006, lack of userstudies
Levels of artwork interpretation and information use Level I : objects and their parts;concretely observed characteristicsLevel II : styles, dates, and original andhistorical settings and functionsLevel III : evaluating, explaining, andsynthesizing interpretations.
(more) ChallengesDoes asking users to supply Level I typetags help them develop Level II or Level IItype knowledge? • Art historical and foreignlanguage terms • Depth and coverage • Imprecision, error • Bias
Smith’s conclusion:“The generation of keywords for populating systems shouldnot inadvertently encourage non-specialist volunteertaggers to interpret keywording activity as somehow whatart viewing and meaning making is all about: simplyenumerating and listing what they see.” Exactly how art museums can use online resources to helptheir users move beyond Level 1 type information is yet tobe seen.
Tagging, Folksonomy and Art Museums: Results ofsteve.museum’s researchJennifer TrantUniversity of Toronto/Archives & Museum InformaticsRetrieved from http://www.steve.museum/?page_id=7What has steve.museum demonstrated?
The problem: accessibility of art museumcollectionsCollections made available online, but organizedaccording to the principles of the physical space 1) Highly specialized and technical language 2) Items could be organized as an exhibition 3) Items could be in a non-contextualized database
The solution: Social Tagging• Can give the perspective of the general public • Accounts for the sometimes subjective nature of art • Broaden the scope of professional indexing and cataloguing
steve.museum: a research project onsocial tagging in art museumsResearch Question: Can Social Tagging and FolksonomyImprove On-line Access to Art Museum Collections? • Do user tags differ from terms in professional museum documentation? • Do museum staff find user tags useful for searching art collections? • Do user tags differ from terms used to search on- line art museum collections?
Methodology• A set of images of works of art to be tagged were selected from existing digital materials • Each item was accompanied by the following documentation from the museum: Artist (nationality birthdate-deathdate); Title, date; medium, support; dimensions; Acquisition details (accession number) • The works of art were presented to the user through the steve.museum software, which recorded user data and connects it with the tags the user assigned • Users could register with the site or access the site and begin tagging without registering
Results• Do user tags differ from terms in professional museum documentation? • 86% of user tags not found in museum documentation • 62.8% of distinct tags not found in AAT • 85% of distinct tags not found in ULAN• Do museum staff find user tags useful for searching art collections? • 88% of tags considered useful overall • Correlation between usefulness and frequency • Some tags considered useful misperceptions• Do user tags differ from terms used to search on- line art museum collections? • Search log data was analyzed from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art • Only 38.5% and 22.6% matched distinct tags
ConclusionsResearch Question: Can Social Tagging and FolksonomyImprove On-line Access to Art Museum Collections?• Interest in tagging is high – could also lead to increased engagement with museums • While some correlations were harder to prove than others, including tagging would certainly at least improve recall