One of the small steps we've taken at the National Maritime Museum is to post our NOF-digi historic photographs to The Commons (over time and where rights allow):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmaritimemuseum
Fiona
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Jon Pratty
> Sent: 28 June 2011 11:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MCG historical query - criticisms of Culture
> Online programme?
>
> Nick's NOF-digi response, and Mike's subsequent points, bring
> up all sorts of memories for many of us on this list, I'm sure!
>
> Whilst at 24 Hour Museum [in around, say 2002/3 onwards] I
> was interested in linking to, and perhaps re-presenting
> NOF-digi content in some form or another. There were [and
> still are] some really nice sites developed as part of the
> programme; and yet there was little sense that there had been
> an over-arching strategic publishing view of the resources
> proposed before things were commissioned. EnrichUK came along
> and seemed to me to be about simply indexing the sites, also
> that it was intended to 'top off' the whole project; a kind
> of final act.
>
> The 2009 JISC-inspired opportunity to re-animate the NOF-digi
> sites that Nick mentions came about because of my continuing
> interest in the lottery-funded content; Mike Ellis had just
> splashed on his great Hoard-It idea at MW2009 in Indianapolis
> [http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/abstracts/prg_335001935.html]
> which seemed like just the tech to use to go back and
> establish a consistent top-down audit or index of NOF-digi sites.
>
> My proposal, which I took to Leicester Uni as a partnership
> idea and to Collections Trust for support, was a two stage
> approach: firstly, to research the state of the content and
> see if it was feasible to work with, and secondly to produce
> some sort of scraped, indexed, taxonomically re-interpreted
> [curated, if you like] re-published version.
>
> As Nick said, the proposal didn't go forward; my own view is
> that our proposal didn't get the basics across in the way
> that we should have done, but there you go! It's important to
> record however, that our first stage would have been a
> Hoard-It [quite brutal] spidering of the inventory of sites,
> then a more reflective audit of the content to see how much
> of it was feasibly re-publishable. The second stage idea
> would have been to use an online journalistic approach to
> appraising the content, considering IP status of the images
> and text, and also the shape and form of it. It was about
> re-curating again, after that point.
>
> That said, the 2009 proposal was actually about R&D, not
> necessarily to produce a magical re-awakening of the
> material. What might we have learned? Perhaps, new ways to
> data-mine old content and invest it with new cultural value;
> maybe, ways to index and sort content into currently popular
> themes; approaches to copyright indemnity schemes for older
> digital content; some knowledge of ways to shape content
> better in the first place.
>
> Putting the bid together it seemed that a lot of the NOF-digi
> content would have been hard to link to as it was, anyway.
> Titles were often separate from body text, images floated
> free from text and captions, titles weren't keyworded,
> copyright info and captions lived separately from the stories
> they belonged to. All of things publishing states make it
> hard to aggregate content.
>
> I think the big NOF-digi learning point needs to be around
> considering, in the first instance, the real lifecycle of
> your content. Make it simple; keep text, rights info, pics
> and titles in archivable blocks, and always think how else it
> might be published on other platforms.
>
> JP
>
>
>
> Jon Pratty
> Relationship Manager, Digital and Creative Economies Arts
> Council England
> +441273 763037
> 07872419194
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Achieving great art for everyone - our 10-year framework is
> now available Sign up for our e-newsletter -
> http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/utilities/newsletter/
> Join us on Twitter - http://twitter.com/ace_southeast
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Nick Poole
> Sent: 28 June 2011 09:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MCG historical query - criticisms of Culture
> Online programme?
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Cross-project aggregation/metasearch for the NOF-Digi
> projects was certainly an afterthought, but it did happen in
> the form of the EnrichUK platform. Sadly, this was
> short-lived. I am not entirely sure why, but I suspect that
> it was not widely used.
>
> As you know, the Collections Trust worked with Leicester
> University on a proposal to JISC for a post-hoc aggregation
> of the content produced by the NOF-digi projects. At the
> time, this didn't proceed - partly because of the relative
> complexity of resolving the challenge of retrospectively
> licensing the content for re-use.
>
> We haven't given up, however, and are on the case once again
> to try and aggregate the legacy NOF-digi content into the
> Culture Grid. The registry of NOF-digi projects produced by
> Alastair Dunning at JISC provides a useful way of
> reconnecting to approximately 2/3 of the material, but there
> remain real problems in working out exactly how it can be
> used. One difficulty is that it is neither alive nor dead,
> but in a state of suspended animation.
>
> Personally, given that this represents the largest single
> body of public investment in Digitisation in the sector from
> the 'golden age' of museum funding between 1999 and 2005
> (yes, that was a golden age...), I think we really should
> collaborate to ensure that the current and next generation of
> services can make use of it.
>
> I'm also *very* keen not to present this as just a technology
> problem. Yes, there are a number of simple search apps that
> would do the job, but if that's all we do, we're going to be
> creating another EnrichUK. So, what is the model for re-use
> and persistent access which would ensure not only that these
> things exist, but are actively used by a significant number
> of normal humans?
>
> All best,
>
> Nick
>
> Nick Poole
> Chief Executive
> Collections Trust
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Tel: 0207 250 8340
>
> OpenCulture 2012
> The Greatest Collections Management Show on Earth!
> London, 19th & 20th June 2012
>
> http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk
> http://www.collectionslink.org.uk
> http://openculture.collectionstrustblogs.org.uk
>
> Follow us on Twitter: @collectiontrust
> Follow me on Twitter: @nickpoole1
> Contact me on Skype: nickpoole3
> Connect via LinkedIn:
> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=5289899&locale=en_US&t
rk=tab_pro
>
> Company Registration No: 1300565
> Registered Charity No: 27398
> Registered address: Collections Trust, CAN Mezzanine, 49 - 51
> East Road, Old Street, London N1 6AH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Mike Ellis
> Sent: 28 June 2011 09:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MCG historical query - criticisms of Culture
> Online programme?
>
> This is slightly off-piste...
>
> But one of the things I never understood about the NOF
> project was that there was never any cross-project aggregation.
>
> We spent months (probably like most people involved in the
> project) getting our metadata (head tags) right for
> http://www.ingenious.org.uk, and adhering to what I
> understood was a NOF-wide standard. The natural next step -
> and probably not a terribly hard one once all the work had
> been done by the various projects - would surely have been
> some aggregation / search?
>
> Not a sausage.
>
> Maybe someone burnt the money, but still a shame. A £15k
> Google Search Appliance would have done it :-)
>
> cheers
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Ellis
> Digital Strategist
> eduserv
> t: 01225 470522
> m: 07017 031 522
> twitter: @m1ke_ellis
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of J DAVIS
> Sent: 27 June 2011 23:05
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MCG historical query - criticisms of Culture
> Online programme?
>
> I'd remembered City Heritage Guides - once I saw them in the list.
> They seemed to overlap - quite a lot in some places - with
> what we were trying to do in the NOF-Digitise Sense of the
> Place projects that were already well under way or finishing
> by that time. But it provided more jobs, which is always a
> good thing, and gathered info in one place where it hasn't
> vanished, which is A Very Good Thing.
>
> One thing that I think came out of 2000-2005 funding for
> digital projects in public culture was that it would be good
> to have better overview and coordination across funding
> streams for future projects.
>
> Is there an up-to-date list now of all digitisation & digital
> culture projects? I'm aware that Alastair Dunning put
> together a NOF-Digi and HLF projects list a while ago.
> Janet
>
> --- On Mon, 27/6/11, Bridget McKenzie
> > Ah yes, completely forgot Icons. City
> > Heritage Guides wasn't in my
> > consciousness as a collections-based project.
> ...
>
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
> http://www.artscouncil.org.uk
>
> Arts Council England is the trading name of the Arts Council
> of England registered charity no. 1036733
>
> The information in this e-mail is for the named recipient(s)
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that
> you have received this email in error and that any use,
> dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email
> is strictly prohibited.
>
> The contents of this message will not be in any way binding
> upon Arts Council England. Opinions, conclusions, contractual
> obligations and other information in this message, in so far
> as they relate to the official business of Arts Council
> England must be specifically confirmed in writing.
>
> Additionally, the information contained in this email may be
> subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information
> Act 2000.
>
> Arts Council England does not accept liability for any virus,
> spyware or malware introduced by this e-mail.
> _
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|