1. Using the CIDOC CRM: RLG’s Cultural Materials Initiative Tony Gill Research Libraries Group, Inc.

2. Research Libraries Group 2 Overview 1.Brief introduction to RLG 2.RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3.CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4.Our experiences with the CRM

3. Research Libraries Group 3 1.Brief introduction to RLG 2.RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3.CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4.Our experiences with the CRM

4. Research Libraries Group 4 RLG in brief…  Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) is a non-profit corporation founded in 1974  ~160 members in 12 countries  World HQ in Mountain View, California UK agent Nancy Elkington based in London  Networked information services Online access to >100 million items  Collaboration Member Programs & Initiatives

5. Research Libraries Group 5 RLG’s mission: Through collaborative action, improve access to information that supports research and learning

6. Research Libraries Group 6 1.Brief introduction to RLG 2.RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3.CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4.Our experiences with the CRM

7. Research Libraries Group 7 The problem space...  World-class collections of cultural materials held by RLG member institutions: Primary, often unique works and artifacts that document shared global culture Increasingly used to support research and learning by RLG members and their clients Traditionally found in the collections of museums, library special collections, archives & historical societies E.g. illuminated medieval manuscripts, Soviet political posters, Charlie Chaplin movies, oral histories, lunar landers

8. “…stuff really is important. Scholars use it to separate fact from fiction and to interpret the human record.” John W. Haeger RLG Vice President Emeritus RLG News Issue 49, Fall 1999

9. Research Libraries Group 9 The problem space…  Providing access to collections is central to the mission of most “memory institutions” Access to physical collections constrained by physical factors (space, location, resources, preservation etc.)  Increasing demand for access to digital collections for: Research, teaching, personal use, commercial use Access to digital collections constrained by factors such as fragmented access, lack of consensus on standards, rapid technological change etc.

10. Research Libraries Group 10 The problem space…  Complex issues in delivering coherent, integrated access to digital collections: Diverse descriptive practices Meaningful integration across collections Digital representation of materials (“surrogates”) Reliable, distributed infrastructure Institutional rights and responsibilities Ongoing content development

11. “We believe that the best and perhaps the only way to accomplish these goals is through a focused and sustained collaboration with selected museums, historical societies, and industry partners. Research universities share with museums and historical societies a common and fundamental commitment to building great collections—and to advancing learning and scholarship through the study and interpretation of these collections.” Max Marmor Yale University Art Library http://www.library.edu/art/about.html November 1999

12. Research Libraries Group 12 Cultural Materials Initiative - goals  Develop a solution to address user demands, institutional needs and complex issues that is: Collaborative Multi-institutional International Standards-based Sustainable

13. Research Libraries Group 13 Cultural Materials Alliance  An Alliance of RLG members committed to: Providing integrated access to cultural content through the development of a collective digital resource Enhancing the value of content through rich cross- collection links Establishing appropriate rights management framework Developing powerful, user-friendly web-based discovery and retrieval tools Identifying and promoting best practice Developing sustainable business models that will support long-term development of the service

14. Research Libraries Group 14 Alliance members (1 of 2)  American Antiquarian Society  Bayerische Staatsbibliothek  British Library  Brooklyn Museum of Art  Chicago Historical Society  Columbia University  Cornell University  Duke University  Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion  Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens  Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine  Indiana University, Bloomington  International Institute of Social History  Library of Congress  Linda Hall Library  London School of Economics  National Library of Australia  National Library of Scotland  National Library of Wales  Natural History Museum

15. Research Libraries Group 15 Alliance members (2 of 2)  New York State Archives and Records Administration  Pennsylvania State University  Smithsonian Institution  State Historical Society of Wisconsin  Syracuse University  Temple University  Trinity College Dublin  University of California, Berkeley  University of Cambridge  University of Edinburgh  University of Florida  University of Glasgow  University of London Library  University of Minnesota  University of Oxford  University of Pennsylvania  Yale University 39 members at 23 August 2000 http://www.rlg.org/culturalres/allies.html

16. Research Libraries Group 16 Content characteristics  Digital representations or “surrogates” of cultural materials, e.g.: Images Audio files Video clips Animations 3-D models  Supporting/contextual materials  Structured textual descriptions...

17. Research Libraries Group 17 1.Brief introduction to RLG 2.RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3.CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4.Our experiences with the CRM

18. Research Libraries Group 18 Different (descriptive) strokes...  Different curatorial approaches Museums Libraries Archives Visual Resources Historical Societies  Different subject disciplines Arts & humanities Natural sciences Social sciences etc...

19. Research Libraries Group 19 Different (descriptive) strokes...  Different levels of granularity Collection level Group level Item level  Different levels of detail Simple inventory Collections management documentation Authority reference files Associated contextual & research materials

20. Research Libraries Group 20 Different (descriptive) strokes...  Different data structures Flatfile Hierarchical Tagged text Relational Object-oriented  Different data value standards AAT, ULAN, TGN LCSH, NAF, DDC, UDC MeSH, SHIC etc...

21. Research Libraries Group 21 Descriptive standards  AMICO Data Dictionary  CDWA  CIDOC RM & CRM  CIMI DTD & Profile  Dublin Core  EAD  MARC  MESL  Object ID  SPECTRUM  VRA Core Categories  Other, superceded descriptive standards...

22. Research Libraries Group 22 Descriptive standards  AMICO Data Dictionary  CDWA  CIDOC RM & CRM  CIMI DTD & Profile  Dublin Core  EAD  MARC  MESL  Object ID  SPECTRUM  VRA Core Categories  Other, superceded descriptive standards…  +1,001 home cooked flavours...

23. Research Libraries Group 23 CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model  Based on ICOM/CIDOC “International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CIDOC Information Categories”  Object-oriented “domain ontology” Formalises the semantics needed to describe objects and relationships in the cultural heritage context  Mappings to existing standards  ISO reviewing for possible publication

24. Research Libraries Group 24 Benefits of CRM  Elegant and simple compared to comparable Entity-Relation model  Coherently integrates information at varying degrees of detail  Readily extensible through O-O class ‘typing’ and ‘specializations’  Richer semantic content; allows inferences to be made from ‘fuzzy’ data  Designed for mediation of heterogeneous cultural heritage information...

25. Research Libraries Group 25 “The primary role of the CRM is to serve as a basis for mediation of cultural heritage information and thereby provide the semantic 'glue' needed to transform today's disparate, localised information sources into a coherent and valuable global resource.” Nick Crofts http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/cidoc/oomodel/

26. Research Libraries Group 26 CIDOC CRM Overview  62 classes  Classes have properties, which are often links to other classes  Classes inherit properties from their parents or superclasses  Classes have some similarities with relational tables  CIDOC Entity Temporal entity Physical entity Conceptual object Actor Appellation Contact point Place Dimension  Type  Primitive value

27. Research Libraries Group 27 User access points  Keyword search  Who  What  When  Where  How  CIDOC Entity Temporal entity Physical entity Conceptual object Actor Appellation Contact point Place Dimension  Type  Primitive value

28. Research Libraries Group 28 1.Brief introduction to RLG 2.RLG’s Cultural Materials Alliance 3.CMA and the CIDOC CRM 4.Our experiences with the CRM

29. Research Libraries Group 29 CRM learning curve  Model necessarily complex in order to model the broad domain of cultural heritage information  O-O modeling paradigm unfamiliar compared to entity-relation modeling Just similar enough to be confusing!  Notation problems Difficult to express mappings textually UML: Universal Modeling Language

30. Object production information

31. Research Libraries Group 31 CRM learning curve  Mappings entail “deconstruction” of original records Artifact-centric nature of descriptions discarded Implicit entities made explicit in mapping process SPECTRUM mapping Dublin Core mapping Others to follow...

32. Research Libraries Group 32 CRM learning curve  Implementation details O-O models can be implemented with relational database systems relatively easily Initially hard to avoid thinking about physical database implementations when working with the model... …But (initially at least) this is confusing and unhelpful!

33. Research Libraries Group 33 User access  Bias towards collections management information (as opposed to information for access and research) inherited from CIDOC Information Categories  RLG developing “use cases” for typical user access based on: NMS ‘Catechism’ report Getty ‘Points of View’ workshop report CIMI access points in Janney & Sledge, ‘A User Model for CIMI Z39.50 Application Profile’, CIMI 1995 http://www.cimi.org/documents/Z3950_app_profile_0995.html

34. Research Libraries Group 34 User access example  A search for an “actor” should yield descriptions of: Artifacts for which the actor is the creator (general or specific role) Artifacts for which the actor is the owner (past or present) Artifacts in which the actor is depicted Artifacts for which the actor is the user (past or present) Biographical information about the actor

35. Research Libraries Group 35 Further developments  RLG attended June 2000 stakeholders meeting in Aghios Pavlos, Crete  CRM needs further refinement, particularly to enhance support for research access  Needs more introductory “outreach” material  RLG enthusiastic about: Raising awareness of the model Soliciting feedback from the community Testing and validating with real data and real users to help finalize the model

36. Research Libraries Group 36 RLG & the CRM  RLG believes the model holds great promise as a tool for mediating between heterogeneous cultural descriptions  More information: “Touring the RLG Information Landscape: the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model” RLG Focus 45, August 2000 http://www.rlg.org/r-focus/i45tour.html

37. www.rlg.org