Search Disabled |
|
|
|
Search Options | Help | Site Map | Cultivate Web Site | ||||
|
|
|||||
| Home | Current Issue | Index of Back Issues |
| Issue 6 Home | Editorial | Features | Regular Columns | News & Events | Misc. | ||
By Edwin Klijn - February 2002
This article provides an impression of the first year of the SEPIA working group on descriptive models for photographic materials. The working group has analysed existing methods to describe photographic materials, focusing on the consensus and trying to find solutions that would enable registrars to describe photographs adequately for different purposes. The working group does not aim to develop another standard model but wants to provide tools for description of photographic materials that accept the fact that many institutions use different descriptive models.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you don't find it in the index, look very carefully
through the entire catalogue.
(Unknown, Sears, Roebuck, and Co. Consumer's Guide, 1897)
In 1999 the European Commission on Preservation and Access (ECPA) initiated a project aimed at the long-term preservation of all kind of photographic materials and defining the role of new technology in collection management, called SEPIA (Safeguarding European Photographic Images for Access) [1]. The project was set up explicitly to bring together representatives from different types of institutions that hold photographs: libraries, archives and museums, as well as from research institutes. SEPIA was funded by the European Union under the Culture 2000 programme, initially for one year, which was extended to another three years last year.
SEPIA has become bigger, now representing 17 partners from 10 different countries. Its objectives remain the same: to actively promote exchange of ideas and experiences on a cross-institutional, national and international level by organising training sessions, exhibitions and public events and doing research on specific topics related to preservation of photographic materials.
The SEPIA working group on descriptive models focuses on descriptive models as they are currently used in relation to photographic collections. It consists of representatives from the National Library of Spain, Stockholm City Museum, the Finnish Museum of Photography, the Norwegian Museum Authority (Secretariat for Historical Photography) and the European Commission on Preservation and Access (project management). All working group members have hands-on expertise with describing photographic collections at their own institutions.
The starting point for the working group was the findings of the survey on photographic collections in Europe, carried out in the first year of the SEPIA project [2]. This survey, to which 141 European institutions (archives, libraries, museums and other cultural heritage organisations) with photographic collections responded, showed that many institutions did not use a standard descriptive model for their photographic materials. Those that did use standard descriptions often used different models. Also, many institutions used descriptive models that can be applied to non-photographic materials as well.
In general, institutions in Europe use a wide variety of descriptive models for describing their photographic collections. They share one common factor: hardly ever are they specifically geared to description of photographic materials. Quite often the rules of certain elements in descriptive models are stretched to make an adequate description of the photographic collection possible. When two institutions use General International Standard Archival Description - ISAD(G) to describe their collections, this does not automatically mean that their descriptions are similar. There can be differences in the selection of elements to be used, but also in the interpretation of ISAD(G) rules and elements.
But what elements make an ‘adequate description’ for photographic materials? The main challenge for the working group and the other SEPIA partners involved will be to develop a set of elements that is essential for description of a photographic collection. This data element set is not meant to replace existing descriptive models, but it should function as an advisory model that can be applied to the needs and requirements of a specific institution.
Another task of the working group will be to formulate recommendations to help those in charge of photographic collections to deal with descriptions in ‘the new environment’. Many institutions have been lured by the possibilities of the Internet to publish (part of) their photographic collections online. Yet, many existing descriptions do not meet up with the specific demands of a search-and-retrieval system, simply because they have not been created for this specific purpose. The working group will do further research on this issue, starting with an expert meeting about search-and-retrieval, which will be held at the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid on 29 and 30 November 2001 [24].
One of the primary undertakings of the working group was to do further detailed research into how institutions describe photographic materials, what problems they have to cope with when describing photographic materials and the circumstances under which institutions choose or do not choose a particular descriptive model. An analysis was made of descriptive models currently applied to describe photographic materials. This working document provided a more detailed impression of how photographic materials are described in practice, elaborating on the results of the 1999 SEPIA survey [3].
On the 26 and 27th of April Stockholm City Museum hosted an expert meeting on descriptive models [4], where experts had been invited to share their experiences and participate in discussions. The working group has meanwhile formulated further recommendations. In both meetings the need for adequate descriptions for photographic materials was frequently emphasised.
A good description is the key to every collection; it makes a photograph visible, for the researcher, the registrar or the occasional visitor. It opens up a collection, providing access and enabling users to find what they are looking for. At the same time it offers an opportunity to register administrative information about the collection or item; how it was acquired, its physical condition, any access restrictions and similar management information.
The appreciation of photographic items, not only as an art form but also a source of (historical) information has stimulated an increasing public demand. Providing access has become more urgent than ever before. New technological developments offer new possibilities, but do not automatically produce answers to every problem. In some cases it still remains a question of old wine in new bottles. In a recently held survey of art libraries in the UK, many of the frequently mentioned problems that were recorded, sound all too familiar [5]. Determining the depth of indexing, what aspect of the image to register and the lack of information on the image are specific, 'traditional' cataloguing challenges; they have been there ever since the very moment people started cataloguing. These problems will not be solved by any advanced, automated system, but remain subject to human interpretation, defying standardized solutions.
The quality of descriptions can determine the success or failure of a digitization project. The reliability of a search-and-retrieval system depends to a large extent on the quality of the descriptions. Since describing is so labour intensive it can absorb a considerable, frequently underestimated part of the budget [6]. However, digitizing a photographic collection can often be a unique chance to catch up on cataloguing backlogs [7]. By providing digital derivatives of the originals, descriptions can be accompanied by visual references, thereby improving access.
With the ongoing development of the Internet and the advancements of network systems institutions holding photographic collections are tempted to make their collections interoperable and accessible on a national or international level. Initiatives like that are currently in progress on a national level in Norway (Feltkatalogen) [8], Sweden (ARKIS project) [9] and the Netherlands (FOTIOS-project) [10]. On an international level initiatives like the EVA (European Visual Archives)-project [11] and the EUAN (European Union Archive Network)-project [12] attempt to create Internet applications which allow users to search through multiple collections. One of the crucial parts of all these initiatives is to synchronise existing descriptions in such a way that they can be matched on a central level [13]. This is sometimes done by using an ‘intelligent’ search tool that allows cross-collection search-and-retrieval or by synchronization on the level of the different descriptions. Usually synchronization takes far more work, but may provide better results for search-and-retrieval purposes. Anyhow the issue of consistent, reliable descriptions can be very important for a project's failure or success.
Describing photographs takes a lot of time and expertise. Decisions are made on what part of the collection will be described, what level (every single photograph or subseries, series, subcollection or collection), what descriptive model will be used and what are considered to be the minimal requirements for an adequate description.
Regularly applied selection criteria for describing are: frequency of use, rareness and physical condition. These criteria can differ from collection to collection, but especially with large collections establishing selection criteria in advance can be very useful. When the Oslo City Museum started to use the Feltkatalogen [14] for their approximately 520,000 photographic items, initially every single photograph of an arbitrary part of the collection was described. After some time the Museum realised that the collection described was of limited interest to the public so it was decided to introduce selection criteria such as user needs, age and photographic technique to make the process of describing more efficient.
The way photographs are described depends for a large part on the nature of the collection. A photograph can be appreciated because of its value as an object (e.g. a rare, obscure photographic technique), its content ( e.g. portrait, landscape, event), its artistic value (e.g. work of a famous photographer) or a combination between these elements.
Most institutions look at their photographs, either as objects or as visual documents, or as something in between; this can influence the method of description. In general, those institutions that consider their photographs as objects are inclined to put more emphasis on the material aspects (photographic technique, dimensions, condition, etc.). When the content is the most significant feature of a collection, information about the 'what, where, when' aspects of the photograph will be highlighted.
Basically, the starting point is usually the role of a photographic collection in the organizational structure of an institution. If the photographic collection is just a part of the whole, the way the other materials are described can have a large impact on how the photographs are described. For instance, many archives, libraries and museums prefer one descriptive model for all their materials, since they find it more convenient to maintain one system than many different ones. Sometimes registrars have no choice but to use the institutional standard descriptive model to describe their photographic materials. Since most standard descriptive models are not specifically designated for photographic materials, they are often forced to stretch fields and rules considerably.
The size of the photographic collection in relation to the available resources can also influence the method of description. Especially institutions with very large collections usually opt for a 'top-down approach'. International descriptive standards like ISAD(G) [15] and AACR2 [16] both support multi-level description, allowing registrars to describe fonds, subfonds, series, items within one and the same model.
The 'top-down' approach can be a very useful method to increase control over a large collection. For instance, the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, holding about 600,000 photographic prints from both 19th and 20th century and about 700,000 negatives mainly from the 20th century, initially started to describe their collection at a high level for the publication of the inventory in 1989. From there they have adopted a strategy for cataloguing, using specific selection criteria such as user needs or conservation reasons to determine the level of description necessary for each part of the collection [17].
Apart from the practical advantages of a ‘top-down’ approach, multi-level description makes it easier to determine the correlation between different parts of a collection. A frequently heard complaint about item-level descriptions is that it is difficult to describe the relationship between the different items. Multi-level description can link every item to other related items or parts of the collection.
Another aspect that can influence the method of description is the availability of trained staff. Especially smaller institutions often lack specialized staff to describe photographic materials. Limited availability of (trained) staff sometimes urges institutions to look for other solutions. For the Swedish ARKIS 1 project about 1,000 unemployed people were called in to produce as many as 5 million records in two years' time [18]. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation has a team of senior volunteers that provides descriptions for many of the Institute's photographs. After putting the German Colonial Society collection online the Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt encouraged their users to send e-mails with suggestions to improve the descriptions [19].
In the SEPIA survey mentioned earlier 50 out of 120 respondents did not use a standard descriptive model, but their own models. The other institutions mainly used ISAD(G), ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description), MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloguing Record) to describe their photographs [20]. Other research, like for instance the ARLIS survey, also shows that, even in a relatively homogeneous group of predominantly art libraries, there is still a great variety in use of descriptive models [21].
Even if institutions use the same standard descriptive models, their interpretation of the same elements can be quite different. The role of interpretation becomes more and more important as the original model is not actually meant for describing photographic collections. ISBD, for instance, is actually a standard to describe library collections. In order to be able to include 'non-book materials' a specialised version of ISBD, ISBD(NBM) was developed. ISBD (NBM) is used a kind of guidance for the development national interpretations. Sometimes these national guidelines are again interpreted on an institutional level [22].
The lack of uniformity can be explained by many different circumstances mentioned above. Despite all the different approaches, when analysing different descriptive models used for photographic materials, there are a number of elements that almost every registrar will agree on. At the Stockholm meeting all 21 participants were asked to choose out of 53 elements 15 that they considered essential for an adequate description of a photograph. Elements like inventory number, creator/photographer, topical term, title, date of creation, photographic technique, copyright, location number, size, geographical location, date of acquisition, picture caption, colour/ b/w, custodian history and note area ranked high on the priority lists. When respondents to the ARLIS survey were asked how they formally described their images elements like artist/photographer, ID number, title, physical description, place name and date were frequently mentioned [23].
Without going into details about rules and interpretations, it may be possible to deduce some elements that any adequate description of a photographic item/material/object ought to contain. One of the aims of SEPIA in the three years to come will be to design and implement such a minimal model for description of photographic materials.
 |
| Figure 1: Stockholm model |
In general, the participants to the Stockholm meeting agreed that a descriptive model for photographic materials should contain information about the object, the content and the creator or photographer. Depending on the specific purpose of description (public, management or provenance) it should contain elements to facilitate access for the general public, elements related to collection and preservation management and elements with information about the creator/photographer, provenance and authority posts.
In the Amsterdam working group meeting the definitions in relation to the Stockholm model were refined. The ‘public’ part should contain search and retrieval elements of content, ‘management’ should include identification and physical description elements for administration and preservation purposes and ‘provenance’ is meant to include elements about the creator and the history of the item.
Another requirement that was mentioned on the SEPIA expert meeting -and that was also discussed in more detail on the working group meeting-was the facility of multi-level description. In the working group the basic idea behind ISAD(G), re-using the same elements for different levels, was considered to be a practical and desired feature. There should at least be a distinction between individual and grouping level. It is up to the preferences of a specific institution to choose the number and the exact names (fonds, subfonds, series, etc) of these groupings.
The Stockholm participants also expressed the idea that the model should provide a basis for possible future interoperability with other collections. In order to do so use of thesauri and controlled terminology lists in relation to specific parts of a description of photographic collections, like for instance photographic techniques, should be stimulated. The SEPIA working group considers it to be one of its primary tasks to integrate existing controlled terminology lists for description of photographic materials. So far research has proved that, although (on institutional and national level) some controlled lists are available, on an international level they are often lacking.
The complexity of a photographic item makes describing very complicated. In the working group meeting in Amsterdam a distinction was made between the object (the physical apparition) and the image (the contents of the object). Main difference is that an object only has one image. An image, however, can have more objects (e.g. a negative, a print, a digital derivative, etc.). The object on which the image appears for the first time is commonly considered to be ‘the original’. When describing a photographic item the object and the image are described at the same time.
In short the ‘consensus’ model (colloquially called SEPIADES after ‘SEPIA Data Element Set’), will be build on the ground structure with the following basic ideas:
Every element can be:
a. mandatory : it should always be filled out
b. strongly recommended: should be filled out with a value if the information is appropriate, but if not it can be left blank
c. optional: could be filled out with a value if the information is appropriate, but if not it can be left blank
One of the challenges of SEPIA for the next two years will be to develop a model for description of photographic materials that would include elements for an adequate and efficient description of photographic materials, according to the ground structure formulated in this first year. By organising national SEPIA meetings on descriptive models and using the SEPIA Web site(24)as a platform for discussion throughout the project, the working group encourages all experts in the field to give their feedback, realising that we can use all the help we can get on the long and winding road that lies ahead of us.
Partners are:
Associate partners are:
and
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edwin
Klijn
Project Manager on Descriptive Models
European Commission on Preservation and Access
edwin.klijn@bureau.knaw.nl
<http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa>
Edwin Klijn is Project Manager of the SEPIA working group ‘descriptive models for photographic materials’ and co-author of ‘In the Picture. Digitisation and Preservation of European Photographic Collections (Amsterdam, 2000). He has been working as Digitisation Officer at the European Commission on Preservation and Access (ECPA) since 1999 and was involved in several digitisation projects, specialising in database publishing on the Internet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For citation purposes:
Klijn, E. "SEPIA: Safeguarding European Photographic Images for Access", Cultivate Interactive, issue
6, 11 February 2001
URL: <http://www.cultivate-int.org/issue6/sepia/>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Related articles:
If you would like to view similar articles to this one click on a key word below:
< - digitisation - photographic - >
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|