1 / 52

Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories

Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories . Group Six Dana Carter, Kristen Holdman-Ross, Molly Masse, Steve Rinker, Kristin Zachrel. Introduction to VRA.

grizelda
Download Presentation

Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories

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. Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories Group Six Dana Carter, Kristen Holdman-Ross, Molly Masse, Steve Rinker, Kristin Zachrel

  2. Introduction to VRA “VRA Core 4.0 is a data standard for the cultural heritage community that was developed by the Visual Resources Association's Data Standards Committee. It consists of a metadata element set (units of information such as title, location, date, etc.), as well as an initial blueprint for how those elements can be hierarchically structured.

  3. Introduction to VRA The element set provides a categorical organization for the description of works of visual culture as well as the images that document them.” VRA Core website, http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/

  4. History of VRA Core • In 1968 visual resources curators met at the College Art Association (CAA) conferences • Wanted to formalize their group within College Art Association. • However, nothing came of this intent and they remained a committee.

  5. History of VRA Core • Another group formed at the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) conferences in the early 1970s. • This group was also involved in visual resources management.

  6. History of VRA Core • 1972 Southeastern College Art Conference (SEAC) and the Mid-America College Art Association (MACAA). • Group created workshops on visual resources maintenance. • Topics • slide room management • standards of VR management • Newsletter called“International Bulletin for Photographic Documentation of the Visual Arts.”

  7. History of VRA Core • In 1980 Visual Resource Curators active in CAA and ARLIS/NA collaborated and formalized their association with one another by creating bylaws for their organization and electing officers. • The first formal meeting of the VRA was held at the CAA conference of 1983.

  8. Core Categories History • Core Categories were developed after research by the Data Standards Committee of the VRA determined that documentation for works of art needed to be standardized. • In 1995 the elements needed to be included when describing works of art were debated.

  9. Core Categories History • In 1996 “The Core Categories for Visual Resources, Version 1.0 (published in the Fall 1996 issue of the VRA Bulletin and on the VRA website).” • VRA Core 4.0 was released on April 9, 2007.

  10. Definition of VRA Core 4.0 • “A data standard for the cultural heritage community” by the Visual Resources Association’s website • It is a metadata scheme “used to describe works of art and visual culture, as well as the images that document it”.

  11. VRA Core 4.0 Goals • “Facilitating the sharing of records for artwork and images between institutions and databases through standardization of description.” • Using VRA Core 4.0 ensures that there is uniformity and consistency between the records or descriptions of various works, • whether they are produced at different institutions, • or by different catalogers • or unrelated works.

  12. VRA Core 4.0 Components • VRA consists of a metadata element set • standardized units of information about any given piece of artwork or image • And a framework for hierarchically structuring those elements.

  13. VRA Core 4.0 Data Elements • 19 different data elements or categories • Examples include: • Agent • date • location • rights • subject

  14. VRA Core 4.0 Sub-Elements • 23 different sub-elements • 21 relate specifically to only one element • Example: Sub-element for agent • attribution • culture • dates (attribute =type) • earliestDate (circa) • latestDate (circa) • name (attribute = type) • role • 2 can be used on any element • Display • Note • Some sub-elements also have attributes that further modify data.

  15. Global Attributes • 9 global attributes that can be applied to any element or sub-element as necessary. • dataDate • extent • href • pref • refid • rules • source • vocab • xml:lang

  16. Element Order • Elements are listed in alphabetical order • Except for the top level element which is listed first. • The top level element must be work, collection, or image. • It distinguishes whether the record is referring to • an actual object, • a collection of objects, • or a visual surrogate or image of a work

  17. Completed Structure • Put it all together, this is what the hierarchical structure looks like for the “agent” element of a record: • Agent • Attribution • Culture • dates (type) • earliestDate (circa) • latestDate(circa) • name (type) • role

  18. Element Flexibility • No single element is strictly required in any given record, nor do they all have to be used, however, • Providing the basic who, what, when, where, how, and subject at minimum is strongly suggested (Eklund), if known.

  19. Restricted vs. Unrestricted Versions • The unrestricted allows any value or words to be input in the type attribute and is recommended for local cataloging • The restricted requires controlled values (wording) and date formats to be input in the record.

  20. XML • There have been several versions of the VRA Core Categories prior to the current 4.0 version. • One of the major changes from past versions and a very important characteristic of VRA Core 4.0 is that it has been designed to be expressed or encoded in XML. • This is to further enable record sharing and exchange.

  21. About XML • Extensive Markup Language may seem unfamiliar. • XML is a non-proprietary text-based encoding system similar to HTML. • While HTML is about displaying information, XML is about describing information structure and meaning. • XML schema files are flexible. A file may be as strict or as lax as needed.

  22. CDWA • Among encoding and metadata standards, VRA Core is similar to CDWA, another metadata standard used for cultural heritage objects, art, and images. • ALA describes it as “the mother of all metadata” for art materials in a 1999 Networked Resources & Metadata Committee Situation Report. • It stands for Categories for the Description of Art Work and was created by the Art Information Task Force in the 1990’s. • CDWA has 532 categories and sub-categories and seems to be a much larger system with more general applications than VRA, which is specifically designed for the sharing of visual resource records.

  23. Tools • To make the best use of VRA Core 4.0, it must be used in conjunction with tools for standardizing data contents and data values within the records. • Data value standards dictate what terms to use to describe an item and data contents standards are rules for how to format and organize those words.

  24. Data Value Standards • Data value standards that are used with VRA Core 4.0 include • Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), • the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), • Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT). • Library of Congress authority files are used as well.

  25. Example • Here are some examples of records created using VRA Core 4.0, provided by the VRA on vraweb.org: • This is what the XML coding would look like for the record of Goya’s Los Caprichos http://gort.ucsd.edu/escowles/vracore4/examples/02.xml

  26. Example • This is how it might display in a database: • http://gort.ucsd.edu/escowles/vracore4/examples/02-display.html

  27. Uses of VRA • The Core is divided up into different sections or Sets. • These Sets consist of elements & sub-elements. These sets allow for the recording of multiple values so if there are multiple artists, or multiple media used, they can all be included.

  28. Data Standards • Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images (CCO): • provides consistent data content to produce more effective data exchange. • tells the user how to populate the different fields in the Core. • VRA established the fields and the CCO tells you what data to enter into the fields.

  29. Getty Union List of Artists Names (ULAN) • Resource to use to provide consistency when populating the creator field. It supplies • the artist’s or manufacturer’s name (including any spelling variants), • dates (birth, death, work span, etc.), • role (painter, sculptor, artist, etc. and specifies preferred role), • gender, • other pertinent info. • http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/ulan/

  30. Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) • Same as ULAN except it provides the proper terminology for things like • work type (paintings, tables, lamps, armchairs), • creator role (painter, sculptor), • material (oil, glass, etc). • It allows for more specificity with terminology while creating a consistent standard • http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/

  31. Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN) • Again the same as ULAN & AAT but for geographic names, ie. Chicago, London, etc. • http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/tgn/

  32. Who Uses the Core • Museums & Academic Institutions • Creates a more reputable & thorough setting for accessing images & image content than a public source like Google Images. • Many institutions keep their databases password protected.

  33. Could be Used for Record Sharing • Images are endless • Wouldn’t be able to tailor to individual institution • Can choose the order in which the info will display • Wouldn’t be able to choose what info to include in description and notes fields based on what user needs to know • Cataloging mistakes & variations are also shared

  34. Capa’s Portrait of Picasso

  35. Joseph Beuys “How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare”

  36. Beuys: I Like America and America Likes Me

  37. Searching • http://www.lib.ku.edu/imagegateway/ • www.via.lib.harvard.edu

  38. Evaluation • The description of anything visual can be arbitrary. • Our perceptions are highly individualized. • VRA Core exists to provide an appropriate and hopefully inclusive means of describing original art, images, photographs, architecture, fashion, and even performance art.

  39. Janice Ecklund Quotation “Cultural works are as individual as the artists who create them and the scholars who write about them,” according to Janice Eklund a member of the VRA Data Standards Committee work group. “And this also extends to the descriptive metadata that has been recorded and published about them.”

  40. Evaluation • Much of the information recorded about cultural works is scholarly opinion. • Information professionals must record this information for effective retrieval in a compatible computer environment without compromising any nuanced artistic and scholarly content.

  41. Evaluation • Since the introduction of VRA Core 1.0 in 1996, three upgrades have been released: • Core 2.0, published in 1998; • Core 3.0, published in 2002; • Core 4.0 Beta, published in 2005; and the latest • Core 4.0, published in 2007. • Each subsequent core has built upon its predecessor.

  42. Evaluation • The mapping of Core 1.0 was influenced by other standards such as MARC and the Getty-sponsored “Categories for the Description of Works of Art, “ or CDWA. • The first core was more or less a “rough draft” without any real sense of how the elements might interact in application. • This led to a more sophisticated scheme in 2.0 including more descriptors.

  43. Evaluation • Effective data exchange emerged as a primary reason for revising the VRA Core. • Digital technology also impacted the way many analog slide and picture collections were being managed. • Varying data structures and content rules made mapping data to VRA Core 3.0 categories inconsistent and problematic.

  44. Evaluation • VRA sponsored the development of the Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) project. • The CCO is a guide to describing cultural works and their images. • Out of this also came the emergence of Extensible Markup Language (XML) as the data exchange format of choice. • The XML expression became an effective way to merge image metadata from different library collections.

  45. Janice Ecklund Quotation Ecklund explains, “The local image data could be mapped to the VRA Core and tagged according to XML schema developed expressly for the VRA Core. The XML schema emerged as a logical extension of the revised VRA Code and a vital component in reaching the goal of using the Core as an effective mechanism for data exchange. …The XML VRA Core, coupled with CCO brings us closer to the goal of a shared cataloging environment for visual resources.”

  46. Advantages of VRA Core • Provides a basic element set to consider when designing descriptive metadata fields for a database model. • It has “the potential to be both a point of departure and a common destination for image collection managers who (wish) to administer their data locally, and export it for discovery in a larger resource or repository.”

  47. Advantages of VRA Core • The greatest challenge found in shared collections was the inconsistent data content and submission format. • Thus, the goal became to develop a format where different collections with varying descriptive structures could map their data to a common set of core elements.

  48. Changes from 3.0 to 4.0 • Because many visual resource collections had adapted Core 3.0, it was decided the next version should remain as close to the 3.0 model as much as possible. • Rather than re-invent the VRA Core, revisions were made with the intention to make data values contained in the existing elements more specific while providing a means in which an XML schema could be introduced.

  49. Changes from 3.0 to 4.0 • The XML interface is a vital addition • The latest version of the Core is laden with many bells and whistles. However, they are there only if needed. He uses a visual paradigm to compare past and present Cores.

  50. Ben Kessler Quotation • “(The) earlier versions of the VRA Core might look something like an antique secretary with its sequence of cubbyholes built to hold objects of varying sizes, but fundamentally inert in structure. By contrast, VRA Core 4.0 might be envisioned as something like a fancy picnic hamper, with its highly specified functionality --- an efficient carrying case for the complex sets of data visual resources professionals deal with every day.”

More Related