Over the years, the museum and library communities have developed separate descriptive cataloging practices even though many museums hold library objects and many library collections contain museum objects. Libraries have frequently used their ILS system and the MARC 21/AACR2 cataloging tradition to describe these art objects along with the traditional library materials. Now the library community is moving beyond the MARC record into the realm of linked open data.
The Library of Congress began to develop the Bibliographic Framework Initiative (BIBFRAME) in 2012 and a first version of the BIBFRAME model and vocabulary was made available for testing. Much of the testing to date, both planned and already under way, has focused on traditional library formats, even though the paper "Bibliographic Framework as a Web of Data" (released in November 2012) by the Library of Congress stated that:
The goal of the Bibliographic Framework Initiative is to develop a model to which various content models can be mapped. This recognizes that different communities may have different views of their resources and thus different needs for resource descriptions. This is especially pronounced as one leaves the book/text media and considers images (still and moving), cartographic resources, archival collections, and ultimately cultural artifact and museum collections. Many content models define hierarchical relationships that need to be restated in RDF graph terms and then simplified to the BIBFRAME model. (p. 15)
This sub-project will focus on testing the BIBFRAME schema's suitability for the description of art objects, both two-dimensional (e.g. paintings, photographs) and three-dimensional (e.g. sculptures, ceramics). In addition, the Columbia group will evaluate other existing linked data ontologies (primarily from the art domain) not only to see how BIBFRAME compares to these specialized domain ontologies, but also as potential extensions to BIBFRAME where gaps have been identified. The test may result in the implementation of BIBFRAME as is, the implementation of BIBFRAME with extensions from other ontologies, or, potentially, the implementation of a different ontology (such as CIDOC CRM) if the test would show that BIBFRAME is not suitable at all for the art domain. The lessons learned would be shared with the community. Assuming that a suitable BIBFRAME art profile can be developed, the Columbia team is aiming to document the relationships, such as equivalent classes and properties, from BIBFRAME to CIDOC CRM. The project will utilize metadata descriptions created for Columbia University’s art objects, which are overseen by Art Properties at the Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library. The collection in total numbers about 10,000 objects, including public outdoor sculpture, paintings, photography, works on paper and decorative works. At present, data describing the art objects is captured in a spreadsheet according to locally developed guidelines following conventions developed by the art community and using both Library of Congress and Getty vocabularies.
The group’s deliverables will include: a BIBFRAME profile for art objects, both for data transformation and native data creation; transformation and conversion of a representable selection of art object descriptions cataloged according to the Art Properties collection's local schema to the profile; and an evaluation of the project and publication of the group’s findings.
Colleagues from the Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division
LD4P partner institution members
Interested members of the art and art library community