Art Libraries Society of
Session VI
Integrating Intellectual Access to Library, Museum, and
Archival Materials
Moderator:
Maria Oldal, Head of Cataloging and
Database Maintenance, Pierpont Morgan Library
Session Speakers:
Elizabeth
O’Keefe, Director of Collection Information Systems, Pierpont Morgan Library. Bridging the Great Divide: the Pierpont
Morgan Library's Integrated Online Collections Catalog
Barbara
Mathe, Senior Special Collections Librarian,
Diana Folsom,
Manager of Art and Education Systems,
Terry Catapano,
Library and Special Collection Analyst, Digital Library Program,
Sponsored by:
Duncan Systems Specialists
Inc.
Note:
Barbara Mathe from the
The
session was a follow-up to “Betwixt and Between:
Integrating MARC Data with Museum Object Records”, a program presented at the
2003 ARLIS/NA conference in Baltimore, which focused on employing technology to
integrate MARC records with other data formats and across platforms. Speakers
in this session focused on integrating the intellectual content of library,
museum, and archival records. The presenters discussed two approaches to
integrating intellectual access, one at the data level and one at the searching
and retrieval level. The discussion also addressed the challenges inherent in
bringing together information from different communities with different data,
and how technology can assist this endeavor.
Elizabeth O’Keefe described the structural-level approach used in
CORSAIR, the Pierpont Morgan Library’s online collection catalog, to achieve
intellectual integration among disparate materials. CORSAIR contains
descriptive cataloging records for a wide range of materials, including
reference and rare books, manuscripts, drawings, prints, art objects, and
ancient near Eastern cylinder seals and tablets. The Morgan approach integrates
data at the structural and content level through the application of AACR2 and use
of MARC for all records added to their integrated library system. Formatting
all data according to MARC and AACR2 and utilizing controlled vocabularies such
as the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, the Library of Congress Subject Headings
and the Library of Congress Name Authority File allows all the records in
CORSAIR, whether they describe a original work such as a drawing by Rembrandt
or a secondary work, such as a book about Rembrandt, to conform to the same
data structure and descriptive standards. O’Keefe pointed out that making all
the records “play by the same rules” facilitates retrieval and permits data to
be presented in a uniform way, thereby aiding online browsing of records for
all types of materials.
O’Keefe’s presentation focused on the implementation and challenges
presented by this approach. The need to accommodate “curatorial sensibilities” had
to be balanced against the need to adhere to library standards and vocabularies.
Specific examples of issues involving data presentation, structure, and content
were discussed, such as modification of the terminology used for indexes and
labels (i.e. “Author/Artist” instead of “Author”); the liberties taken with
AACR2 in the creation of local GMD’s (i.e. “drawing” and “sculpture”); and the
inclusion of name variants in the 545 field to allow for keyword searching of
unauthorized, “scholarly” name forms. The presentation closed with three pieces
of advice on using the data level approach to achieve intellectual integration:
Know when to compromise and when to stand firm when negotiating
inter-departmental issues. Set clear boundaries for expertise and rely on art
historians to speak to questions of attribution and the like, while librarians
answer the problem of structuring the data. And get easier collections in the
catalog first to test and promote this approach. CORSAIR is available at: http://corsair.morganlibrary.org
Diana Folsom presented a sequel to Stephen Toney’s
presentation on Collections Online, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s
integrated collections interface (http://collectionsonline.lacma.org) A
year later, much progress has been made on adding museum records to the
database, but integration of the museum information remains a problem. (At this
time, no attempt is being made to intellectually integrate library records with
museum records; they share a common search interface, but not a common
authority file.)
For the most part, museum “information” is visual;
visitors learn from looking at the item, rather than from textual descriptions.
The ability to provide digital images has been a powerful incentive towards
making museum collections available online. But this wars with curatorial content
standards from their art historical traditions, especially within the context
of a database, which requires adherence to more general data standards. Making
images available through small-scale online exhibitions is a more appealing
option to many curators, who are accustomed to regard exhibitions as the
principal interface between collections and the public. Repurposing exhibition
documentation (wall labels, catalog entries, suggested reading lists) makes for
richer data content, and is relatively inexpensive—an important consideration,
since most museums do not yet have budgets for making collection information
publicly accessible.
It becomes more difficult to maintain an intellectually
coherent database when the number of records increases, and
different collections represented by information supplied by numerous curators
appear online. Curators are reluctant to "publish" definitions of periods
or styles typically requested by the average user because they don't often
think in popular modes, and the need to maintain their own intellectual perspective
causes them to be reticent about accepting someone else’s definition. Similar
problems arise with many other types of data, as well as with labels and
displays. It has been easier to achieve a consensus on establishing a
controlled vocabulary for genre terms. Genre terms are standardized, and
browsable. The main difficulty has been with the system implementation. Some
experimentation has been done with data interface with the advanced search
screen using a Dublin Core-based interface to search across both museum and
library records. Other experiments involve the presentation of lists of all
terms that exist in the fields being searched, but with large amounts of data,
these can be difficult to understand and generate too many hits which is cumbersome. The system designers are working on an
acceptable way to help the user know what to look for in order to get the best
possible results.
Despite these hitches, and delays caused by the fact
that some collection items, such as costumes, are very difficult to photograph,
the database continues to grow. As it becomes more comprehensive, it becomes a
more valuable resource for curators, who become more enthusiastic about
contributing information. The current goal is to create at least a minimal
record for each collection item, while offering richer data for featured
collections. Although not yet conforming to the grand vision of a single,
seamless collections resource, the database is nonetheless a giant step forward
for the institution.
Terry Catapano’s presentation described the technical aspects of integrating
records from The Index of Christian Art (ICA) database into The Pierpont Morgan
Library’s OPAC, CORSAIR. The
The processing included converting
His recommendations for similar data conversion projects are: use
XML, preferably a widely adopted, well supported and documented standard;
define “core” elements for use in all records; explain semantics and rationale
for elements in the schema; specify mapping to target schema in as formal a way
as possible with an eye towards enabling creation of automatic routines. Most
important is civility: data suppliers must be willing to make their data
available in commonly understood formats and contents structures, and data
users must agree to accept that cross-institutional integration of
heterogeneous data might not allow them to do everything they think they need
to do.
During the question and answer period following the papers, topics
covered included: CORSAIR is a heavily customized version of the OPAC for
Endeavor’s Voyager ILS; the relator code “formerly attributed to” almost always
appears in added entries on CORSAIR records, not in main entries; collection
management information, such as courier information, is tracked in a separate
registrarial database, which is linked to the bibliographic records in CORSAIR;
CORSAIR records adhere to existing cataloging rules as much as possible, with
local cataloging guidelines developed only when the rules proved insufficient;
LACMA’s website displays text and images from their own exhibitions, but not
from visiting exhibitions, because of copyright issues.