1 / 25

On Digital Archives for sharing cultural resources

On Digital Archives for sharing cultural resources KUBO, Masatoshi Professor, Research Center for Cultural Resources, National Museum of Ethnology (NME) kubom@idc.minpaku.ac.jp 2006/01/23

benjamin
Download Presentation

On Digital Archives for sharing cultural resources

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On Digital Archives for sharing cultural resources KUBO, Masatoshi Professor, Research Center for Cultural Resources, National Museum of Ethnology (NME) kubom@idc.minpaku.ac.jp 2006/01/23

  2. The general functions of the National Museum of Ethnology (NME)(1) Ethnological and anthropological research(2) Collection, conservation of ethnographical materials and information(3) Public Exhibition

  3. about 260,000 artifacts Storage for Artifacts

  4. about 70,000 materials Storage for Audio Visual Materials Movable Shelves in Room with 18-degree C. Original Negative Film in Special Cool Room with 12-degree C.

  5. 10,000 artifacts are exhibited in about 10,000 m2 Exhibit Hall

  6. Question about Ethnographical Materials Management 1) Is it a true assumption that the ethnographical materials described or collected by a researcher is objective? 2) Could the relation between the described-side and describing-side be viewed with symmetry? The latter is sometimes dominant over the former in political, economic, and even cultural phases. 3) Are the ethnographical materials collected and described by the dominant side sometimes exclusively possessed by that side, not to mention "cultural deprivation"? Answer to above question seems to(1) renaming of ethnographical materials(2) introduction of forum-type collaboration

  7. Renaming “Ethnographical Materials” to “Cultural Resources” Term “ethnography” implies that materials are viewed from describing-side only. On the other hand; Term “cultural resources” implies 1) They are primarily owned by site people 2) They are resources for understanding own culture as well as other culture 3) They are also a kind of “global commons” － toward “treasury of human wisdom”

  8. In Context of UNESCO Coverage of “Cultural Resources” Resources visible or easy to become visible TCH (Tangible Cultural Heritage) instruments, objects, artifacts, cultural spaces • - visible products from cultural heritage • to daily necessities • documents of tangible and intangible • cultural heritage represented by text, • image, moving image, sound, etc.- secondary documents • - tertiary documents Immovable CH sites, landscape, etc. Invisible embodied resources Invisible system-like resources ICH (Intangible Cultural Heritage) • - oral traditions and expressions • - performing arts • social practices, rituals, festive • events • - knowledge and practices • - traditional craftsmanship • - human-network • - organization • - institution • concept of • intellectual properties • etc. - knowledge - skill - technique - know-how

  9. Key Points about Cultural Resources • Cultural resources are alive and inherently changeful, • should not be taken as frozen. • Cultural resources covers not only outstanding masterpieces, • but also everything relating to daily and ordinary life. • The concept of “authenticity” should be excluded. • Every cultural group has the rights to revive, modify, • recreate, merge existing resources, • if it provides them with a sense of identity and continuity. • Ownership of the resources must be respected. • When managing them, owners must be involved as equal- • partners, based on predefined “codes of ethics”.

  10. Key Issue forManaging Cultural Resources (1) Needs of literacy in cultural resources management (2) Needs of archivists specializing in each specific area (3) Sustainableconservation and use of cultural resources One solution is digitizing, but eternal “data migration” will be necessary to follow up the rapid change of both data format and storage media. (4) Balance between protection of various rights of resources and sharing of them. * pro-patent vs. public-domain * consideration on non-Western concept of rights “culturally defined intellectual properties” (5) Balance between cost and performance * “true multi media”

  11. Key Issue forCulturally Defined Intellectual Properties (1) collective rights, custodianship (2) specific profile rights; ex. Australian Aboriginal culture prohibits exposing faces of the deceased person (3) access to sacred/secret cultural resources; access must be limited, with the consent of relevant cultural owners (4) problem of “repatriation”

  12. Discussion On “Commons” pro-patent pro-IP (Intellectual Properties) anti-patent, anti-IP movements “commons” ex. creative commons Western World Non-Western World pro-patent, pro-IP for claiming rights, identity, etc. culturally defined intellectual properties ex. “cultural moral rights”

  13. About Repatriation Probable Solutions; (1) Where cultural ownership can be established, and those institutions can demonstrate their ability to preserve and maintain the items, the resource must be repatriated. (2) Where preservation and maintenance of resources at the owner society is difficult, ownership and information or copy is repatriated, while original resources themselves will be maintained at the proper institutes or museums. Based on the negotiation, information can be shared between owner and keeper organization. Virtual Repatriation

  14. Proposal: Introduction of Forum-Type Collaboration in the Cultural Resources Management Establishing forum for sharing cultural resources among cultural owners, researchers and users including web/museum visitors, that has the following effects: (1) Shift from exclusive control by specialists to sharing and joint works (2) Change of research ethics (3) Upgrading information through sharing (4) Cultural restoration at the sites (5) Shift from construction of intellectual databases to discovery of human wisdom (6) The effects of fusion of the humanities and natural sciences

  15. Flow of Cultural Resources Management Headwaters Upper Stream Mid Stream Lower Stream Investigation　＆ Collection of Materials Conservation and Keeping Put to Academic Use Put to Public Use Documentation & Computerization Social and International Collaboration

  16. Flow of Cultural Resources Management and Forum-Type Collaboration

  17. Examples of forum-type database/archives project we were/are concerned (1) Collaboration of Japanese museums and art galleries (2) Making and sharing of ethnographical videos between NME and museums in Southeast Asia (3) MEF (Multimedia Educational Forum) with school teachers in Osaka Prefecture (4) Creation of cultural macro-micro time-space map: for investigating Eco-History of Southeast Asia (5) Museum-network for sharing ethnological archival collection between Laos and Japan

  18. Concept of MEF (Multimedia Educational Forum) • MEF is a NPO composed of high-school teachers, researchers, • computer venders, etc. in Osaka Prefecture. • Registered member can upload digital teaching materials to the • forum, namely digital archives. • School teachers can download any set of digital materials to form • their own “digital teaching contents.” • Experiences are shared through this forum. • MEF acts as a consultant on Intellectual Properties of digital • materials. • MEF also supports to form and expand human-network among • school teachers. MEF

  19. Proposal:Establishing worldwide forum collaboration for sharing cultural resources Regional forum Global forum Regional forum Regional forum Hub information center databases/archives services clearinghouse services supporting services Local museums, institutions, etc.

  20. Requirements for the database/archives that enables forum-type collaboration • Mechanism for harvesting or cross-search among various types of databases/archives (2) Mechanism for registered member to add to or modify existing information (3) Ensuring individual rights and responsibility (4) Protection of intellectual properties including culturally defined ones.

  21. Centralized passive clearinghouse Web Browser or IR-client Web Browser or IR-client ② ② Client-Side Server-Side Clearinghouse ③ ③ Directory of Indices and Part of data records ① ① Database 1-1 Database 1-2 Database 2-1 Database 2-2 Institute-2 Institute-1 ① Offer common indices and part of data records ② Retrieval of candidate data ③ Retrieval of detailed information

  22. Centralized active clearinghouse Web Browser or IR-client Web Browser or IR-client Client-Side ② ② Clearinghouse Server-Side Search Engine Indices and part of data Harvesting Engine ① ① Database 1-1 Database 1-2 Database 2-1 Database 2-2 Institute-2 Institute-1 ① Harvest data items for constructing directory ② Retrieval of data records

  23. Decentralized Cross-search System Web Browser or IR-client Web Browser or IR-client Client-Side Server-Side Accessing by standard protocol Cross-search Gate Way Cross-search Gate Way Server for standard protocol Server for standard protocol Server for standard protocol Server for standard protocol Metadata representation Metadata representation Metadata representation Metadata representation Database 1-1 Database 1-2 Database 2-1 Database 2-2 Institute-1 Institute-2

  24. Experimental decentralized cross-search system conducted by National Institute of Japanese Literature Participating Institutes National Institute of Japanese Literature National Museum of Japanese History Historiographical Institute, University of Tokyo Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University International Research Center for Japanese Studies National Institute of Informatics National Museum of Ethnology Present Activity * Study of effectiveness of Z39.50 * Feasibility study of protocol other than Z39.50 like OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) * Study of constructing thesaurus; for terms, place-names, era-names, etc.

  25. System Configuration of MARS (Multi Archives Retrieval System)

More Related