Different approaches to documentation and traditions of information
handling
Vocabularies are the bridge
Documentation and the Web
Different approaches to documentation
and traditions of information handling
What is documentation and why is there such variation in
practice among the various communities who deal with art,
architecture, and material culture? Documentation includes
analyzing, organizing, and recording information in order
to provide access to cultural heritage resources. Methodology
and practice in this area is dependent upon the nature, role,
and perspectives of the holders of the information, as well
as the nature of the information itself.
Four major approaches to documentation of art and material
culture have evolved over time: archival, library, museum,
and visual resources. It is important to note that all four
of these communities are currently re-examining these traditional
practices as they attempt to deal with the digitization and
networked access to their materials. In order to appreciate
this diversity, note how these four approaches compare, contrast,
and converge:
THE ARCHIVAL APPROACH
The archival approach involves the arrangement and description
of records, personal papers, and manuscripts.
The archival approach:
- emphasizes the function and provenance of archival materials.
- applies to documents, images, artifacts, sound recordings,
moving images, and electronic records.
- is based on the creation of a finding aid, which is a
document that lists or describes a body of records within
an archive, providing accesss to the user.
- describes collections, series, and groups of related materials,
as opposed to focusing on individual items. (though there
is a limited amount of item-level cataloging).
- is based on well-established standards, such as the MARC
format, RAD, and APPM, as well as emerging ones such as
the EAD.
- includes methodologies for the creation of catalog records,
inventories, and registers.
- is based on the concept that the collection "in hand"
is unique material.
- is not yet universally computerized.
- includes the use of controlled vocabularies, such as LCSH
and AAT.
- is moving towards data-sharing initiatives that are motivated
by the need for global access to unique and primary research
material.
Read more about archival documentation in the Readings section.
THE LIBRARY APPROACH
The library approach involves the cataloging and classification
of books and other published textual materials. This tradition
is also known as bibliographic cataloging and classification.
The library approach:
- is based on the concept that the item "in hand"
is one of many of the same thing. For this reason, data-sharing
is seen as economically advantageous (i.e., copy cataloging
is cheaper that original cataloging).
- is guided by principles and practice originating from
national leader institutions (e.g., the Library of Congress
and the British Library).
- is taught in schools of library and information science,
where the curriculum includes controlled vocabularies, authority
practice, and subject analysis.
- places a high value on subject access.
- is facilitated by a long-standing tradition of data sharing,
now dominated by national utilities and consortia, such
as the RLG and OCLC.
- is based on well-established standards, such as the MARC
format and AACR2, and it continues to develop new ones (e.g.,
the "core record concept" and Z39.50).
- includes methodologies for authority work and the use
of controlled vocabularies. LCSH is currently the most prevalent
vocabulary in use.
- began to be computerized in the 1970s.
- was developed to provide "public access" to
the cataloged materials.
- is based on item-level cataloging, i.e., a catalog record
is created for an individual item, not a collection.
- is enhanced by analytics and abstracting/indexing services
(such as BHA and the Avery Index).
Here is an example of a cataloging record for the book, Mycenaen art from Cyprus. The record is displayed in MARC format from the Williams College Library Catalog:
(Williams College Libraries, http://www.williams.edu/library/.)
Below is an exhibition catalog record display from the University of Texas at Austin OPAC:
University of Texas at Austin Libraries, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/.)
Read more about library cataloging and classification in
the Readings section.
THE MUSEUM APPROACH
The museum approach involves the documentation of museum objects
(e.g., works of art, artifacts, and specimens).
The museum approach:
- is complex, incorporating diverse topics of information
about an object, such as physical description, provenance,
conservation, photographic documentation, and research data.
- is based on the concept that the item "in hand"
is unique.
- has seen an increase in data-sharing initiatives in the
last several years (e.g., the MESL and REACH projects).
One exceptional example is the CHIN national inventories,
which began in 1972.
- uses classification schemes often based on departmental
divisions or taxonomies such as Nomenclature.
- incorporates images as well as textual data.
- is beginning to adopt authority control as basic practice.
- has gained importance as a valuable resource that can
be re-purposed for public information systems, particularly
by presenting information about their collections to the
public through the Internet
- uses collection management systems that are geared to
internal users (e.g., curators, registrars).
- uses diverse sources for terminology, such as ULAN, AAT,
TGN and local lists
- is beginning to adopt standards such as CDWA.
This is a museum object record from the collection management database of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston:
(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, http://www.mfa.org/)
Read more about museum documentation in the Readings section.
THE VISUAL RESOURCES APPROACH
The Visual Resources approach involves the cataloging, classification,
and indexing of images.
The visual resources approach:
- provides access to images that enrich the educational
experience. Many VR collections are in a university environment.
- describes both single items and sets of images.
has complex levels of description, involving both the item
"in hand" (e.g., a slide) and the content of the
image.
- is working towards adoption of data standards, such as
the "Core Categories for Visual Resources" and
MARC.
- incorporates vocabularies, such as AAT, ULAN, and TGN
but local lists and files are often still used.
- places a high value on subject access, with the aid of
systems such as ICONCLASS.
is being implemented in data-sharing demonstration projects
such as the VISION project with RLG.
- has close ties with the museum documentation tradition
in the description of images of museum objects.
- uses highly developed, although non-standardized classification
systems.
You can find, and View an example of a Visual Resources cataloging record from the SPIRO database at the University of California at Berkeley (http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/spiro/).
Read more about visual resources cataloging in the Readings
section.

Vocabularies are the bridge
The above documentation profiles show that vocabularies can
offer a common ground for these different approaches. Vocabularies
help to bring together resources in two ways:
1. The vocabularies that are being used in the four approaches
are system-, application-, and media-independent. For example,
a thesaurus like the AAT provides terminology that can be
applied in a variety of documentation situations ranging from
highly structured records, such as those in MARC format, to
free-text descriptions of museum objects using keywords.
2. Vocabularies are structured to provide links between terms
and concepts that relate to each other in various ways: for
example, synonyms, spelling variants, and other related concepts.
These links create an intellectual path that, if followed,
can improve access to art and material culture. (See Chapter
4 for an explanation of how vocabularies work.)
Using just three AAT descriptors and their linked synonyms
(historical terms, spelling variants, and alternate forms
of speech) as search terms, the following results demonstrate
how vocabularies can be used across communities to link cultural
heritage information.
|