Message-Id: <199706052228.PAA339492@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 08:38:01 +1000 From: Jennifer Brasher <mailto:J.Brasher@INS.GU.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: database construction To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Have you investigated EmbARK, (DCI Digital Collections Incorporated - dual platform) for museums. Jennifer>Yes....the basic question of how to incorporate the use factors and the
>technical aspects of database development must be included in this process.
>The technical aspects only seem to be the driving force.
>This nonprofit private research and development corporation would like to care
>for its historical and modern photographic, fine art (800+ objects) and the
>technical exhibits as a museum, plus. This includes the management of
>intellectual information and the technical aspects. Add reproduction sales,
>publication creation and museum loan records practice to the equation and you
>have a interesting stew of possibilities, that does not appear to have been
>addressed.....a full collection management need.
>So, we do look for the world in a box to tweak......(we don't want to
>"reinvent the wheel") adding visuals to assist our scientist-customer to
>locate just the perfect image to illustrate a point for publication, and an
>accounting/loan link to improve efficiency and lower incidences of human
>error.....all the while maintaining the standards of a research library and
>the museum sciences.
>We need an expanded museum management system that will grow with us.
>Museums+Libraries+Computers+Business document management
>
>"Robert A. Baron" <mailto:rabaron@PIPELINE.COM> Wrote:
>|
>| At 04:38 PM 6/4/97 -0700, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>|
>| >I know you can take a raw database program and fit it to
>| any institutional
>| >need by defining fields/relations, but when looking at
>| off-the-shelf
>| >systems it's good to look at intended use factors in
>| addition to the
>| >technical requirements/power ratios.
>| >
>| >my two c :)
>| >
>| Richard is undervaluing the worth of his advice. While
>| the technical
>| issues that must be faced to deliver large image databases
>| are immense, I
>| think there is a tendency among those who must consider
>| these questions to
>| undervalue the complexity of the data structures needed to
>| provide a
>| serious intellectual backbone to their work. Without
>| mentioning the
>| obviously sophisticated requirements associated with
>| object management that
>| museums need, any intellectual database of even modest
>| pretensions must be
>| able to handle 1) multiple dated attributions (maker,
>| school, style,
>| bibliography and commentary) and their history, 2)
>| part/whole/associated
>| relationships among objects, some of which inherit and
>| some of which do not
>| inherit attributes from their parents (and some of which
>| may not even exist
>| any longer or are simply thought to have existed), 3)
>| relationships between
>| objects and the images which document them, and the makers
>| of those images,
>| and 4) other sets of attributions to an ever
>| changing/evolving list of
>| stylistic and cultural criteria and provenance. (Not to
>| mention meaning,
>| iconography, literary, historical and social
>| associations.) While the
>| above-stated concepts may suit historians and curators,
>| there will be
>| entirely different sets of requirements for graphic
>| artists and
>| illustrators, for anthropologists, etc.
>|
>| The problem at hand (as I see it) is not simply one of how
>| to deliver the
>| images, but rather how to find those to deliver. When we
>| look at the eight
>| or ten standard fields that typically accompany some
>| museum's contribution
>| to web-based databases, we know that while they might
>| satisfy eighty
>| percent of the public's need to find information, they do
>| not come anywhere
>| near what might be demanded by scholarly inquiry.
>|
>| It may be that the need to engage the public is the force
>| driving the
>| development of image database systems, and that scholarly
>| requirements must
>| accordingly take a back seat, but if all the work that
>| goes into serving
>| that hypothetical public is not at some time transformed
>| into lasting
>| scholarly systems of record, I imagine that once the
>| public infatuation
>| ebbs, much of the effort expended in their behalf will
>| have been wasted.
>|
>| And the reason why this is so is because it is the
>| scholarly tradition that
>| keeps the data alive and causes it to evolve to suit
>| contemporary needs and
>| issues. Without scholarly input (even though it is often
>| hidden from the
>| public) information quickly becomes stale and moribund.
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>| ===========================
>| Robert A. Baron
>| Museum Computer Consultant
>| mailto:mailto:rabaron@pipeline.com
>|
VIEWS EXPRESSED MAY BE PERSONAL,NOT NECESSARILY UNIVERSITY POLICY. ******************************************************************************
Jennifer Brasher `` ` ` ` EMAIL: mailto:J.Brasher@ins.gu.edu.au QCA Library Slides/ Digital Images `` ` ` VOICE: +61 (07) 3875 3132
` ` ` ` ` FAX: +61 (07) 3875 3133 SNAIL MAIL ` ` ` ` Queensland College of Art Library ` ` ` ` * Griffith University ``````` *
Clearview Terrace ``*` * Morningside Campus * PO Box 84 Morningside Brisbane Queensland 4170 Australia ******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************