Seth van Hooland

1,302 views

Published on

User-generated metadata and the cultural heritage sector : long term impact of the social web on metadata

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,302
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Seth van Hooland

  1. 1. Long term implications of the social web for cultural heritage metadata Seth van Hooland UC3M (Madrid) - ULB (Brussels) 31th May 2010 Powerhouse museum, Sydney
  2. 2. Overview • Evolution of documentation practices over time • Negative and positive long-term outcomes of the social web for LAMs • Commodification : social tagging • Sense-making : user comments • Questions - debate ... Sydney May 2010
  3. 3. Context • Digital Information Chair ULB (2009 - ) • Visiting scholar UC3M (2009-2010) • Partner in the CollectiveAccess project • Co-chair DC Tools community • Account manager for digitization company Sydney May 2010
  4. 4. “Stratified time” Sydney May 2010
  5. 5. Social web • User-generated metadata : conceptually not innovative, just the scale is different • Exploring two potential long-term effects : • Commodification of cultural heritage - case of social tagging • Faciliting the functional memory - case of user comments Sydney May 2010
  6. 6. Commodification of cultural heritage • « Fitness for purpose » ISO quality definition of information systems and services • Idea of self-regulating markets, where the demand has a direct impact on the offer : • 19th century archives in Belgium • Benjamin Barber : importance of safeguarding heritage for future generations Sydney May 2010
  7. 7. Social tagging • Access and use enable the classification => conform to the “fitness of use” principle • But : fair representation of the users ? • As much a child of its time as DCC, etc • Use : tighten the relationship with the online user community • “A way of acting on the present rather then recalling the past” Geoff Bowker Sydney May 2010
  8. 8. Sydney May 2010
  9. 9. Overview • Evolution of documentation practices over time • Negative and positive long-term outcomes of the social web for LAMs • Commodification : social tagging • Sense making : user comments • Debate ... Sydney May 2010
  10. 10. Catalyzing the sense making process • User comments : more semantics than tags • No actual previous analysis (that I know off) of the content of user comments • Case-study : Beeldbank Nationaal Archief • Typology Sydney May 2010
  11. 11. Shatford classification Sydney May 2010
  12. 12. Results • S1: 67.61%, S2: 18.87%, S3: 30.70%, S4: 20.56%, G1: 6.29%, G2: 1.71%, G3: 0.57% , G4: 0.29%, A2: 2.86% (A1, A3 and A4 are not represented) • Interests in specific terms, use few generic terms and hardly any or no abstract notions • Most prevailing comments relate to individually named persons, groups or objects (S1) Sydney May 2010
  13. 13. Typology of comments • Correction of the displayed metadata : 45.58% • Including narrative elements : 31.09% • Sharing the user’s personal history regarding the image : 8.95% • Mentioning a false or inadequate display of the image : 3.14% • Stating an opinion or judgment : 2.86% • Engaging in a dialogue : 1.15% Sydney May 2010
  14. 14. Correction of metadata Sydney May 2010
  15. 15. Narrativity Sydney May 2010
  16. 16. Personal history Sydney May 2010
  17. 17. Layman versus expert • Aleida Assmann : factual versus functional memory • Not exclusive, but actually interdependent • User comments are a crucial component to keep cultural heritage relevant to users • Database versus narrative (Lev Manovich) Sydney May 2010
  18. 18. Debate ... • Democratic character of social tagging ? • Long term value ? • Metadata as the second most valuable good of a heritage institution => define quality metrics to be validated within the professional cv Sydney May 2010

×