Hello,
Some quick personal thoughts...
Most (all?) attempts at structured "whole world" classification fail because
it's very hard - esssentially this is what human languages do, and there is
no "right" answer. Languages are easy to learn, hard or impossible to model
effectively, or implement synthetically as an end-user tool.
I think attempts to rigorously structure object information for all possible
purposes (other than for a discrete use, such as collections managment, or
conventional specialist purposes) will always fail. The most fruitful
approaches approaches involve the use of descriptive or classificatory
keywords, or interpretive text in conjunction with free-text searching.
Application of such keywords, phrases or text would be subjective, but this
is unavoidable - you cannot entirely formalise a subjective process.
A. You could decide to use a restricted set of such terms - in which case
the structure can be imposed not on the objects or their descriptor
categories, but on the keywords themselves in a kind of mini-thesaurus.
Because your thesaurus doesn't have to include all terms about everything,
it's much easier to set up and to make usable, and indeed explain to users.
B. Or you could use open keywords - augmenting the record with any
descriptive or classificatory words or phrases you think might be
appropriate. This has the advantage or richness, and probably similarity to
normal human language (and hence user expectation), but it is difficult to
classify all such terms meaningfully. This approach is also future proof -
it is not constrained by your current idea of what you want to do, and how
you want to do it.
C. Or you can use both approaches A and B together - not actually difficult,
and probably the most fruitful approach.
The other problem is how to imbue the words themselves with context. One
approach might be simply to apply these to traditional "areas" of an object
record eg what, who, when, where. This is simple, and can work pretty well.
More is much harder, and is subject to diminishing returns. If the
application of descriptive terms to records is subjective, equally so is
application of context to these term: there is no definitive answer to this.
For example an object associated with the battle of Waterloo, could have
some sort of
place: waterloo
type of event: battle
information (even this example throws up all sorts of logical problems!)
but nobody actually thinks like that, and analysing the whole rich world of
all objects and contexts in such a way is impossible - that's why we have
language and grammar. You get round all these problems by simply using the
human language phrase:
battle of waterloo
To sum up, I'd recommend
(1) Develop a small restricted keyword vocabulary designed to provide a
pointer to general areas. It may also be possible to combine this with a
small number of context keywords, or structure. Do not attempt to encompass
everything. You will fail. Limited aims are achievable, and will help a
great deal in guiding users.
(2) Encourage the recording of "subject matter" keyword and phrase
descriptors about all types of object and don't worry too much about
terminology control for this kind of description. Use human language, and be
rich and helpful with your terms.
Together these will enormously increase the accessibility of your data.
Better leave this now...
Cheers
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of H
Hollis, Archaeology
Sent: 07 September 2004 21:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Artefact interpretation online
Greetings everyone. (Apologies for cross posting.)
I am working on a digital database structure that would allow users to help
structure the categories by which archaeological artefacts (including
objects, documents, video footage, oral history) are classified within the
database.
For example, a photograph from Kenya in the 1930s would be classified by
time and place, but might also be classified by the content of the
photograph (elephant tusks) or activities associated with it (trade: ivory)
or indeed by how the artefact has been used (to teach KS3 History about
Empire, or in a brochure for a museum exhibition). Those who use the
database build up the meanings for that artefact over time.
Does anyone know of similar work already in place on the web, for whatever
size community base? Often I find that digital archives/databases for
museums narrowly limit the artefact into very particular categories -- I am
interested in a more multi-vocal interpretation of the artefacts.
Any input no matter how tenuous is welcome.
H Hollis
----------------------
H Hollis, Archaeology
[log in to unmask]
|