I am agreeing with all that is said here. A coherent knowledge
management environment for museums, like any organisation, is an obvious
ambition. There are however obstacles and sometimes solutions have to be
piecemeal.
What I'd like to add to the thread is the thought that RDF, whilst it
may indeed be handled separately for each application, may point to a
solution because at the heart of it is the notion of co-referencing.
So if we have an events management system and an object location system
and an object catalogue system, rather than attempt to share every bit
of data in all the systems we use an appropriate level of entity
referencing. Hold a URI for each event, move and object in shared
(within the institution) internet space and ensure that every time an
object for instance is moved or used in an event, the record for that
points to that URI, whatever system the record is in. Kinda
super-thesauri.
What do we think?
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Ben Rubinstein
Sent: 03 September 2012 10:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Low cost collections management solutions
On 31/08/2012 10:17, Cristiano Bianchi wrote:
> Why cannot a more modular approach and system be imagined, one which
museums may use to take care of all of their information (a true
museum's knowledge management system), instead of going on using
isolated applications, which are indeed getting more and more open and
accessible and can of course be integrated, but require considerable
cost and effort to do so?
Hi Christiano,
It can certainly be imagined! But I think it is unrealistic to believe
that this is the end point of the path that all will converge upon.
I'm sure your experience like mine is that organisations as complex as
museums have a huge job adapting to any system and migrating/bringing
their content up to desired levels. Even just upgrading from one
version of a collections management system to another is in many cases a
huge job. For all ports of the organisation to make that switch to a
single system increases the burden.
There are many different offerings around for collections management,
for managing exhibitions, transport and so on; let alone for
development, for education, for web presence etc. That's legitimate and
unsurprising, because different organisations have different
requirements, resources, and priorities. In none of these areas has a
single product turned out to be ideal for everyone. Hence, that a
single product will turn out to be the best solution for each part of
the same organisation is just mathematically less likely than the
alternative.
Where there's a greenfield situation I certainly strive for the simplest
solution - but even then I think one has to consider that some solutions
may be too simple, either because the simplicity is bought at the cost
of a poor fit to the requirements in some areas, or because the simplest
solution may work for now, but be insufficiently flexible for the
future.
Even when an organisation is in a position to deploy a single unified
solution, I not convinced it's desirable. Because organisations,
systems, technologies, possibilities - every part of the landscape - can
change, what was a good solution for one part of the organisation two
years ago may not be ideal in two years time. If at that point, making
a change for that one part of the organisation will require all parts of
the organisation to change at once, it becomes vastly more difficult.
So although I always feel the lure of a single shining new solution, in
general I think we're better off assuming a heterogeneous landscape, and
finding good solutions for that real world, that acknowledge that
different bits will have to "learn to get along", and the likelihood
that in the future different bits will need to be modified or swapped
out, at different times; rather than trying to leapfrog these imperfect
realities.
Of course, like all generalities, this is not always correct! There are
always other situations.
best regards,
Ben
On 31/08/2012 10:17, Cristiano Bianchi wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> what is the reason for resisting the idea of an integrated system,
where all (or most) museum information would be stored and could be
retrieved and integrated in a much easier and cost effective way than
using APIs and middleware? Is it a practical reason (e.g. legacy systems
that are difficult to get rid of and overcome)? Or a more ideological
one? Or both?
>
> As you know, museums have been using vertical systems for years: every
time a new need emerge, the common approach is to acquire a new
application (sometimes checking it can be integrated with existing ones,
but not always). Commercial organisations like yours and mine help
museums merge these vertical applications into more integrated data
landscapes - e.g. making collections online more accessible by creating
narrative and interpretation through content management. For that, we
need to extract object data from the collection management system and
merge it with a content management system, to allow creating contextual
information (highlights, themes, trails, exhibitions, etc) - something
that is not always possible to do with the collection management
software.
>
> The issue is: the two systems I mentioned (collection and content
management, as well as the many more that museums use) look very
different on the surface, but it would seem to me they all share the
same needs in terms of data management: relational databases with
digital asset management (I am not mentioning RDF on purpose - as that
can be applied later). On top of that, some applications will need
procedures and workflows, while others won't - but again, those are
simply more modules and relational data. This applies to every other
application a museum normally use - not simply to collection data. Of
course I am oversimplifying the issues, but probably not too much.
>
> Why cannot a more modular approach and system be imagined, one which
museums may use to take care of all of their information (a true
museum's knowledge management system), instead of going on using
isolated applications, which are indeed getting more and more open and
accessible and can of course be integrated, but require considerable
cost and effort to do so?
>
> Thank you,
> Cristiano
>
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2012, at 16:20, Ben Rubinstein <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> (Getting away somewhat from the original poster's question...)
>>
>> On 30/08/2012 13:28, Nick Poole wrote:
>>> I know that several larger UK museums are starting to think of their
>>> 'information landscape' and how they get value to flow across
>>> collections, documentation, digitisation, education, web and paper
>>> publishing, retail and licensing, conservation and other functions
>>> in as seamless and integrated a way as possible.
>> [snip]
>>> To put it simply, over the next 10 years, museums are going to have
>>> to accept a lot more new data into their systems, and are going to
>>> be asked to make it available, robustly and reliably through a lot
>>> more output channels.
>>
>> I agree so far.
>>
>>> It seems likely that most people will follow a path from partial
>>> integration to middleware to full systems integration and/or
>>> refactoring. I would really love to hear from people who have either
>>> found an alternative route, or are embarked on one of the approaches
>>> I've described above.
>>
>> I'm less convinced about the end of that path.
>>
>> Just as there isn't a single solution for collections management, not
least because the needs of a portrait collection differ from a general
fine art collection differ from a natural history collection etc; so I
don't think there will ever be a system no matter how modular that meets
the needs of all the different parts of an organisation - and I wouldn't
think such a monoculture would be healthy anyway.
>>
>> It's much more plausible to assume that data that should be shared
outside the institution will always be managed through a variety of
different systems; and therefore that solutions for making that data
available will always need to involve some kind of middleware that
retrieves, connects and aggregates data to make it available downstream.
If not "always need to" then I'll at least go for "should" - even where
the landscape is simple enough that you could hook two systems together
by API, you have to assume that change is gonna come, and it's better to
build in fire-breaks and buffers.
>>
>> APIs and XML and RDF and documentation standards and metadata
exchange standards are all good and useful parts of this, that help make
middleware solutions cheaper, more re-usable, more adaptable - but I
just don't believe in the single, covers everything, does everything,
integrated solution as the end point for many people's path.
>>
>> warm regards,
>>
>> Ben
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|