On 17/10/2013 12:00, Sarah Saunders wrote:
> I agree with Janet that image management needs to stay separate but data flows through Collections Management and CMS and metadata stripping and lack of functionality in Web CMS systems affects the ability of an organisation to embed attribution in images which are cut loose from the web site, such as those control-click downloaded from museum web sites for educational and private use. (not to mention commercial picture researchers)
>
> This is the stripping Janet mentions, and I think it's quite an issue for publicly funded organisations, affecting their ability to disseminate free content effectively with the correct attribution and descriptive data the public need. This is my thing at the moment and I'd love it to be taken seriously throughout the museum content workflow, as although it (still) makes sense to have separate systems, interoperability demands some common standards on metadata handling.
Clearly, when images are grabbed and separated from their delivery
context, then the only hope for their metadata is for them to be
self-describing. If CMS routinely strip such metadata, the obvious
remedy is not to entrust your images to the CMS, but to deliver them
directly from your collections management/DAM environment. (And, of
course, ensure that that system /does/ maintain adequate metadata. [1])
However, I would make exactly the same point about object descriptive
data: it is preferable to deliver it "live" from its native system (and
maintain its context, attribution, etc.) than to copy it across into the
CMS' database.
Richard
[1] http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/events/dam2013
--
*Richard Light*
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|