KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Contents

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7

KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION

Official Journal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization ISSN 0943 – 7444 International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation

Contents

Special Issue: Knowledge Organization within Ina-Maria Jansson. the Museum Domain, Guest Editor, Melissa Gill Organization of User-Generated Information in Image Collections and Impact of Rhetorical Melissa Gill. Mechanisms...... 515 Knowledge Organization within the Museum Domain: Introduction...... 469 Adrian Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter Articles in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections ...... 529

Hannah Turner. Andrea Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, Jodi Schneider, Organizing Knowledge in Museums: Michael Twidale and Bertram Ludäscher. A Review of Concepts and Concerns...... 472 Logic-Based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases...... 545 Alexandre Fortier and Elaine Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN: Offering Júlia Magdolna Katona . a Simple Standardization Starts with Understanding The Cultural and Historical Contexts of What Museums Do ...... 485 Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe: Rick Szostak. A Case Study for the Standardized Description A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification of Museum Objects...... 559 in Museums ...... 494 Books Recently Published...... 578 Lala Hajibayova and Kiersten F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects Through Bourdieu’s Lens...... 506

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7

KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION KO

Official Journal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization ISSN 0943 – 7444 International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation

KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Michael KLEINEBERG, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin. E-mail: [email protected] This journal is the organ of the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION (General Secretariat: Amos María J. LÓPEZ-HUERTAS. Universidad de Granada, Facultad de Bib- DAVID, Université de Lorraine, 3 place Godefroy de Bouillon, BP lioteconomía y Documentación, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, Bib- 3397, 54015 Nancy Cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected]. lioteca del Colegio Máximo de Cartuja, 18071 Granada, Spain. E-mail: Editors [email protected] Kathryn LA BARRE, The Graduate School of Library and Information Richard P. SMIRAGLIA (Editor-in-Chief), School of Information Stud- Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 E. Daniel Street, ies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Northwest Quad Building B, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2025 E Newport St., Milwaukee, WI 53211 USA. E-mail: [email protected] Devika P. MADALLI, Documentation Research and Training Centre (DRTC) Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Bangalore 560 059, India. Melodie J. FOX (Reviews Editor), Bryant & Stratton College, 310 W. E-mail: [email protected] Wisconsin Ave., Ste 500E, Milwaukee, WI 53203 USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Jens-Erik MAI, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Co- penhagen Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] Joshua HENRY, Institute for Knowledge Organization and Structure, Shorewood WI 53211 USA. Daniel MARTÍNEZ-ÁVILA, Departamento de Ciência da Informação, Universidade Estadual Paulista–UNESP, Av. Hygino Muzzi Filho 737, J. Bradford Young (Bibliographic Consultant), Institute for Knowledge 17525-900 Marília SP Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] Organization and Structure, Shorewood WI 53211, USA. Elaine MÉNARD, School of Information Studies, McGill University, Editors Emerita 3661 Peel Street Suite 303A, Montréal, Quebec, H3A 1X1, Canada. E- Hope A. OLSON, School of Information Studies, University of Wis- mail: [email protected] consin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Northwest Quad Building B, 2025 E Widad MUSTAFA el HADI, Université Charles de Gaulle Lille 3, URF Newport St., Milwaukee, WI 53211 USA. E-mail: [email protected] IDIST, Domaine du Pont de Bois, Villeneuve d’Ascq 59653, France. Clare BEGHTOL, Faculty of Information Studies, University of To- E-mail: [email protected] ronto, 140 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G6, Canada. H. Peter OHLY, Prinzenstr. 179, D-53175 Bonn, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ingetraut DAHLBERG, Am Hirtenberg 13, 64732 Bad Konig,̈ Germa- K. S. RAGHAVAN, KAnOE (Centre for Knowledge Analytics & Onto- ny. E-mail: [email protected] logical Engineering), PES Institute of Technology, 100 Feet Ring Road, Editorial Board BSK 3rd Stage, Bangalore 560085, India. E-mail: [email protected]. Thomas DOUSA, The University of Chicago Libraries, 1100 E 57th St, Chicago, IL 60637 USA. E-mail: [email protected] Heather Moulaison SANDY, The iSchool at the University of Missouri, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. Jonathan FURNER, Graduate School of Education & Information E-mail: [email protected] Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, 300 Young Dr. N, Mail- box 951520, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1520, USA. M. P. SATIJA, Guru Nanak Dev University, School of Library and In- E-mail: [email protected] formation Science, Amritsar-143 005, India. E-mail: [email protected] Jesús GASCÓN GARCÍA, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Docu- mentació, Universitat de Barcelona, C. Melcior de Palau, 140, 08014 Aida SLAVIC, UDC Consortium, PO Box 90407, 2509 LK The Hague, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Renato R. SOUZA, Applied Mathematics School, Getulio Vargas Claudio GNOLI, University of Pavia, Science and Technology Library, Foundation, Praia de Botafogo, 190, 3o andar, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, via Ferrata 1, I-27100 Pavia, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] 22250-900, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] Rebecca GREEN, Senior Editor, Dewey Decimal Classification, Dewey Rick SZOSTAK, University of Alberta, Department of Economics, 4 Editorial Office, Library of Congress, Decimal Classification Division , Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2H4. E-mail: [email protected] 101 Independence Ave., S.E., Washington, DC 20540-4330, USA. E- mail: [email protected] Joseph T. TENNIS, The Information School of the University of Washington, Box 352840, Mary Gates Hall Ste 370, Seattle WA 98195- José Augusto Chaves GUIMARÃES, Departamento de Ciência da 2840 USA. E-mail: [email protected] Informacão, Universidade Estadual Paulista–UNESP, Av. Hygino Muzzi Filho 737, 17525-900 Marília SP Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] Maja ŽUMER, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 2, Ljubljana 1000 Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected] Birger HJØRLAND, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 469 M. Gill. Knowledge Organization in the Museum Domain: Introduction

Knowledge Organization within the Museum Domain: Introduction Melissa Gill Getty Research Institute, 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite #1100, Los Angeles, California, USA,

Melissa Gill is the Digital Projects Manager for the Digital Art History program at the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles. She holds a master’s degree in library and information science from the University of Washing- ton and a bachelor’s degree in art history from Western Washington University. Her research interests include cultural heritage description and access, linked open data, and new methods for metadata creation, remediation, and enrichment. She is also a lecturer in the Graduate School of Education and Information Science at UCLA, teaching graduate seminars on metadata.

Gill, Melissa. 2017. “Knowledge Organization in the Museum Domain: Introduction.” Knowledge Organization 44, no. 7: 469-471. 5 references.

Abstract: This special issue is concerned with knowledge organization in the museum domain, exploring the standards and processes for structuring and managing museum knowledge. Museums, like libraries and archives, are memory institutions for recording, preserving, and disseminating the history of material culture. Museums and their collections are exceedingly heterogeneous, reflecting the fields of art history, natural history, anthropology, and the sciences. The diverse range of museum objects necessitates complex and specialized KOSs to describe their materiality and context. Museum knowledge organization is object- and context-specific, sensitive to the unique instantiation of an object and its temporal, geospatial, and cultural relationships. This timely special issue on museum knowledge organization reflects contemporaneous challenges and, more broadly, an adoption of information science methodologies and practices within the museum sphere.

Received: 28 September 2017; Accepted 30 September 2017-09-30

Keywords: museums, museum knowledge organization, museum collections, objects

1.0 Museums and knowledge organization have shaped the museum from its nascent origins in the eighteenth century to its modern instantiation today. This special issue is concerned with knowledge organiza- Museums and their collections are exceedingly hetero- tion in the museum domain, exploring the standards and geneous, reflecting the fields of art history, natural his- processes for structuring and managing museum knowl- tory, anthropology, and the sciences. The American Alli- edge. Museums, like libraries and archives, are memory ance of Museums Code of Ethics (American Alliance of institutions for recording, preserving, and disseminating Museums 2000) further clarifies that the museum domain the history of material culture. Museums have public is composed of governmental and private museums of trust to enact rightful ownership, care, documentation, anthropology, art history and natural history, aquariums, accessibility, and disposal of their collections (American arboreta, art centers, botanical gardens, children's muse- Alliance of Museums 2000). With the widespread adop- ums, historic sites, nature centers, planetariums, science tion of Web 2.0 information technologies in the early and technology centers, and zoos. Therefore, the types of twenty-first century, museum visitors increasingly assume objects collected and exhibited by museums are diverse: they’ll have comprehensive, instantaneous, and interactive organic and inorganic, cultural and natural, ancient and access to museum collections. In turn, this builds an ex- contemporary. Museums have even turned natural organ- pectation that museums function as knowledge spaces isms and their environmental matter into cultural artifacts equivalent to libraries. Museums, however, have a differ- through collection and description (Buckland 1997). ent framework for knowledge organization (KO) than do What binds these objects together is the practice of col- their library and archival counterparts, because they his- lecting, or the assemblage and arrangement of objects, torically have not privileged public knowledge dissemina- which dictates their descriptive attributes and imposes an tion. Museum KO is additionally affected by the conflu- order that in many cases decontextualizes the object from ence of social, political, and technological factors that its original context. 470 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 M. Gill. Knowledge Organization in the Museum Domain: Introduction

The diverse range of museum objects necessitates individuating characteristics. Unlike copy-cataloging in complex and specialized KOSs to describe their material- the library domain, each institution is viewed as the au- ity and context. Museum holdings range from encyclope- thoritative source for the objects in its collection and is dic collections that attempt to represent sometimes dispa- tasked with creating information records for each object. rate cultures and time periods harmoniously to incredibly This tenet of individuality has historically inhibited data- specialized collections that narrowly focus on a single time sharing between institutions, resulting in local schemas, as period, culture, or type of object. Even specialized institu- well as control lists, name authorities, and thesauri to de- tions, such as the Museum of Modern Art, with its precise scribe collections. collecting scope of visual arts from the late nineteenth In addition to the characteristics of objects that com- century to the present, acquire a wide breadth of objects. prise these institutions’ collections, museum KO is af- An analysis (Museum of Modern Art 2017) of the mu- fected by infrastructure for storing and disseminating in- seum’s collections dataset illustrates twenty-six unique formation, processes for information creation and collec- classifications across 131,536 objects, including works on tion, and intended uses for the information, which pre- paper, film, software, painting, and architecture. As has suppose the audiences for whom that information is cre- been noted in existing literature (Zorich 1991; Bearman ated. Antecedents for museum metadata include collec- 2008) traditional bibliographic access points such as title, tion or estate inventories, shipping logs and field note- creator, and publisher, do not align with cultural and natu- books, which gave way to museum record keeping in the ral object description. The privileging of these fields often form of physical card catalogs and vertical files and later reflects Eurocentric and contemporary biases in KOSs. relational database systems (Bearman 2008). The data Unlike library materials, information about museum produced and maintained in these systems served fore- objects is infrequently found on the objects themselves most to support institutional stewardship of collections. and therefore requires research of peripheral sources and The jurisdiction of museum KOSs has expanded in re- the documentation of these processes. Because of this, cent years beyond resource management to resource dis- museum objects are not self-describing and knowledge covery and engagement. Open content initiatives—like creation practices are based on attribution rather than those taken on by the Metropolitan Museum of Art and transcription (Bearman 2008). Moreover, museums the J. Paul Getty Museum—and social tagging initiatives document information about an object as it changes over for collections illustrate a movement towards public- time, both within and outside of the institution’s custody. focused use and engagement with museum knowledge. This information entails descriptive, administrative, tech- The World Wide Web has enabled far greater resource nical, and preservation metadata. The activities affiliated discovery than was possible with local card catalogs; with an object, its creation, acquisition, exhibition, con- however, discoverability is contingent on interoperability servation, and deaccession, are captured and preserved. across data sets and requires standards (Baca et al. 108). Museum labels, didactic text, and publications produce The heterogeneous, dynamic, idiosyncratic, and some- additional interpretive knowledge about objects. Because it times subjective nature of museum metadata behooves a changes often, retention of this information is key; as non-standardized approach to knowledge organization. well, it demands additive, instead of reductive, informa- Over the latter half of the twentieth and into the twenty- tion gathering. For example, an object record for nine- first century, however, efforts have been made to stan- teenth century French artist Éduoard Manet’s painting dardize museum data within and across domains for de- Portrait of Madame Brunet owned by the J. Paul Getty Mu- scription, management, and exchange, such as: ICON- seum privileges all known titles by publishing the alterna- CLASS (first published 1973), the Chenhall Nomenclature tive title Young Woman in 1860 in addition to the abbrevi- system for classifying cultural objects (first published ated published title Portrait of Mme Brunet. The object’s in- 1978), the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus (first pub- terpretive and dynamic information record, an accumula- lished 1990), “Categories for the Description of Works tion and retention of past and present knowledge, is cru- of Art” (first published 1996), VRA Core (first published cial for an object’s successful stewardship and interpreta- 1996), the CIDOC-CRM (International Council of Mu- tion. seums, International Committee for Documentation- Museum knowledge organization is object- and con- Conceptual Reference Model) (1999), Cataloging Cultural text-specific, sensitive to the unique instantiation of an Objects (2006), Darwin Core (first published 2009), Light- object and its temporal, geospatial, and cultural relation- weight Information Describing Objects (2010), and ships. Even instances of multiplicity, such as an edition SPECTRUM. With a growing emphasis to expose collec- of lithograph prints dispersed across institutions or the tions online and the larger LAM (libraries, archives, and several monarch butterfly specimens collected from dif- museum) community’s movement towards adopting se- ferent field expeditions, are treated as unique entities with mantic web technologies, museums are thinking strategi- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 471 M. Gill. Knowledge Organization in the Museum Domain: Introduction cally about how to widely publish interoperable data as zation systems, while simultaneously contributing to an part of a wider network of cultural heritage knowledge. ecosystem of shared cultural knowledge. The American Art Collaborative, a consortium of fourteen institutions in the United States, is paving the way References through its community-driven work to produce shared knowledge organization systems, supporting tools, and American Alliance of Museums. 2000. “Code of Ethics best practices for museum data and the semantic web. for Museums.” http://aam-us.org/resources/ethics- standards-and-best-practices/code-of-ethics 2.0 Contemporaneous challenges in Baca, Murtha, Erin Coburn, and Sally Hubbard. 2008. this special issue “Metadata and Museum Information.” In Museum In- formatics: People, Information, and Technology in Museums, This timely special issue on museum knowledge organiza- ed. Paul F. Marty and Katherine Burton Jones, 107-27. tion reflects contemporaneous challenges and, more Routledge Studies in Library and Information Science broadly, an adoption of information science methodolo- 2. New York: Routledge. gies and practices within the museum sphere. Museums Bearman, David. 2008. “Representing Museum Knowl- are tasked with both remediating and repurposing knowledge.” In Museum Informatics: People, Information, and edge from the past, as well as with strategizing new ap- Technology in Museums, ed. Paul F. Marty and Katherine proaches for creating, organizing, and enriching collec- Burton Jones, 45-57. Routledge Studies in Library and tions metadata for a future filled with diverse perspectives. Information Science 2. New York: Routledge. The papers in this special issue address the fields of visual Marty, Paul F. 2010. “Museum Informatics.” In Encyclope- arts, natural history, and anthropology and feature a wide dia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd ed, ed. Marcia range of topics: historiographical and critical assessments J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack. Boca Raton, FL: CRC of museum KOSs; new public participatory processes for Press, 3717-25. museum knowledge creation; metadata typologies and Museum of Modern Art. 2017. CSV export of the Mu- schemas for standardizing specialized and aggregated col- seum of Modern Art Collection. GitHub. https://doi. lections; alignment of existing metadata schemas; and new org/10.5281/zenodo.877334 forms of subject classification based on broader user Zorich, Diane M. 1991. “Library and Museum Informa- needs. As museums transition into the twenty-first cen- tion: Beauty and the Beast.” Spectra: A Quarterly Publica- tury, they will need to grapple with pivotal questions of tion of the Museum Computer Network 18, no how to effectively handle the individuating and historical circumstances of their collections and knowledge organi-

472 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns

Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns Hannah Turner Simon Fraser University, School for Interactive Art and Technology, 250-13450 102nd Avenue, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3T 0A3, Primary Email: , Secondary Email:

Hannah Turner is a postdoctoral fellow in the Making Culture Lab at the School of Interactive Arts and Tech- nology (SIAT) at Simon Fraser University in Surrey, BC. She received her PhD in 2015 on the topic of knowledge infrastructures and museum cataloging from the University of Toronto. Her research has explored histories of ethnographic documentation and the computerization of museum catalogs. She is currently working on writing histories of virtual reality in museums, and understanding the social and ethical issues when documenting museum objects using 3D scanners.

Turner, Hannah. 2017. “Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns.” Knowledge Organization 44(7): 472-484. 104 references.

Abstract: This paper critically analyzes and ties together contemporary perspectives in information studies, science and technology studies, knowledge organization and indigenous postcolonial theory (particularly concerning ontologies and knowledge organization) and defines the development of a field of thought for museum knowledge organization. It also proposes a selection of terms or ideas for the field of knowledge organization in museums and begins to historicize the development of the field. This paper calls attention to the practical and intellectual issues raised when other knowledges “meet” museums systems as well. The history of the study of museums within Foucauldian thought, the origins of contemporary ideas of the socio-technical, the utility of the metaphor of infrastructure, and the notion of technological affordance are all ideas that have been useful in understanding standardized systems in large institutional repositories, especially as museum collections continue to be digitized and circulated widely by communities. This paper plots the issues we as scholars and professionals should be attentive to when studying the organization of knowledge in museums by developing a theoretical standpoint that engages seriously with the ethics and politics of knowledge.

Received: 23 June 2017; Revised: 19 September 2017; Accepted: 30 September 2017

Keywords: knowledge, knowledge organization systems (KOSs), museums, indigenous approaches

1.0 Introduction colonial theory, and information studies. The goals are theoretical: to begin to define the development of a field The topic of organizing knowledge in museums has been of thought as scholars continue to question if museum recently addressed (Duarte and Belarde-Lewis 2015; standards of description should change through time, or MacNeil 2016; Marty and Jones 2008; Turner 2015), and if taxonomic reparations should be considered part of increased attention is being paid to developing this sub- the reconciliatory work of museums today (Adler 2016, ject within a field of study and a history of ideas. Much for example). Increased attention to the practical and in- like in the field of archives and libraries, histories of tellectual issues raised when other knowledges “meet” knowledge organization systems in museums should be museums systems is necessary, particularly in the context written, and this should be done with attention paid to of changing digital technologies. What set of critical the power relationships that are embedded into systems, terms and texts aid us in understanding and theorizing taxonomies, and technologies (see Gilliland 2012). This the museum as a place of knowledge organization and paper situates the museum in a material semiotic perspec- creation, not only display? In developing this theoretical tive to take up some of the challenges posed in the litera- scaffolding, this paper proposes a set of issues we as ture to historicize and destabilize knowledge organiza- scholars and professionals should be attentive to when tion, particularly concerning the information records, da- studying the organization of knowledge in museums. tabases, and catalogs. This paper ties together contempo- These questions do not arise in a vacuum and are in- rary perspectives in sciences studies, feminist and post- spired by an approach to understanding the socio- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 473 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns technical born out of epistemologies developed in actor- This paper proposes a small contribution to the field network theory, activity theory, classification studies, me- of knowledge organization and museum studies by tying dia studies, science and technology studies, and feminist together some threads of thought that have appeared in and Indigenous approaches to knowledge. Concepts like the literature. I first plot the history of ideas concerning infrastructure (Edwards et al. 2009), technological affor- museums and knowledge organization with a focus on dance (Gibson 1979; Leonardi and Barley 2008; Nagy the concept of the Foucauldian episteme and how this and Neff 2015), ontology (Almeida Campos and Gomes was taken up by museum scholars like Tony Bennett and 2016), and material or media durability (Dourish and Eileen Hooper-Greenhill. Out of this review, I propose a Mazmanian 2013; Gitelman 2006, 2014; Law 1992, 2008; socio-technical framework for understanding knowledge Turner 2016a) call to the social relations made stable by organization in museums, and build upon this by intro- knowledge organization systems more broadly, yet these ducing the concept of infrastructure. Third, I raise a se- are sparingly applied to the study of museum catalogs ries of key terms or issues that are at stake when we think and information structures. These terms connote the re- about organizing knowledge in museums: the roles of lations created or formalized by technologies, which is a classification and technological affordance, and the “da- specific philosophical standpoint that takes up calls to ta” of museum work. Last I raise debates in post-colonial recognize and destabilize the infrastructures that sort and knowledge practices. A major aim of this paper is to differentiate our worlds (Doyle 2013; Adler 2016). These point to other work that has done the kind of cataloging are not inherently bad, of course, and as Mary Douglas histories or taxonomic otogenies that others have pro- (1970) famously argued (and as many others have recog- posed (e.g., Tennis 2002). To what forms can we pay at- nized), classifications, taxonomies, schemes, and formats tention when studying the organization of knowledge— are necessary for the functioning of distinct systems and particularly in these heterogeneous museum institutions? collective wholes or even communities. Plotting these What set of critical terms and texts aid us in understand- socio-technical systems, whether recognized as such or ing and theorizing the museum as a place of knowledge not, is not an easy task and requires speaking with indi- organization and creation, not only display? viduals, observing work patterns, understanding the technologies used (cataloging databases for example), and 2.0 Historicizing knowledge organization conducting archival research. in museums Creating any knowledge organization scheme is a for- mative and world-building exercise, and in the world build- Museums can be both a field of study and topic of inter- ing of systems, other worlds are put aside. This is not nec- est and have been studied in a variety of ways, many of essarily a problem, in fact, it is necessary for the function- which I have covered elsewhere (Turner (2016b, 102): ing of the whole, as socio-technical knowledge frameworks (like other knowledge frameworks) are defined by their In one respect, the history of museums is one of boundaries. Museum knowledge is no exception. As het- colonial collections and engagements with other- erogeneous assemblages (literally and metaphorically), no ness—encounters with cultures, peoples, and ob- two are alike. Museums are social institutions. In different jects previously unknown. Historicizing how collec- contexts, they can provide education, provoke or elicit tions were amassed and how a study of material emotional responses, or cultivate third-spaces or contact culture developed and became normalized is impor- zones which can cause visitors to question their relations to tant to a holistic understanding of the development the material world around them. They can shed light on of modern ethnographic museums. In another re- historical facts, injustices, pleasures, etc. Yet, all museums spect, the history of museums is one of documen- and galleries that care for objects rely on pre-existing or tation, authority, and control. pre-defined categories that have shaped a relationship to these objects. The concept of provenance, for example, This posits museums as key sites of knowledge produc- did not come from “on high,” it arose out of a long-held tion and circulation and sets the stage for an understand- situated perspective about the nature of objectivity, ration- ing of the “background” work of museums as an impor- ality, and truth (for example, see Bearman and Lytle 1985). tant site for understanding knowledge organization more Investigating the categorical levels at which we might think broadly. Concepts of the socio-technical, largely devel- through an object, artwork, biological specimen or ar- oped in activity theory and expanded upon by actor net- chaeological artefact is an important and necessary step work theory, allow an analysis of museums that pays at- towards more equitable and ethical approach to knowledge tention to the sets of standards, classifications, and tech- organization broadly (Guimarães et. al. 2016; Littletree and nologies that structure museum work as well as the prac- Metoyer 2015). tices of individuals and the interpersonal or bureaucratic 474 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns negotiations that exist. A significant commitment of so- or false. In other words, objects are defined differently in cio-technical theory, whether situated in activity theory different epistemes—the path to knowing is fundamen- (AT), actor network theory (ANT), or in science and tally different. Part of Foucault’s project was to inject his- technology studies (STS) research, is to understand cog- toricity into the study of the past to create the conditions nition as socio-technical, and that the “social” is mediated for an “effective history”. Foucauldian epistemes can be not only by objects but by history as well. Inspired by cul- read as provocations to understanding a historiography tural historical activity theory (Engeström 2001; Luria of the museum (Hooper-Greenhill 1992). Certainly, he al- 1976; Vygotsky 1962) and the concept of the Fou- lows for the possibility of understanding historical con- cauldian episteme (Foucault 1970), this framework context when doing research on museums, and he arguably siders the situated practices around technologies that in- provides a methodology for doing so. fluence the organization of knowledge. Hooper-Greenhill (1992), following Foucault, has used the concept of “episteme” to understand issues of his- 2.1 Epistemes and ordering museum knowledge torical classification in museums. Hooper-Greenhill, like others, focuses primarily on the ordering of space within Catalogs, lists, digitized databases, work practices, re- the gallery; but her work has significant ramifications for cording keeping—these classification tools and practices a study of documentation systems. Her argument, that an come to structure our organizations and modes of being, “enlightenment episteme” made the concepts of collect- and museums are replete with examples. Much scholar- ing and curating for modern science the core of the mu- ship has sought to understand the connection between seums’ faculties, is a relevant analysis. She argues that museums and organizing the world to understand how knowledge became a commodity that museums could of- and why certain knowledge systems take precedence over fer (1992, 4), and that each episteme through time would others (Barringer and Flynn 1998; Charmantier and allow for a certain kind of object to be more desirable for Müller-Wille 2014; Daston and Galison 2010; Daston and museums. In this sense, and as Tony Bennett (1994; Park 1998; Hooper-Greenhill 1992; Krajewski 2011; Pratt 2004) has argued, classification made it possible to theo- 1992). This resonates strongly with the concept of the rize the unseen, to make the invisible visible. It worked to “episteme,” which was developed by Foucault and later solidify the relationships between the marginalized and applied by Hooper-Greenhill in her historical review of powerful. In the modern episteme, proximity on a large the origins of museum thought. Hooper-Greenhill ar- classification scale was not seen as enough, and the hu- gued that the origins of the modern museum were made man sciences developed. The concept of episteme is rele- possible by a set of certain epistemic assumptions that vant and many disciplines find their predecessors within developed throughout the nineteenth century (Hooper- Foucauldian thought. Importantly, Hooper-Greenhill ar- Greenhill 1992). The influence of the developments gues that the “classical” episteme as identified by Fou- made in the natural sciences, particularly the theory of cault saw museums adopt scientific taxonomies as the ru- evolution (Bennett 2004), had a great impact on the de- brics or standards by which all material culture was docu- velopment of the human sciences and the creation of an- mented. As she notes (192), knowledge became “a pure thropology as a discipline (Dias 1998; Jenkins 1994; Hins- tabulated relationship of words and things.” However, as ley 1981; Parezo 1987; Sheets-Pyenson 1988; Willmott Parry (2007) notes, in the history of the museum in the 2005; Verdon 2006). This in turn affected the way objects first half of the twentieth century, museum knowledge were collected, perceived, and cataloged. was less scientific in its approach to the study of culture. For Foucault (1970), the act of ordering and classify- Museum knowledge, or knowing by association and ing is connected to the production of knowledge more through object study, he argued (51), is akin to knowledge broadly, and that which is considered to be rational is practices in earlier Renaissance contexts, in which it was deeply connected to relationships of domination and the curators who ordered and conducted object studies in subjugation. Knowledge and rationality themselves come a highly personalized and contextualized way. to be defined within “epistemes,” which are “positive and productive sets of relations within which knowledge is 3.0 A socio-technical approach to museum produced and rationality is defined.” Connected (loosely) knowledge organization to epochs (time periods), epistemes are defined by their flux as terms shift and change and as difference is con- I argue that contemporary approaches to studying knowl- stantly repositioned (Hooper-Greenhill 1992, 12). Each edge organization museum settings must consider their episteme has particular characteristics. Epistemes are the material semiotics and infrastructures—terms derived both temporal and intellectual conditions of possibility from information studies but that have deeper histories in wherein a thing, an object, or a fact can be said to be true social studies of science and anthropology. Claims that Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 475 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns concern the metadata of museum records and the impact I consider actor network theory (ANT) as an analytic digitization has made on knowledge organization are built tool rather than a purely theoretical concept (Latour 2005; atop other assumptions about the relationship of tech- Law and Hassard 1999), but it is primarily influenced by nologies and people. A socio-technical approach can craft the work of activity theory, and has since evolved into a the history of a system or a network and provide key in- robust literature that examines the relations and agencies sights into how politics or ethics are inscribed upon, or in, of socio-technical networks. Research in ANT is largely as- technologies. sumed to be a heterogeneous body of literature. It is most Bowker and Star (1999, 156) have argued that studying aptly described as a methodology and a sensibility. The documentation systems and infrastructures is of ethical concept of material semiotics is a refined version of a importance and that “we have a moral and ethical agenda much broader set of ANT literatures and was developed in our querying of these systems. Every standard and through the work of Callon (2005), Latour (1987), Latour each category valorizes some point of view and silences and Woolgar (1986), and Law and Hassard (1999). Material another. This is not inherently a bad thing—indeed, it is semiotics is the mapping of relationships between things inescapable.” and concepts. Studies in material semiotics (Law 2008) pay Understanding museum catalogs as both historical close attention to the semiotic relations, the heterogeneous documents and as sites of negotiation and performance actors, and the “stuff ” of a network. Latour (2005) has is situated most clearly in theories of the “socio- traced the “social” through networks of relationships be- technical.” Concepts of the socio-technical are strongly tween objects and people (actors). Together with Woolgar connected to social constructivist understandings of (1986), Latour has shown how certain objects or ways of knowledge and meaning. Often, this theoretical schema is speaking about things have become naturalized or stan- seen to be informed predominately by actor network the- dard, and then are made immutable and translatable across ory and activity theory. Activity theory, which has been time and space. Other work has explored how laboratories, primarily adopted within the educational learning sci- hospitals, and other places of work involve networks of ences, is a foundational theoretical advancement in cogni- human and non-human actors (Latour 2005). Principally tion that sees the development of meaning in the mind as influenced by post-structuralist notions of discourse (Fou- a primarily social and cultural process, put forward origi- cault 1970), material semiotics grew out of a frustration nally by Vygotsky (1962). For Vygotsky, cognition is a with notions of how science comes to create claims to “mediated activity,” requiring that tools, be they artefac- truth and draws attention to the material relations that are tual or psychological or “technical,” mediate the activity formed through contact with technologies of documenta- or learning. This is often represented as a subject, object, tion and systems of thought (Law and Hassard 1999). and “mediating artifact” triad (Engestrom 2001). Most importantly, studies in material semiotics document As Engestrom argues (2001, 134), the inclusion of cul- not just why networks work, but how. tural artifacts in a Cartesian dualist model of cognition and ANT and material semiotic scholarship have devel- human action was revolutionary as it allowed for the indi- oped several fundamental concepts relevant when study- vidual to be understood within a wider social and cultural ing socio-technical networks and systems. First, ANT context and enabled an understanding of the “society” theories have addressed the presence or function of non- needed to account for the individuals and their artefacts. human actors in complex webs of meaning and inten- Engestrom defines activity theory by its focus on the col- tionality, not unlike earlier activity theory definitions of lective and mediated activity of a system, its recognition of the mediated activity (Latour 2005; Engestrom 2001), al- the multiple nature of communities, their historicity, con- though they are not the first to do so (Todd 2016). Sec- tradiction, and the possibility of transformation (136). The ond, within ANT perspectives, all knowledge is under- social systems, or “activity systems,” are thus reliant on ac- stood to be local (Bowker 2008), and knowledges are en- tors, their artefacts, and their historical “underpinnings.” acted through everyday practices of socio-technical rela- The historicity of activity systems requires an understand- tionships or assemblages (Law 2008; Mol 2002; Suchman ing (137) of the “local history of the activity and its ob- 2007; Harrison, Byrne and Clarke 2013). Third, the con- jects, and a history of the theoretical ideas and tools that cept of the “black box” draws attention to the fact that has shaped the activity.” This historical approach to under- value systems and politics can be affixed or attributed to standing the socio-technical has clear resonance with the material objects and technologies (Latour and Woolgar Foucauldian concept of the “episteme.” These tenets of 1986). Through simplification, actors find themselves in activity theory, particularly cultural historical activity theo- networks whose composition they rarely understand or retical approaches, have all helped craft contemporary ideas are aware of, and thus the political and ethical ramifica- of the “socio-technical” as a complex assemblage of tech- tions become subsumed or embedded into the technolo- nologies (objects) and people. gies or objects that they use, design, or employ. 476 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns

4.1 Museums as data producers? In sum, many scholars now agree that concepts and categories such as facts and data and objects are localized and Within any episteme or socio-technical milieu, different temporal, and that alternative overlapping worlds of kinds of evidences are brought into relief as a way of or- knowledge organize the world in radically different ways ganizing and explaining the world. Historians of science (Bowker 2005; Daston 2012; Harding 1991; Fujimura and have mapped the ways in which facts and data become Luce 1998; Ribes and Bowker 2009). The study of the constructed through complex negotiations of nature, creation or stabilization of knowledge through looking at technology, and observers (Daston and Galison 2010; infrastructures such as standards, categories, and data ar- Knorr-Cetina 1981; Poovey 1998). These ideas were first rangements can potentially explain how it is that multiple expressed by Fleck (1979) and elaborated upon by Kuhn worlds become subsumed into one through normative (1996), who described a paradigm as thought patterns and practice. standards that identify what counts as a legitimate contribution to knowledge in a field. Scholarship since has 5.0 Infrastructure: a key concept of museum sought to dismantle the Kuhnian deterministic paradig- knowledge organization? matic approach, and much of this work has been posi- tioned as social constructivist science (Hacking 2000; The concept of information infrastructure predominately Harding 1991). Recent work has addressed how museums originates from work in studies of science and organiza- acted as scientific laboratories (Bennett 2005), and this tion (Bowker et al. 2010; Edwards et al. 2009; Jackson et. calls the museum as a producer of scientific knowledge al. 2007; Star and Ruhleder 1996). I have begun to theo- into question. rize the relationship between infrastructure and knowl- Many scholars have been influential in crafting ideas of edge organization (Turner 2016a, 164), describing how it how science is practiced and how scientific objects come is “often used to address the large-scale yet often incon- into being, both in a historical and contemporary sense spicuous material networks that structure our world, such (Latour and Woolgar 1986; Knorr-Cetina 1981; Lemov as roads and Internet cables.” The origins were better 2011; Mol 2002; Law 2012). Of relevance is the work of plotted in Bowker and Star’s seminal volume, Sorting Daston (2000, 3), who examined the historical practices Things Out (1999), where they elaborated on the concept of the physical sciences. Daston posited that scientific ob- of infrastructure to show how it is fundamentally linked jects “can be simultaneously real and historical” and as- to questions of power. They argued that classification sumed that reality is “a matter of degree” but that phe- systems and standards were integral to any working infra- nomena become more real as they are “woven into scien- structure (16). Infrastructures are frequently invisible, but tific thought and practice” (1). Daston’s call for an applied are “highly politically and ethically charged” (147) and are metaphysics requires that serious attention be paid to spe- a kind of work that goes unnoticed and naturalized. They cific practices that enable objects or information to come only become visible when an infrastructural inversion oc- to have meaning. Monstuschi’s description and expansion curs, which is when the normalized system comes to the of this idea (2007, 4) reflects the notion that scientific ob- foreground in a kind of gestalt switch. As they articulated jects are indeed different from regular objects, they may or (34), this is done by “looking closely at technologies and may not be “quotidian” things but are “elusive and hard- arrangements that, by design and by habit, tend to fade won.” The material objects in museum collections exist at into the woodwork.” The consequences of existing and a middle ground. They are indeed quotidian objects in the invisible information infrastructures are that the latent most basic sense but are equally constructed by different meanings behind the information schemes go unnoticed sets of epistemological understandings of the world. yet remain politically important. Building on the scholarship of both Foucault and the Mai (2004, 42) reminds us that “the determination of material semiotic approaches to understanding socio- categories in classification is related to the historical, social, technical systems, Daston and her colleague Galison and cultural context in which the classification system is (2010) expanded the notion of how scientific objectivity created and used.” Latour’s classic example of black-boxed came to be accepted as a form of evidence and pedagogy technologies examines the practical politics of a “door- in the physical sciences. They conceptualized that objec- closer” in the context of a work environment. In this tivity as a value and a method in the natural sciences is it- analysis, owing to the technological affordances of the self historically located, and their work is relevant for his- walls, doors are a necessity, and so are the door-closers that tories of scientific observation (within which anthropol- keep them in place (Latour 1987). Through a series of me- ogy is deeply embedded). Daston and Galison reconsid- diated technologies, the door remains shut, and these tech- ered what empirical, observable reality is and how it came nologies often go unnoticed to those who pass through to be practiced in the sciences of the nineteenth century. these doors regularly. The underlying machinery in tech- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 477 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns nology only becomes visible when something does not 5.1 Classifying, cataloging, standardizing work, or the normally functioning whole ceases to do so (Star 1992). It is only in the breakdown of the system Tennis has recently argued (2015, 245-6) that there are where the mechanism, in this case, the door closer, be- several different metatheoretical approaches to under- comes visible and able to be articulated. This is known as standing classification theory. First order classification an infrastructural inversion; it is in the breakdown of the theory, for example, examines how classification schemes system that true interconnectedness is visible. To perform are constructed and used, where second order is con- an infrastructural inversion, one must forcibly “break the cerned with how schemes change over time and how they door closer” to examine the mechanisms of socio- interoperate and how they change depending on context. technical systems that we are often unaware of. Foundational classification theory is what I am concerned Recent work has raised the question of whether with here; that is, attention is paid to the process and the knowledge organization schemes function as information philosophical and definitional aspects of classification infrastructures or knowledge infrastructures in libraries (246). In museums, classification schemes are everywhere, (Doyle 2013, 110) and museums (Beltrame 2012b; and they are historical. Often, words, phrases, and order- Beltrame and Jungen 2013; Turner 2016a). Doyle has fo- ing languages and even concepts like provenance and do- cused on the educational components of library informa- nor come from pre-existing ideas about what an object is tion organization, such as the distinction between hidden and how it should be preserved, often situated in nine- curriculum and official knowledges. She acknowledges teenth century ideals about objectivity and value (as ex- that knowledge organization schemes, the standards and plored above). naming conventions in library classification, function as Much of the study and critique of classification invisible but pervasive infrastructures. She argues that schemes and naming standards (Furner 2007; Lee 2011; there are larger, underlying constraints that shape the sys- Doyle 2013; Lampland and Star 2009; Olson 1993; Olson tem of knowledge in a library setting. Doyle has com- and Ward 1997) has been directed at standard or formal mented (113) on Bowker and Star’s notion of infrastruc- classification schemes used in libraries and in medical ture, arguing that it has changed the notion of classifica- classification literature, for example (Bowker and Star tion “from a predominantly decontextualized and cogni- 1999; Mol 2002). To organize and describe the object of tive model to one that recognizes the situated, collective study in the library, such as the book, article, or multime- and historically contingent nature of classification sys- dia object, librarians rely on a variety of descriptive stan- tems anchored in social practice and politics.” dards that are suggested by federal and international Classificatory schemes and modes of organizing regulating bodies. Similarly, archives rely on international knowledge make up part of working information infra- standards of arrangement and description. Museums, structures, and Bowker and Star (2000, 147) read the ex- however, are unique among other cultural institutions, as plosion in classificatory principles in the late nineteenth their systems of organization consist of some formal or century as both political forces and “organizing rubrics standardized methods, but generally rely on ad hoc sys- for complex bureaucracies.” Understanding classification tems of cataloging that are specific to each individual in- systems and categories is important for understanding the stitution. Furthermore, the naming and organization infrastructure of museum information management and practices have varied through time and vary significantly knowledge production, particularly in the context of between institutions. This is, in part, because cataloging ubiquitous attempts at digitization across all public insti- the plethora and variety of materials in museums, from tutions. Likewise, Lampland and Star have argued (2009) artworks to natural history to paleo-biological species, in that information infrastructures rely heavily on standards, one classification system would be impossible. Museums that is, classification schemes and standardized documen- are defined by the objects they hold, and naming strate- tation practices that are part of everyday practice. Some gies in an art museum will differ fundamentally from of these are formal, some of them are not. While formal- those in a science museum. Even within one museum, ized standards are present in museums in the form of each department will rely on distinct classifications and digital standards for information sharing, such as file standards; for example, biological specimens are cata- names, for the most part, many museums rely on a set of loged according to standards monitored by a variety of informal standards to conduct cataloging practice and scientific councils. Furthermore, in the library setting, have done so throughout their histories. These informal when using the Dewey Decimal Classification, for example, standards take the form of continually updated con- two copies of the same book are classified identically, but trolled vocabularies, ad hoc naming conventions, lookup it is currently understood that each object in a museum lists, and inventory control terms. has a unique and specific history that ultimately shapes the final record individually. 478 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns

Museum catalogs make use of a variety of standard 5.2 Technological affordance practices, nomenclatures, and classifications that are seen as industry standards and are adopted de facto by many As socio-technical studies in classification show, there is a museums internationally. Despite the existence of several dual and reciprocal relationship between the technologies standards developed through the International Organiza- of knowledge organization and the individuals who are re- tion for Standardization (ISO), each museum has its own sponsible for completing these tasks. The ideas that tech- specific method of cataloging objects, which relies on a va- nologies have particular physical qualities is not new. How- riety of different practices. These shift historically and are ever, there has in recent years been a focus on addressing often aligned with previous practice in the institution. or escaping the “problems” with a kind of simple social- However, there are a variety of standards that are designed constructivism. As Nagy and Neff have recently argued to aid museum workers in using unified object terminol- (2015, 3): “affordance is based on a contradiction that it ogies and object classifications. Further, specific software presumes, but does not confront, about the distinction be- often relies on built-in nomenclature standards. For exam- tween matter and mind, materiality and discourse.” As a ple, the Museum System (a popular collections manage- general concept, affordances and constraints define the ment software), includes the Getty Research Institute’s Art material bounds of the object or technology, where the & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) and Thesaurus of Geo- technology in conjunction with a user allows for a specific graphic Names (TGN). KeEMu integrates the Spectrum engagement. Affordances do not necessarily prescribe this Standard, another collections management procedural engagement, but rather they are the loose bounds wherein standard supplemented by definitions of information ele- which human action can shape or change the outcome. ment groups relating to museum objects launched in 1994 Much of this thinking arose from design theory; namely and is a published volume of best practices and naming the work of Gibson (1979) and Norman ([1988] 1990; strategies. Collections management software allows for 1999) and has since shifted to the domain of sociology, in- modification by the local institution, so many of these da- formation and science studies. For Gibson, as Hutchby tabase tools make use of already existing systems of de- (2001) explains, the concept of affordance can reconcile scription and naming that have been used as a part of insti- constructivism and realism, where technologies are not tutional normalized practice. There are a plethora of no- seen to have what he calls “essential technical” properties menclatures and classification systems that seek to provide (Hutchby 2001) but affordances. They have the (444) a framework for museum collections; but due to the fact “functional and relational aspects that frame, while not de- that museums incorporate a variety of types of classes of termining the possibilities for agentic action in relation to material (unlike a library), there is no one system or stan- an object.” Seen in the context of work in materiality (or dard that accounts for the information associated with all the renewed Western interest in object-human relations), objects, across all time periods, in museums over the world. affordances (Nagy and Naff 2015, 4) “can and should be Relatively little scholarship has focused on the historical defined to include properties of technologies that are precedents of these systems. Exceptions include the work ‘imagined’ by users, by their fears, their expectations and of Bearman and Trant (1999), Marty (2007), and Parry their uses, as well as by those of the designers.” While (2007; 2013; 2010). Bearman’s work in particular has fo- Nagy and Naff are interested in defining the term affor- cused on museum digitization. Parry (2007, 137) has traced dance, they also complicate its use, attending to the “latent, a historical narrative of computer technologies in muse- assumed, false, hidden, masked, and blackboxes much of ums and argued that there are “profound discontinuities socio-technical systems,” and that these theories have often between how a museum and a computer both function.” overlooked our effectual and emotional aspects of en- Although he devotes much attention to the history of mu- gagement of technologies. These issues are not necessarily seum computing, his analysis does not extend to the his- new or a product of computing environments, and there torical lineage of cataloging prior to the development of have been many initiatives that have worked to remedy this the database. Material-semiotic relationships are important aspect of organizing knowledge in the context of past when looking at the development of any new technology. practice or legacy data. Hine (2005; 2006, 271) following Thus, from a conceptual theoretical framework that ap- other historians of science such as Galison (1997) and Le- proaches knowledge creation as part of a socio-technical noir (1998), has argued that technologies like digital data- system and a heterogeneous network, this dissertation bases do not ipso facto change scientific practice; but that seeks to understand how museum knowledge is created, they raise key issues that were always at stake like frame- organized and instantiated in the institution. works for evaluation and work practices and bring to light the uncomfortable practices of the past. Strasser (2012, 311), a historian of science, has also argued that natural history collections always included data (drawings, notes, Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 479 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns associated information) and that scientists have been orga- Harding suggests that it is an attempt to take conven- nizing data just as they have physical collections for some tional social relations and practices as problematic (2002, time. 50). Standpoint theories assume, as Ann Doyle has ar- What does this mean for museum knowledge organiza- gued, “an inseparability of power and knowledge” which tion? It means that when working with a catalog system, or has been a central theme to other work in the history of defining a new terminology, many museum staff will know science, specifically with Foucault (Doyle 2013). or feel what Bowker and Star have called (1999, 117) “the Indigenous knowledges are often seen to exist as “op- inescapable inertia of terms or categories already in use.” posed” to Eurocentric and scientific knowledges. One cri- That the affordances of the technical systems, whether tique of this dichotomy is that of Indigenous métissage, put these be catalog cards, ledger books, digital databases, or forward by Donald (2009; 2012) but elaborated upon by even the broader bureaucracy, shape in some part the use Doyle (2013). Métissage can be defined (Donald 2012, 535) and engagement with these systems. As I have noted else- as a conceptual trope and practical tool, whose central ten- where when individuals work in museum knowledge or- ets involve an “ethical relationality” that “does not deny ganization systems, they are inevitably struggling with the difference, but rather seeks to understand more deeply legacies of past practice and the technological systems they how our different histories and experiences position us in use. Technologies and their “affordances” set the condi- relation to each other.” Further, as Donald argues, métissage tions of possibility with which to engage in the work: be it can be used to defy or resist the priority and authority cataloging, exhibition planning, or even hiring. What have given to official texts (2009, 537). In my own work, métis- come to be seen as mundane work practices in museums sage has been a way forward when thinking through the are highly mediated, important activities. In this way, affor- ethical outcomes of organizing both collections and the in- dances are also performative (Leonardi 2011, 148). formation about them. In a recent article, feminist Indigenous scholar Todd 6.0 Postcolonial, feminist, Indigenous knowledge (2016, 8) critiqued the academy’s preoccupation with us- organization ing and Indigenous concepts without recognition, particularly in the realm of anthropology and science studies. It is incredibly important to understand feminist and In- Regarding a lecture by Latour on climate change in the digenous scholarship when it comes to studying museum anthropocene, she argues: knowledge organization, particularly when museum collections still hold a significant about of objects collected The ones we credited for these incredible insights into from Indigenous communities around the world. It is the “more-than-human,” sentience and agency, and also important to consider the significant contributions the ways through which to imagine our “common of scholars whose work has perhaps fallen outside of cosmopolitical concerns” were not the people who traditional academic cores. Intellectual colonialism is a built and maintain the knowledge systems that Euro- significant effect of many knowledge organization fields, pean and North American anthropologists and phi- and has been recently and fruitfully addressed (Cherry losophers have been studying for well over a hundred and Mukunda 2015; Duarte and Belarde-Lewis 2015; years, and predicating many of their current “aha” on- Lougheed et. al., 2015; Whaanga et. al., 2015). tological moments (or re-imaginings of the discipline) Indigenous scholars have been actively crafting the upon … But the structures that produce talks like the theories of decolonization and marginalization for some one I attended make it easy for those within the Euro- time and have critiqued (Smith 1999, 19) the fact that Western academy to advance and consume arguments “imperialism frames the Indigenous experience.” Much that parallel discourses in Indigenous contexts without of this critique has been in part inspired by earlier work explicitly nodding to them, or by minimally nodding in feminist theory, standpoint theory, and critical race to Indigenous intellectual and political players. Because studies (Harding 2002; Wylie 2003). Feminist theory and we still practice our disciplines in ways that erase In- methodologies have been foundational in calling atten- digenous bodies within our lecture halls in Europe, we tion to the subaltern, peripheral narratives and inequality unconsciously avoid engaging with contemporary In- generally (Haraway 1988; 1994). Standpoint theory aims digenous scholars and thinkers while we engage in- to disrupt the normative by making one aware and con- stead with eighty year old ethnographic texts or two scious that norms exist, with the hope that in doing so, hundred year old philosophical tomes. non-normative possibilities can coexist (Harding 2002). This can be characterized as an outcome of feminist and Todd’s critique cannot be understated, and is critical if we post-colonial science studies that seek to articulate the are to continue our paths as academics who “do” intellec- vantage point of the oppressed. More broadly, however, tual history. In the history that I have been crafting con- 480 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns cerning knowledge organization in museums, many of digitally, to making the case for different systems of classi- the theoretical paradigms, ideas, and terms come out of a fication altogether, and by providing object based language male and western centric intellectual history. Demonstrat- resources. One notable example is the recent Digital ing Indigenous roots to these ideas, particularly of the Sq’éwlets project (digitalsqewlets.ca) that re-frames archaeo- socio-material, is necessary if we are to move forward logical objects as belongings or Á:wkw’, and categorizes from previous physical and intellectual colonialism across them according to activities important to the Stó:lō people all spheres. Why is this important for museum knowledge of the Fraser River Valley in British Columbia, Canada organization? As Olson (2002) noted, our power to name (Lyons et al. 2016). Another example of a projects that is a means of structuring reality, and we must begin treat- connect objects to communities through digital networks ing users as non-homogenous. There have been decades include the Reciprocal Research Network (rrncommu- of work from Indigenous, postcolonial perspectives that nity.org) (Rowley 2013), and there are many others that take this into account and into the heart of their work, seek to improve Indigenous access to library and archival too many to name here. When thinking through the phi- materials by re-organizing collections according to Indige- losophical and pragmatic issues at stake concerning mu- nous knowledge organization (Christen 2008; Lee 2011; seums and organizing knowledge, we find crucial contri- Littletree and Metoyer 2015; Swanson 2015; Whaanga et al butions from these philosophies that deserve full recogni- 2015, Willmott et al. 2016, for example). tion (Parent 2015). Two key issues have come to the fore. Understanding how Eurocentrism is constructed and First, the idea that Indigenous and feminist philosophies made to last in knowledge organizing institutions like mu- may better account for (or at least have been and can be a seums is seen through the lens of post-colonial decoloni- foundation for thinking about) how knowledge operates zation theory, but is only part of a larger struggle attended more broadly and this must be taken up by non- to by Indigenous peoples themselves in a variety of ways: Indigenous scholars in a serious way (Holbraad et. al. acts of resistance through filmmaking, performance art, 2014; Hunt 2014); and secondly, that the decolonization journalism, repatriation, and other academic disciplines. or the redress of knowledge organization schemes is now Todd’s critique centres on the academy as a white public urgently required for reconciliation (Truth Reconciliation space; where Indigenous or non-white voices are continu- Commission of Canada 2015). This comes at a risk, as ally erased and obfuscated. When thinking about classifica- Todd (2015, 9), following Watts, acknowledges: tion, categorization, nomenclatures, naming, and organizing, attention should be turned to these issues, despite that There is a very real risk to Indigenous thinking be- they are not (unfortunately) new, but deep seated, histori- ing used by non-Indigenous scholars who apply it cal, and ever-present. Indeed, much work is already under- to Actor Network Theory, cosmopolitics, ontologi- way to challenge western centric classification schemes cal and posthumanist threads without contending across locations (Bardenheier, Wilkinson, and Dale 2015, with the embodied expressions of stories, laws, and for example). Concepts like the métissage draw attention to songs as bound with Indigenous-Place Thought the points at which Indigenous peoples’ histories meet (Watts 2013: 31) or Indigenous self-determination. with, in this case, museums’ forms of authoritative control.

Following Sundberg (2014) and Watts (2013), Todd urges 7.0 Conclusion non-Indigenous scholars to account for location and In- digenous place-thought. As a non-Indigenous settler aca- The goal of this paper has been to situate the study of demic, I hope that this work does reinforce this exact anxi- museum knowledge organization in a body and a history ety, but instead, in a small way, provides some context of theory and approaches, often seen as disparate or dis- about why a discussion such as this must be relevant for connected. Many omissions are likely present, but the in- museum knowledge organization. As museums that hold tention was to present to scholars and non-academics a Indigenous cultural property but also natural historical variety of issues that can, and should consider when specimens, art, and biological materials, these issues are thinking about these systems. For example, little was writ- certainly paramount. Collections have been framed in a ten about the history of museum data management, and way that separates the natural world from the human- there is a long trajectory of working through knowledge made, and this reinforces a disconnect between memory, organization systems in museums. For example, there are people, and the land. There are also important examples of many examples of shared data or linked open data initia- projects and museums that are seeking to reframe this in tives (see Isaac and Haslfhofer 2013). Of course, the the context of standard museum practice and organization. specificities of each individual museum knowledge or- These range from providing links to existing museum con- ganization differ, and each different collections manage- tent and organizing objects from different perspectives ment system makes use of different standards and termi- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 481 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns nologies as each museum deals with different collections. Cultural Studies 19:521-47. doi:10.1080/0950238050036 The purpose was to draw together some of the key 5416 themes and terminologies employed to act as a wayfind- Bowker, Geoffrey. C. 2005. Memory Practices in the Sciences. ing device when it comes to thinking about museums as Inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. bureaucratic institutions in the context of history: as Bowker, Geoffrey. C., Karen Baker, Florence Millerand socio-technical infrastructures, classificatory ordering de- and David Ribes. 2010. “Toward Information Infra- vices, data producers, and communities of individuals. structure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked The idea that our technologies afford us the conditions Environment.” In International Handbook of Internet Re- of possibility for future relations is one way to under- search, ed. Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup and stand the socio-technical aspect of museum knowledge Matthew Allen, 97-117. work, and it is a key term that deserves more philosophi- Callon, Michel. 2005. “Domestication of the Scallops and cal work. I also hope to have raised some questions for the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” Knowledge: Sociology of future scholarship and critical thought. In defining the Knowledge and Science 5:207. field of museum knowledge organization, what can we Charmantier, Isabelle, and Staffan Müller-Wille. 2014. learn from work with the “data” of museums, the cata- “Carl Linnaeus’s Botanical Paper Slips (1767–1773).” loging systems and organization models developed in ear- Intellectual History Review 24:215-38. doi:10.1080/17496 lier decades? What is the legacy of this data? Do we need 977.2014.914643 more locally appropriate classification schemes or more Cherry, Alissa, and Keshav Mukunda. 2015. “A Case Study universal standards? What are the intellectual merits and in Indigenous Classification: Revisiting and Reviving the limits of both? Brian Deer Scheme.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, nos. 5-6: 548-67. doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1008 References 717 Christen, Kimberly. 2008. “Working Together: Archival Adler, Melissa. 2016. “The Case for Taxonomic Repara- Challenges and Digital Solutions in Aboriginal Austra- tions.” Knowledge Organization 43:630-40. lia.” SAA Archaeological Record. 8, no. 2: 21–4. Almeida Campos, Maria Luiza de, and Hagar Espanha Daston, Lorraine, ed. 2000. Biographies of Scientific Objects. Gomes. 2017. “Ontology: Several Theories on the Rep- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. resentation of Knowledge Domains.” Knowledge Organi- Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2010. Objectivity. zation 44:178-86. New York: Zone Books. Bardenheier, Penelope, Elizabeth H. Wilkinson and Te Daston, Lorraine, and Katharine Park. 1998. Wonders and Aupōuri Hēmi Dale (Te Rarawa). 2015. “Ki te Tika te the Order of Nature, 1150-1750. New York: Zone Hanga, Ka Pakari te Kete: With the Right Structure Books. We Weave a Strong Basket.” Cataloging & Classification Dias, Nélia. 1998. “The Visibility of Difference: Nine- Quarterly 53, nos. 5-6: 496-519. doi:10.1080/01639374. teenth-Century French Anthropological Collections.” 2015.1008716 In The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture, ed. Barringer, Tim and Tom Flynn, eds. 1998. Colonialism and Sharon Macdonald. The Heritage: Care, Preservation, the Object: Empire, Material Culture and the Museum. Mu- Management. London: Routledge, 36-52. seum Meanings. London: Routledge. Donald, Dwayne. 2009. “Forts, Curriculum, and Indige- Bearman, David A., and Richard H. Lytle. 1985. “The nous Métissage: Imagining Decolonization of Abo- Power of the Principle of Provenance.” Archivaria riginal-Canadian Relations in Educational Contexts.” 21:14-27. First Nations Perspectives 2:1-24. Bearman, David A., and Jennifer Trant. 1999. “Interactiv- Donald, Dwayne. 2012. “Indigenous Métissage: A De- ity Comes of Age: Museums and the World Wide colonizing Research Sensibility.” International Journal of Web.” Museum International 51, no. 4:20-24. Qualitative Studies in Education 25:533-55. doi:10.1080/ Bennett, Tony. 1994. “The Exhibitionary Complex.” In 09518398.2011.554449 Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Douglas, Mary. 1970. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Theory, ed. Nicholas B. Dirks, Geoff Eley, and Sherry B. Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Harmondworth: Pen- Ortner. Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History. guin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 123-54. Dourish, Paul and Melissa Mazmanian. 2013. “Media as Bennett, Tony. 2004. Pasts Beyond Memory: Evolution, Muse- Material: Information Representations as Material ums, Colonialism. Museum Meanings. London: Routledge. Foundations for Organizational Practice.” In How Mat- Bennett, Tony. 2005. “Civic Laboratories: Museums, Cul- ter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organiza- tural Objecthood and the Governance of the Social.” tion Studies, ed. Paul R. Carlile, Davide Nicolini, Ann 482 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns

Langley and Haridimos Tsoukas. Perspectives on Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Sci- Process Organization Studies 3. Oxford: Oxford Uni- ence Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Par- versity Press, 92-118. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199 tial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14:575-99. 671533.003.0005 Haraway, Donna. 1994. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Sci- Doyle, Ann Mary. 2013. “Naming, Claiming, and (Re) ence, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the creating: Indigenous Knowledge Organization at the 1980s.” In The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Cultural Interface.” PhD diss. University of British Co- Theory, ed. Steven Seidman. Cambridge: Cambridge lumbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ University Press, 82-115. ubctheses/24/items/1.0073667 Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Think- Drabinski, Emily. 2013. “Queering the Catalog: Queer ing from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Theory and the Politics of Correction.” The Library Harding, Sandra. 2002. “Must the Advance of Science Quarterly 83:94-111. doi:10.1086/669547 Advance Global Inequality?” International Studies Review Duarte, Marisa Elena, and Miranda Belarde-Lewis. 2015. 4, no. 2:87-105. “Imagining: Creating Spaces for Indigenous Ontolo- Harrison, Rodney, Sarah Byrne, and Anne Clarke, eds. gies.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, nos. 5-6: 2013. Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums 677-702. doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1018396 and Indigenous Agency. School for Advanced Research Edwards, Paul N., Geoffrey C. Bowker, Steven J. Jackson, Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, NM: School for and Robin Williams. 2009. “Introduction: An Agenda Advanced Research Press. for Infrastructure Studies.” Journal of the Association for Hine, Christine. 2005. “Material Culture and the Shaping Information Systems 10:364-74. of E-Science.” Paper presented at First International Engeström, Yrjö. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Conference on e-Social Science June 22-24, 2005 Man- Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” chester, UK. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ Journal of Education and Work 14:133-56. doi:10.1080/ 228943645_Material_culture_and_the_shaping_of_e- 13639080020028747 science Fleck, Ludwik, trans. Fred Bradley, and Thaddeus J. Hine, Christine. 2006. “Databases as Scientific Instru- Trenn. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. ments and Their Role in the Ordering of Scientific Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Work.” Social Studies of Science 36:269-98. Foucault, Michel. 1970. The Order of Things: An Archaeology Hinsley, Curtis M. 1981. Savages and Scientists: The Smith- of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage. sonian Institution and the Development of American Anthro- Fujimura, Joan H., and Henry R. Luce. 1998. “Authoriz- pology, 1846-1910. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti- ing Knowledge in Science and Anthropology.” Ameri- tution Press. can Anthropologist 100:347-60. Holbraad, Martin, Morten Axel Pedersen, and Eduardo Furner, Jonathan. 2007. “Dewey Deracialized: A Critical Viveiros de Castro. 2014. “The Politics of Ontology: Race-Theoretic Perspective.” Knowledge Organization Anthropological Positions.” Cultural Anthropology web- 34:144-68. site January 13, 2014. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/ Galison, Peter. 1997. “Three Laboratories.” Social Research 462-the-politics-of-ontology-anthropological-positions 64:1127-55. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 1992. Museums and the Shaping Gilliland, Anne J. 2012. “Contemplating Co-Creator of Knowledge. Heritage. London: Routledge. Rights in Archival Description.” Knowledge Organization Hull, Matthew S. 2012. “Documents and Bureaucracy.” 39:340-46. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:251-67. doi:10.1146/ Gitelman, Lisa. 2006. Always Already New: Media, History annurev.anthro.012809.104953 and the Data of Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hunt, Sarah. 2014. “Ontologies of Indigeneity: The Poli- Gitelman, Lisa. 2014. Paper Knowledge: Toward a Media His- tics of Embodying a Concept.” Cultural Geographies 21, tory of Documents. Sign, Storage, Transmission. Dur- no. 1:27-32. doi: 10.1177/1474474013500226 ham: Duke University Press. Isaac, Antoine, and Bernhard Haslhofer. 2013. “Euro- Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves, Fabio Assis Pinho and peana Linked Open Data: data. europeana. eu.” Seman- Suellen Oliveira Milani. 2016. “Theoretical Dialogs tic Web 4:291-97. About Ethical Issues in Knowledge Organization: Jackson, Steven J., Paul N. Edwards, Geoffrey C. Bowker, García Gutiérrez, Hudon, Beghtol, and Olson.” Knowl- and Cory P. Knobel. 2007. “Understanding Infrastruc- edge Organization 43:338-50. ture: History, Heuristics and Cyberinfrastructure Pol- Hacking, Ian. 2002. Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: icy.” First Monday 12, no. 6. doi:10.5210/fm.v12i6.1904 Harvard University Press. Jenkins, David. 1994. “Object Lessons and Ethnographic Displays: Museum Exhibitions and the Making of Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 483 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns

American Anthropology.” Comparative Studies in Society for Truth and Reconciliation.” Cataloging & Classifica- and History 36:242-70. tion Quarterly 53, nos. 5-6:596-614. doi:10.1080/01639 Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge. 374.2015.1008718 Pergamon International Library of Science, Technol- Luria, A. R., trans. Martin Lopez-Morillas and Lynn Solo- ogy, Engineering, and Social Studies. Oxford: Perga- taroff. 1976. Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social mon Press. Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolu- Lyons, Natasha, David M. Schaepe, Kate Hennessy, Mi- tions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. chael Blake, Clarence Pennier, John R. Welch, Kyle Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scien- McIntosh, et al. 2016. “Sharing Deep History as Digi- tists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Har- tal Knowledge: An Ontology of the Sq’éwlets Website vard University Press. Project.” Journal of Social Archaeology 16:359-84. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction MacNeil, Heather. 2016. “Catalogues and the Collecting to Actor-Network-Theory. Clarendon Lectures in Man- and Ordering of Knowledge (I): Ca. 1550–1750.” Ar- agement Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. chivaria 82:27-53. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: Marty, Paul F. 2007. “The Changing Nature of Informa- The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Prince- tion Work in Museums.” Journal of the American Society ton University Press. for Information Science and Technology 58:97-107. Law, John. 1992. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor- doi:10.1002/asi.20443 Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity.” Sys- Marty, Paul F., and Katherine Burton Jones, eds. 2008. temic Practice and Action Research 5: 379-93. Museum Informatics: People, Information, and Technology in Law, John. 2008. “Actor Network Theory and Material Museums. Routledge Studies in Library and Informa- Semiotics.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Social tion Science 2. New York: Routledge. Theory, ed. Bryan S. Turner. Blackwell Companions to Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medi- Sociology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 141-58. cal Practice. Science and Cultural Theory. Durham: Law, John, and John Hassard, eds. 1999. Actor Network Duke University Press. Theory and After. Boston, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Montuschi, Eleonora. 2007. “Real, Invented, or Applied? Lee, Deborah. 2011. “Indigenous Knowledge Organiza- Some Reflections on Scientific Objectivity and Social On- tion: A Study of Concepts, Terminology, Structure tology.” In Contributions to Social Ontology, ed. Clive Lawson, and (Mostly) Indigenous Voices.” Partnership: The Cana- John Latsis, and Nuno Martins. Routledge Studies in dian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Re- Critical Realism 15. London: Routledge, 15-177. search 6, no. 1. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index. Nagy, Peter, and Gina Neff. 2015. “Imagined Affordance: php/perj/article/view/1427/2089#.WfOuzUzMzjA Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication The- Lenoir, Timothy, ed. 1998. Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts ory.” Social Media + Society 1, no. 2. doi:10.1177/2056 and the Materiality of Communication. Writing Science. 305115603385 Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Norman, Donald. A. (1988) 1990. The Design of Everyday Leonardi, Paul M. 2011. “When Flexible Routines Meet Things. New York: Doubleday, Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Norman, Donald. A. 1999. “Affordance, Conventions Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies.” MIS and Design,” Interactions 6, no. 3:38-42. Quarterly 35:147-67. Olson, Hope A. 1993. “Assumptions of Naming in In- Leonardi, Paul M., and Stephen R. Barley. 2008. “Materi- formation Storage and Retrieval: A Deconstruction.” ality and Change: Challenges to Building Better The- In Information as a Global Commodity: Communica- ory about Technology and Organizing.” Information and tion, Processing and Use, Proceedings of the Annual Organization 18:159-76. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008. Conference of the Canadian Association for Informa- 03.001 tion Science/ Actes Du Congrès Annuel de l’ACSI , St. Littletree, Sandra, and Cheryl A. Metoyer. 2015. “Knowl- Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia. July 12- edge Organization from an Indigenous Perspective: 14, 1993, 110-19. https://www.cais-acsi.ca/ojs/index. The Mashantucket Pequot Thesaurus of American php/cais/article/view/599 Indian Terminology Project.” Cataloging & Classification Olson, Hope A. 2002. The Power to Name: Locating the Lim- Quarterly 53, nos. 5-6:640-57. doi:10.1080/01639374. its of Subject Representation in Libraries. Dordrecht: Klu- 2015.1010113 wer Academic Publishers. Lougheed, Brett, Ry Moran, and Camille Callison. 2015. Olson, Hope A., and Dennis B. Ward. 1997. “Ghettoes “Reconciliation through Description: Using Metadata and Diaspora in Classification: Communicating Across to Realize the Vision of the National Research Centre the Limits.” In Communication and Information 484 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 H. Turner. Organizing Knowledge in Museums: A Review of Concepts and Concerns

in Context: Society, Technology, and the Professions, Tennis, Joseph T. 2015. “Foundational, First-Order, and Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes Du Second-Order Classification Theory.” Knowledge Or- Congrès Annuel de l’ACSI, Memorial University of ganization 42:244-49. Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, June 8-10, Todd, Zoe. 2016. “An Indigenous Feminist’s Take on the 1997, 19-31. http://www.cais-acsi.ca/ojs/index.php/ Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’ is Just Another Word for cais/article/view/185 Colonialism.” Journal of Historical Sociology 29:4-22. Parent, Ingrid. 2015. “Knowledge Systems for All.” Cata- doi:10.1111/johs.12124 loging & Classification Quarterly 53, nos. 5-6: 703-6. Turner, Hannah. 2015. “Decolonizing Ethnographic Do- doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1027985 cumentation: A Critical History of the Early Museum Parezo, Nancy J. 1987. The Formation of Ethnographic Collec- Catalogs at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of tions: The Smithsonian Institution in the American Southwest. Natural History.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. nos. 506: 658–76. doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1010112 Poovey, Mary. 1998. A History of the Modern Fact: Problems Turner, Hannah. 2016a. “The Computerization of Mate- of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. Chicago: rial Culture Catalogues: Objects and Infrastructure in University of Chicago Press. the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthro- Pratt, Mary Louise. 1992. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and pology.” Museum Anthropology 39:163-77. doi:10.1111/ Transculturation. London: Routledge. muan.12122 Ribes, David, and Geoffry. C. Bowker. 2009. “Between Turner, Hannah. 2016b. “Critical Histories of Museum Meaning and Machine: Learning to Represent the Catalogues.” Museum Anthropology 39:102-10. doi:10. Knowledge of Communities.” Information and Organiza- 1111/muan.12118 tion 19:199-217. Truth Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Final Rowley, Susan. 2013. “The Reciprocal Research Network: report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The Development Process.” Museum Anthropology Re- Volume one, Summary: Honouring the truth, reconciling for the view 7:22-43. future. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commis- Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1988. Cathedrals of Science: The De- sion of Canada. velopment of Colonial Natural History Museums during the Verdon, Michel. 2006. “The World Upside Down: Boas, Late Nineteenth Century. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s History, Evolutionism, and Science.” History and An- University Press. thropology 17:171-87. doi:10.1080/02757200600861642 Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Re- Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1962. Thought and Language, search and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books. trans. Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar. Studies Star, Susan Leigh. 1992. “The Trojan Door: Organiza- in Communication. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. tions, Work, and the ‘Open Black Box.’” Systems Practice Whaanga, Hēmi, David Bainbridge, Michela Anderson, 5:395-410. Korii Scrivener, Papitha Cader, Tom Roa and Te Taka Star, Susan Leigh and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. “Steps To- Keegan. 2015. “He Matapihi Mā Mua, Mō Muri: The ward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access Ethics, Processes, and Procedures Associated with the for Large Information Spaces.” Information Systems Re- Digitization of Indigenous Knowledge; The Pei Jones search 7, no. 1:111-34. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111 Collection.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, nos. Strasser, Bruno J. 2012. “Collecting Nature: Practices, 5-6:520-47. doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1009670 Styles, and Narratives.” Osiris 27:303-40. Willmott, Cory. 2005. “The Lens of Science: Anthro- Suchman, Lucy. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: pometric Photography and the Chippewa, 1890– Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cam- 1920.” Visual Anthropology 18 (4):309-37. doi:10.1080/ bridge University Press. 08949460590958374 Tennis, Joseph T. 2002. "Subject Ontogeny: Subject Ac- Willmott, Cory Ann, Alexandra Taitt, Mary Ann Corbiere cess through Time and the Dimensionality of Classifi- and Alan Corbiere. 2016. “Toward Language in Ac- cation." In Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Or- tion: Agency-Oriented Application of the GRASAC ganization for the 21st Century: Integration of Knowledge Database for Anishinaabe Language Revitalization.” across Boundaries. Proceedings of the Seventh International Museum Anthropology Review 10:91-116. doi:10.14434/ ISKO Conference, 10-13 July 2002 Granada, Spain, ed. mar.v10i2.19322 Maria J. López-Huertas, and Francisco J. Munoz- Wylie, Alison. 2003. “Why Standpoint Matters.” In Science Férnandez. Advances in Knowledge Organization 8. and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Würzberg: Ergon Verlag, 54-9. Technology, ed. Robert Figueroa and Sandra G. Harding. New York: Routledge, 26-48.

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 485 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN

Laying the Ground for DOLMEN: Offering a Simple Standardization Starts with Understanding What Museums Do Alexandre Fortier* and Elaine Ménard** McGill University, School of Information Studies, 3661 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H3A 1X1 Canada, *, **

Alexandre Fortier is a postdoctoral fellow under the supervision of Elaine Ménard within the context of DOLMEN, a project investigating the use of linked open data to catalogue museum artefacts. His contributions to DOLMEN will be to help model the description of museum artefacts and to study users’ perception of the developed model. During his postdoctoral training, he looks forward to merging his keen interests for information organization and information behaviour. Fortier received his doctorate from the University of Western Ontario in 2016.

Elaine Ménard is Associate Professor at the School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Can- ada. Her teaching expertise includes cataloguing, indexing, classification and information retrieval. Her main research interests deal with cross-language information retrieval, image indexing and metadata. Ménard has published in a number of scholarly journals, including the Journal of Information Ethics, Knowledge Organization, The Indexer, Library Hi Tech, and Documentation et bibliothèques. She has presented papers at conferences such as ACFAS, CAIS-ACSI, ISKO, NASKO, ISKO France, ISKO UK, LIDA, and ASIS&T.

Fortier, Alexandre and Elaine Ménard. 2017. “Laying the Ground for DOLMEN: Offering a Simple Stan- dardization Starts with Understanding What Museums Do.” Knowledge Organization 44, no. 7: 485-493. 28 references.

Abstract: For most museums, online access to their collections is still a challenge. In museum databases, descriptions include descriptive metadata, along with other information that is often irrelevant to the public. In- formation that would help users to navigate from an object to one sharing similar characteristics is often ab- sent. The conceptual model developed by the International Committee for Documentation, CIDOC-CRM, which provides a formal structure for linking museum objects, is still not widely adopted by institutions, due to its complexity. This project aims to provide a simpler model that could be more easily adopted. For this phase of the project, a sample of 266 Canadian museums with humanities collections (archaeology, ethnology, history, fine and decorative arts) was identified. It is composed of every museum that, during the fall of 2016, was offering to the public at least a part of its collection online. From each museum, a minimum of ten objects was selected, ensuring that the variety of the collections was represented, and extracted the metadata used in the object descriptions. This inventory, which aimed to provide a comprehensive picture of what museums already offer in terms of metadata associated to their online collections, exposed a lack of standardization and interoperability.

Received: 19 June 2017; Revised: 19 September 2017; Accepted 29 September 2017

Keywords: museums, museum objects, linked open data, information

1.0 Introduction “have a particular responsibility for making collections and all relevant information available as freely as possible, Through their collections, museums allow people to ex- having regard to restraints arising for reasons of confi- plore arts, cultures, history and sciences. Access to muse- dentiality and security.” This responsibility, however, re- ums, however, remains strewn with barriers—physical or lates to a general access to collections, and museums have monetary, among others—for many. A virtual access to no obligation to afford a virtual access. museum collections, even though it does not fully repli- For museums, presenting virtual collections consti- cate the real experience, can palliate some of the barriers tutes considerable challenges arising from many factors, that exist between collections and those who are unable such as the discrepancy of descriptions, lack of financial to access them. Museums, according to the Code of Eth- resources and database incompatibility. To complicate ics of the International Council of Museums (2017): things further, museums often work in silos and use dif- 486 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN ferent description schemes. This lack of interoperability model for the publication of structured data on the In- results in the near impossibility to exchange data among ternet (van Hooland and Verborgh 2014). The model museums, which makes it harder for an institution to be- consists of machine-interpretable triples in which a re- nefit from the work that has already been done some- source (the subject) has a specific relationship (the predi- where else. Object descriptions could include multi- cate) with another resource (the object). Elements in a format information, such as text documents, images, au- triple use uniform resource locators for names, allowing a dio tracks, videos, collection items and learning objects, browser to locate a resource, no matter where it is stored. but museums still struggle to make their object descrip- Open data, in turn, can be freely used, reused and redis- tions available to users in different forms and languages. tributed. Linked open data effectively takes away the con- In addition, even though museum objects possess many straints of existing web approaches in which web users interesting features that could be exploited through rich are forced to follow a pre-defined path chosen by the descriptions, museums often have to settle for limited de- hosting organization to access the descriptions of mu- scriptions that only include some textual data, usually seum objects. Thus, search engines can explore a collec- chosen for internal purposes and not necessarily for dis- tion of web resources to provide sophisticated and com- semination to a large public. plete digital content. In addition, linked open data will This paper presents results from the first phase of make it easier to offer descriptions of museum objects in DOLMEN (Linked Open Data: Museums and Digital more than one language, as objects can easily be linked to Environment), an ongoing academic research project that multilingual controlled vocabularies and authority files. proposes to develop a linked open data model that will al- The desire to transmit and share digital content requires low Canadian museums, among others, to disseminate the museums to envision a collaborative work logic, both rich and sophisticated content emanating from their vari- among themselves and with other data providers. Unfor- ous databases. Specifically, three objectives have been es- tunately, Canadian museums, among others, often feel tablished for the project: helpless in the face of fast-paced technological evolution. For this first phase of the study, an inventory of meta- 1. To understand the characteristics necessary for the de- data used to describe online collections of Canadian mu- scription of museum objects of any kind; seums was carried out. This examination aimed to pro- 2. To define a model for the description of museum ob- vide a comprehensive picture of what Canadian muse- jects using linked open data; and, ums already offer in terms of metadata associated with 3. To strengthen data exchange networks among various their online collections and open content that may be cultural and heritage institutions. linked. The results of this first phase of the study provide one of the foundations of the DOLMEN linked DOLMEN proposes to examine the fundamental ele- open data model. ments for the description of museum objects and model them by using linked open data. This project is a stepping 2.0 Background stone toward implementing the semantic web, as envi- sioned by Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila (2001) more Museum object collections can be described in many than a decade ago, with the aim of making cultural heri- ways: by nature of objects, type of materials used, disci- tage collections more accessible to future generations. pline, time periods, etc. Composed of several steps, the The first phase of the study aims to better understand documentation of a museum collection usually begins the elements used for the description of museum objects with an extensive inventory process, that is to say, a pre- of all kinds within humanities collections (archaeology, cise and detailed object examination leading to the crea- ethnology and history, fine and decorative arts). More tion of records in which all the objects of the collection specifically, this paper attempts to answer the following are listed and described. In a cultural institution such as a research question: in general, what are the metadata ele- museum, the goal of inventory is to ensure administrative ments used by Canadian museums to describe their onli- conservation and preservation of the identity of the ob- ne collections? jects acquired by the institution or held in custody. This Recently, the use of linked open data has started to at- process also serves to establish beyond any doubt that the tract the attention of cultural heritage institutions (librar- object belongs to the institution or that the institution ies, archives and museums) to provide access to their re- only holds the object in temporary custody. In general, a sources. For museums, linked open data offer a feasible museum inventory is followed with the completion of a solution to overcome the obvious lack of compatibility detailed description of the objects, similar to the catalog- between different databases by establishing links between ing process performed for a library catalogue. Given their them. Linked data is not a defined standard per se, but a mission of transmitting knowledge to contemporary and Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 487 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN future generations, museums must, to the extent of the Institute 2014) is “a set of guidelines for the description means available to them, document collections by adding of art, architecture, and other cultural works.” This descriptive and historical information. Thus, in the mu- framework (Getty Research Institute 2014) “also provides seum context, “documentation” of collections is used to a framework to which existing art information systems describe the fundamental process of cataloging (CHIN may be mapped, upon which new systems may be devel- 2015). oped, or upon which data may be linked in an open envi- Recording some elements relating to museum objects ronment.” This standard includes 540 categories and (such as the identification, designation, description, di- subcategories of information elements. Among these mensions, materials, history, manufacturing process and categories, some are considered essential to describe a function) belongs to the documentation process. The ty- work while others are being considered optional. CDWA pical documentation process usually takes three standards also suggests the use of authority information about per- into consideration: 1) standards in data structure, that is sons, places, concepts and subjects that may be essential to say the categories of data that will be contained in a for the retrieval of the work. CDWA recommends how- record; 2) standards in data content, that is to say the ru- ever that this information is recorded in separate author- les for recording the information (i.e., order, syntax and ity files rather than in records about the work itself: “The format for entering data values in a record.); and finally, advantage of storing ancillary information in an authority 3) standards in data value, that is to say the vocabularies file is that this information needs be recorded only once, (e.g., authority files, thesauri and classification systems) and it may then be linked to all appropriate work reused in the process of cataloging and retrieval of mu- cords.” seum collections. The Museum Documentation Association (MDA)’s SPECTRUM is another example of a data structure stan- 2.1 Standards in data structure and data content dard. It is free to download for non-commercial usage. It encompasses all those areas of museum activity that pro- The challenges of describing museum collections have duce information. This standard is the result of contribu- been discussed for decades. The main factor that could tions from documentation practitioners in museums explain the difficulties encountered by museums is the throughout the United Kingdom. The current version of nonexistence of one universally agreed upon standard SPECTRUM (4.0) encompasses twenty-one collection that would capture all useful information. Moreover, sin- management procedures, as well as SPECTRUM Advice ce museum objects vary enormously, providing estab- fact sheets on primary procedures and related topics. lished documentation standards adapted to the needs of Among the procedures, cataloging, for example, supposes every collection is complex. A lack of controlled vocabu- “the compilation and maintenance of key information, laries and authority lists suitable for all collections is yet formally identifying and describing objects” (Collections another problem faced by museums, even if various in- Trust 2017). For SPECTRUM, cataloging may also “international documentation standards exist and have pro- clude information concerning the provenance of objects ven their usefulness to fit the needs and requirements of and also collections management documentation e.g. de- many museums. Among these standards, it is worth men- tails of acquisition, conservation, exhibition and loan his- tioning the Information Categories from the Interna- tory, and location history.” This current version will be tional Council of Museums’ International Committee for replaced by SPECTRUM 5.0 in 2017. Documentation (CIDOC) published in 1995. These gui- Since the 1980s, the Visual Resources Association delines (CIDOC 1995) “can be adopted by an individual (VRA) has published the VRA Core Categories (Core 4), museum, national documentation organization, or system a standard meant to describe images. Based on the Dub- developer, as the basis for a working museum documen- lin Core metadata model, Core 4 encompasses a list of tation system.” This data structure standard comprises elements for art and architectural images. Core 4 is built twenty-two information groups, each containing one or around three record types: work, image and collection. A more information categories. These guidelines also sug- work is a unique event or object of cultural production (a gest the use of established terminologies for elements building, a vase, a painting, a performance). An image is such as object and personal names, materials and tech- the visual representation of the object or event, in part or niques, among other information units, to facilitate in whole (a digital image of an artwork, a photograph of searching for information across collections. a building). In “Core 4, a Work and an Image each have Another important example of a data structure stan- their own record. These records are related with the Rela- dard is the Art Information Task Force’s (AITF) Catego- tion attribute. The third record type, Collection, allows ries for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), for collection-level cataloging of groups of materials funded by J. Paul Getty Trust. CDWA (Getty Research 488 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN such as groups of works or groups of images” (Visual on the type of collection to be documented and the type Resources Association 2017). of data to be recorded in each field block, and then of- Finally, sponsored by the Visual Resources Association fers a means of breaking the data down into the smallest Foundation, Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) was pub- meaningful units, known as fields.” lished in 2006 as a data standard for the cultural heritage The preceding examples constitute the most popular community: “The primary focus of CCO is art and archi- standards in data structure used on the Canadian and in- tecture, including but not limited to paintings, sculpture, ternational scenes. However, these standards are often prints, manuscripts, photographs, built works, installa- customized by museums in order to meet specific local tions, and other visual media. CCO also covers many needs. For example, additional information fields might other types of cultural works, including archeological be added to complete the description of collections, the- sites, artifacts, and functional objects from the realm of reby giving birth to an in-house schema that perfectly ful- material culture.” CCO is intended to provide rules for fills local needs but that is also difficult to export and re- “describing, documenting, and cataloging cultural works use in other institutions. and their visual surrogates.” In order words, CCO not These standards not only recommend the elements only prescribes the choice of terms, but it recommends necessary to describe museum objects, but also how these the order, syntax and form in which data should be en- elements need to be recorded to ensure consistency. For tered (Visual Resources Association 2006). example, a standard format for data is recommended for In Canada, the Data Dictionaries of the Canadian fields that contain names and dates. Consistency is par- Heritage Information Network (CHIN 2013) provide a ticularly crucial, since such information is mostly used in basis for the data structure to be used in the description queries employed to retrieve a specific record. Similar to of collections: “They can be used by a wide range of mu- cataloging rules used by libraries, such as the second edi- seums to help them to identify their institution’s information of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules or the new Re- tion needs and standardize their documentation. Each source Description and Access, museums use cataloging data field in the CHIN Data Dictionaries is described by rules to determine how data are entered in fields: “Cata- a field label, a mnemonic, and a name. Fields include a loging rules dictate the order, syntax, and format the mu- definition, entry rules, related fields, a data type, exam- seum uses to record data—word order, punctuation, how ples, a discipline, authority lists, a source, and other in- to record vague or unknown data, diacritics, rules for re- formation.” cording titles, names of people, places, and organizations, Several versions of the CHIN Humanities Data Dic- capitalization, date formats, and many other directives tionary exist. The complete Canadian Heritage Informa- that make for consistent documentation” (CHIN 2017). tion Network’s Humanities Data Dictionary includes 654 For example, the Data Dictionaries of the Canadian He- fields for collections in history, ethnology, archeological ritage Information Network (CHIN), previously men- specimens and fine and decorative arts, that is to say, all tioned, follow international conventions for data format fields that museums can use internally for collection ma- and prescribe the entry rules by which to enter the data nagement. Another version, the Artefacts Canada Hu- for easy retrieval. The format rules from the Cataloging manities Data Dictionary, is a subset of 143 fields that Cultural Objects (CCO) standard have been incorporated consist of those fields that can be used for public display. into the CHIN Data Dictionaries (CHIN 2013). Finally, a lighter version exists (a subset of forty-nine fields) that are the required and recommended fields for 2.2 Standards in data value Artefacts Canada database contribution (CHIN 2013). The CHIN Data Dictionaries can be mapped to other Similar to the use of controlled vocabularies in library ca- similar standards for cultural heritage information (e.g., talogues (e.g., Library of Congress Subject Headings, Library the VRA Core, SPECTRUM) or to other general stan- of Congress Authorities), museums use authority lists to dards such as Dublin Core. A correspondence can also be control the terms and their variants when documenting established with the CIDOC Conceptual Reference their collection. The main advantage of an authority list Model (CIDOC-CRM). is the possibility to disambiguate similar or identical Another standard, the Info-Muse Network documen- terms (e.g., different artists or works with the same na- tation system, is mainly used by museums in Quebec and, me), or to collocate terms that belong together (e.g., an to some extent, elsewhere in Canada. It is developed in artist’s name or work title in another language). In the collaboration with museums and experts from the differ- museum context, an authority list may be used for artist ent scientific validation committees for the tools. Info- names during data entry to warrant that the name is spel- Muse recommends (Société des musées Québécois 2006) led consistently, or to ensure that a certain version (e.g., “a means of dividing up and organizing the data, based when they vary from one language to another) is consis- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 489 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN tently used. The authority list also makes sure that “pre- 2.3 Linked open data projects in museums ferred” terms or names and all variants are linked so that the term can be cross-referenced. Some authorities in- Once the description of objects is completed, museums clude rich supplemental information (e.g., an artist name can offer, via a search engine, access to these descriptions authority with information on the artist’s dates, technique in whole or in part. So far, search engines available on and biography). Finally, authority lists of terminology ha- many museum websites are mostly designed to perform ve been created for some of the key fields and adopted as simple searches in the database associated with the mu- standards. seum. The search results are therefore limited to the con- Traditionally, museums make use of many different tents of this unique database, often to a limited number authority lists, depending on the unit of information. For of descriptive metadata, such as the title or name of the example, in the context of Canadian museums, the most object, and the name of its creator. Creating links be- familiar authority lists used include: tween different databases for descriptions of museum objects would offer a range of new possibilities, almost – Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) commonly without limits. This endeavor would be facilitated by the used for controlling terminology in a wide variety of use of linked open data. fields, including object names, materials, techniques, During the last few years, projects have started to digi- cultures, time periods, and more. Most AAT terms are tize cultural heritage materials through the use of seman- available in English only, with variants in other lan- tic web technologies (Clough et al. 2008; Dekkers et al. guages often included, although rarely in French 2009). Some related open data projects specifically target- (Getty Research Institute 2017). ing the museum objects have recently been launched – Getty Cultural Objects Name Authority (CONA), an au- (Oard et al. 2014). For example, the Europeana digital li- thority for titles of architectural works, paintings, brary created in 2008 by the European Commission, sculpture, etc. The CONA interface and most fields brings together various digital resources (books, audio- within records are available in English only. When the visual material, photographs, archives documents, etc.) of object comes from a culture speaking a language other national libraries from twenty-seven countries. Europeana than English, variations in the local language are in- Labs published its own model of open data with map- cluded (Getty Research Institute 2017). ping guidelines for institutions wanting to map their data – Getty Union List of Artist Names ® (ULAN), an au- to this model (2015). The Amsterdam Museum Linked thority that includes proper names and biographical Open Data set comprises more than seventy thousand information about artists. The ULAN interface and object descriptions. The institution’s thesaurus and per- most fields within records are available in English only son authority files used in the object metadata are in- (Getty Research Institute 2017). cluded in the linked data set. The data is mapped to the – Artists in Canada, an authority available on the CHIN Europeana Data Model, utilizing Dublin Core, SKOS, Professional Exchange website, includes proper names RDA-group2 elements and the OAI-ORE model to rep- and biographical information about Canadian artists. resent the museum data. Vocabulary concepts are Artists in Canada is available in English and French mapped to GeoNames and DBpedia. The two main con- (CHIN 2016a). tributions of this dataset are the inclusion of internal vo- – Parks Canada Classification System (CHIN 2016b), “a cabularies and the fact that the complexity of the original bilingual museum classification system and vocabulary dataset is retained (de Boer et al. 2012). In 2010, Japan standard used in Canada for humanities collections. It launched the Linked Open Data for Academia (LODAC) helps museums catalog collections to identify, name project, bringing together fifteen of the museums in Ja- and classify objects using definitions and illustrations. pan and providing them with the appropriate data model This classification system is based on an object’s origi- to enable them to publish the RDF data and to connect nal function (the purpose for which the object was to the data hub (Kamura et al. 2011). LODAC allows for created).” It is available in English and French. an integrated multilingual access to diverse digital archives – Nomenclature 4.0 for Museum Cataloging is a function- of Japanese prints. In 2014, the Smithsonian American based classification system and vocabulary for man- Art Museum began mapping its museum records as made objects in museum collections. It is available in linked open data as well as a growing body of related data English only (AASLH 2017). published by organizations worldwide (Szekely et al. 2013). These controlled vocabularies are only examples of those Some pilot projects have also emerged in Canada. The used by museums. It should also be noted that many in- National Network of Documentary Heritage (RPCPD) stitutions develop their own controlled vocabularies. used the RDF/XML format with a sample of digital re- 490 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN sources (documents of the First World War) in order to museum or to other museums, were recorded. Metadata share the metadata provided by the five partner institu- were collected between October 1 to November 15, tions. Thus, data about several types of documents (e.g., 2016. Figure 1 presents two examples of metadata col- sheet music for songs about war, photographs of battal- lected from the McCord Museum online collections. ions, war diaries), and also additional resources (e.g., sound recordings, films, portraits of Canadians Celebri- Chest of drawers Shoes ties who participated in the First World War) were left Owen McGarvey Expo 67 hostess uniform, “linked” to the museum objects (RPCPD 2015). How- 1870–1880, 19th century British Pavilion ever, these projects are not yet widespread, which illus- Wood, walnut, mahogany; Roger Nelson marble; metal; ceramic; 1967, 20th century trates the pressing need to carry on extensive research in glass; Assembled Leather this direction. Most Canadian museums demonstrate so- 240 x 131 x 61 cm Gift of British Pavilion Ex- me concerns—if not apprehensions—toward the possi- Gift of Mrs. Audrey Smith po 1967 bility of embarking in the linked open data endeavor, fee- M987.66.2.A-B M967.98.3.1-2 ling not prepared due to a lack of means and expertise. Figure 1. Examples of metadata extracted from museum objects. Nevertheless, the use of linked open data offers many advantages such as “improved data visibility, data linked with external resources, easy resource annotation process Once metadata were collected, a content analysis ap- and reuse of data” (Hallo et al. 2016). The DOLMEN proach (Weber 1985) was used to overcome two issues project intends to help surmount this setback in imple- that arose: the variations in the labels used by different menting linked open data in the context of Canadian mu- museums and the absence of labels in many collections. seums. This approach has the advantage of providing insight into large amounts of data in order to develop research 3.0 Methods hypotheses. Content analysis has been chosen for this study because it is the most appropriate method to inves- For this phase of the research project, a population of tigate a large set of heterogeneous data (Landry 2002). 3,133 Canadian museums with humanities collections (ar- The collected metadata were analyzed on the basis of chaeology, ethnology and history, fine and decorative their content and grouped together using IBM SPSS, arts) was identified. The sample is composed of every a dedicated computer program used for statistical analy- museum that, during the fall of 2016, was offering to the sis. This comparative analysis of the metadata allowed for public at least a part of its collection online. This sample the identification of any form of internal and external comprises museums of different sizes from the ten Ca- standardization. This analysis took place between No- nadian provinces and three territories. These museums vember 15, 2016 and January 31, 2017. The results of the hold diversified collections, in order to offer the maxi- content analysis are presented in the next section. mum variety of museum objects that will possibly be described by the model that will be developed afterwards. 4.0 Results The information (name of museum, civic address, URL, presence or absence of online collections) for mu- The results of the metadata analysis extracted from the seums was compiled in an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. online collections of objects revealed that 66.2% (n=176) Among these, only 266 museums offered online collec- of the museums in the sample describe their objects us- tions. From each one of these online collections, ten ob- ing structured metadata, while the remaining museums jects or more (depending on the heterogeneity of the col- only offer a brief, textual description. A very large por- lection) were selected, ensuring that the variety of the tion of museums, however, do not go further than a ba- collections was represented, and the metadata used in the sic descriptive description, close to one based on the In- object descriptions were extracted. This criterion-based ternational Standard Bibliographic Description: title, crea- sampling made it possible to study a wide variety of cases tor, date and material description. A high number of rich in information (Patton 2014) and, thus, to gain a unique terms related to the level of specificity of a par- comprehensive understanding of the description prac- ticular field was also observed. Many terms represent, for tices used among Canadian museums. For this phase of instance, the title of a work (e.g., A summer shower), the the project, a degree of saturation in terms of descriptive year or the creation date (e.g., 1934), or the particular size elements was sought. In addition to metadata associated of an object (e.g., nine inches). Very few museums in the with museum objects, other elements, such as the pres- sample offer metadata that could link objects to one an- ence of images, hyperlinks to other objects in the same other through characteristics such as a specific origin collection, and to objects from other collections of the (geographic or cultural), period, movement, technique or Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 491 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN object category. On the basis of 176 museums using the composition of the object; metadata relating to the structured metadata, twenty-five metadata types were place of creation and use of the object; and metadata re- identified. Table 1 offers a synthesis of the findings fo- lating to the artistic, cultural and academic context in cusing on the representativeness of a metadata type in which the object was created. This first grouping of the resources analyzed. metadata types that appears essential to describe museum objects (“fields with a high or medium representative- Metadata type Representativeness ness”) and their definition is presented in Table 2. Title or Object name 93.8% (n=165) Date 74.4% (n=131) Metadata Definition Identification number 67.6% (n=119) Maker/Creator/Artist/ Refers to the entity that creates, Description 65.9% (n=116) Manufacturer/Brand manufactures or produces the Creator (person or corporate body) 50.0% (n=88) object or the work of art. Dimensions 45.5% (n=80) Material or medium Refers to what the work is com- prised of, made with. This repre- Materials or Medium 44.3% (n=78) sents materials based on their Subject 38.1% (n=67) composition or origin. Category of objet 34.7% (n=61) Subject Contains identification, descrip- Acquisition mode 34.1% (n=60) tion (or interpretation) of what is Geographic origin 15.3% (n=27) depicted by a work or image. It Collection 13.6% (n=24) may include a concept, place, an activity, an event, a person, etc. Copyright of image 10.2% (n=18) Object name Contains the common name of Condition details 9.7% (n=17) the object or work of art. Image credit line 8.5% (n=15) Geographical origin Contains the name of the general Cultural origin 6.8% (n=12) regions, continents, countries and Period 5.7% (n=10) further subdivisions where the Brand 5.7% (n=10) object or the work of art is created. Technique 5.1% (n=9) Cultural origin Indicates the historical, social, Dates linked to creator 4.5% (n=8) economic, religious or other cul- Citizenship of creator 3.4% (n=6) tural origins of the object or the Biography of creator 2.3% (n=4) work of art. History of object 1.7% (n=3) Style and period Provides the names of distinct Place of use 1.1% (n =2) historical periods, broad cultural region styles and periods, art and Role of creator 1.1% (n =2) architecture movements and groups and schools that are rep- Table 1. Metadata type and frequency. resented in the object or work of art. The content analysis also revealed that four types of ob- Technique Represents the processes, methods and means used to produce jects are present in the collections: works of art, artisanal an object or a work of art. functional artifacts, industrial functional objects and do- Copyright Contains the name of the entity cuments. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and that holds the copyright of the a collection might have more than one type of objects. digital image of the object or the The results also indicated that the frequency of use of work of art and the copyright date. metadata varies by object type, and that some metadata Credit Contains the credit line or ac- are associated with the four types while others are unique knowledgment to be used with to a particular type. the digital image of the object or Following the first phase of the analysis, commonal- the work of art. ities among different metadata types were identified, and then examined to see whether it was possible to group Table 2. Main metadata and definitions. them together. The frequency analysis allowed us to identify the most important concepts (and the associated In the sample of museums examined for this study, the metadata types) represented in the description of mu- description of objects varied considerably from one museum objects. Consequently, it was possible to group seum website to another. The examination revealed sig- them into ten categories covering the main aspects of nificant disparities from one museum to another, particu- museum objects: metadata relating to the description and larly in the ways in which information is organized and 492 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN presented, and in existing searching and browsing func- conservators reluctant to adopt it (see, for example, Sza- tionalities. As a consequence, users of museum websites bados, Briatte and Letricot 2012). can quickly be overwhelmed by information excessively Cultural heritage organizations such as museums stand oriented to museum professionals (terminology or cate- to gain a great deal by engaging in the thoughtful man- gorization of the information that is often too difficult to agement of linked open data. DOLMEN is a project that be understood by a non-professional) or by websites of- seeks to explore how the traditional description of mu- fering an interface that requires an extended learning pro- seum objects can be simplified and possibly improved by cess. Results exposed a clear lack of standardization the use of linked open data. To reach this objective, the among museums, not only the types of metadata used expectations and frustrations of museum website users but also in their value. Inconsistencies were also observed are studied in a parallel, ongoing phase. The first phase in the data value of many metadata types within descrip- of the study (examination of metadata standards and an tions created by the same institution (e.g., “armchairs,” investigation of museum website users’ expectations) “arm chairs,” “bergères,” “elbow chairs” and “fauteuils” provides a foundation to develop a linked open data mo- to describe the same category of object in English). This del that will allow Canadian museums, among others, to adds to the complexity of exchanging data among muse- disseminate the rich and sophisticated content emanating ums, therefore multiplying the colossal task of having to from their various databases. This will ensure the contin- produce individual descriptions for the multitude of arti- ued exchange and use of museum data in the information facts housed in their collections. society, enabling the data to be utilized not only internally for museum website management but also externally by 5.0 Discussion and conclusion various users for education, research, learning and crea- tive activities. This is crucial, as very few museums are The preceding inventory aimed to provide a comprehen- ready or equipped to tackle this challenge. This could also sive picture of what Canadian museums already offer in facilitate the public’s understanding of museums and terms of metadata associated with their online collec- their fundamental mission and could revolutionize how tions. Museum databases show extremely heterogeneous museums will provide information in the future. The data structures, which necessitate advanced mapping and DOLMEN project will help museums make cultural heri- standards integration for them to benefit from the inter- tage collections more accessible to future generations, operability enabled by the technologies of the semantic which is, for most museums, a fundamental part of their web. Over the years, museums around the world have mission. built databases with metadata describing billions of objects, their history, the people who created them and the References entities that represent them (de Boer et al. 2012). How- ever, these data are stored in proprietary databases and AASLH (American Association for State and Local His- are not universally usable and exchangeable. tory). 2017. “Chenhall No. 4.” http://community. Recently, museums have turned to the web with the in- aaslh.org/nomenclature tention of finding a solution to make their data more ac- Berners-Lee, Tim, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila. 2001. cessible. In the specific case of museums, structuring me- “The Semantic Web.” Scientific American 284, no. 5:34- tadata with RDF involves the selection of one or more 43. vocabularies to model the domain. This process is com- CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network). 2013. plex because many museums have various data standards “CHIN Data Dictionaries.” https://app.pch.gc.ca/ that often include unique fields that reflect their own de- application/ddrcip-chindd/description-about.app? scribing needs. Museum data also show many inconsis- lang=en tencies often because different people have kept them CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network). 2015. updated over time. The CIDOC-CRM, literally a concep- “Introduction to Documentation of Heritage Collec- tual reference model, aims to promote a common under- tions.” http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1443534877754 standing of cultural heritage information by providing a CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network). 2016a. common and flexible semantic framework for how in- “Artists in Canada.” https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/ formation about museum objects can be related (ICOM aac-aic/?lang=en 2017). However, this model is still not widely used by CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network). 2016b. museums, possibly because of its complexity. The model, “Parks Canada Descriptive and Visual Dictionary of which is often regarded as one hailing from documental- Objects.” https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/dvp-pvd/ ists, proposes a paradigm shift that may make museum appli/descr-eng.php#a_propos-about Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 493 A. Fortier and E. Ménard. Laying the Ground for DOLMEN

Clough, Paul, Jennifer Marlow, and Neil Ireson. 2008. puting, 20-22 Oct. 2011. Washington, D.C.: IEEE Com- “Enabling Semantic Access to Cultural Heritage: A puter Society, 177-78. Case Study of Tate Online.” In Proceedings of the ECDL Landry, Réjean 2002. “L’analyse de contenu.” In Recherche 2008 Workshop on Information Access to Cultural Heritage, sociale: de la problématique à la collecte des données, 3e éd., ed. Aarhus, Denmark.European Conference on Research and Ad- Benoît Gauthier. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université du vanced Technology on Digital Libraries, ed. M. Larson, K. Québec, 329-56. Fernie, J. Oomen and J. Cigarran. Amsterdam: Univer- Oard, Douglas W., Amalalia S. Levi, Ricardo L. Punzalan, sity of Amsterdam, Information and Language Proc- and Robert Warren. 2014. “Bridging Communities of essing Group, 978-90. Practice: Emerging Technologies for Content-Centered Collections Trust. 2017. “Spectrum.” http://collections Linking.” Paper presented at MW2014: Museums and trust.org.uk/spectrum/ the Web 2014 The annual conference of Museums and CIDOC (Committee for Documentation of the Interna- the Web, April 2-5, 2014, Baltimore, MD, USA. https:// tional Council of Museum). 1995. International terpconnect.umd.edu/~oard/pdf/mw2014.pdf Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CI- Patton, Michael Quinn. 2015. Qualitative Research & Eva- DOC Information Categories. http://icom.museum/ luation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed. fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Guidelines/CIDOC Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. guidelines1995.pdf RPCPD (Réseau pancanadien du patrimoine documen- de Boer, Victor, Jan Wielemaker, Judith van Gent, Michiel taire). 2015. “Démonstration de faisabilité de la Visu- Hildebrand, Antoine Isaac, Jacco van Ossenbruggen alisation des Données ouvertes liées (LOD).” and Guus Schreiber. 2012. “Supporting Linked Data Szabados, Anne-Violaine, Katell Briatte and Rosemonde Production for Cultural Heritage Institutes: The Am- Letricot. 2012. “Utiliser l’ontologie CIDOC CRM sterdam Museum Case Study.” In The Semantic Web: Re- pour l’information relative au patrimoine culturel.” In search and Applications; 9th Extended Semantic Web Confer- THATCamp Paris 2012: Non-actes de la non-conférence des ence, ESWC 2012, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 27-31, humanités numériques. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des 201; Proceedings, ed. Elena Simperl, Philipp Cimiano, sciences de l’homme. Axel Polleres, Oscar Corcho, and Valentina Presutti. Société des Musées Québécois. 2006. “Documenting Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7295. Berlin: Your Collections Info-Muse Network Documentation Springer, 733-47. Guide.” http://www.musees.qc.ca/fr/professionnel/ Dekkers, Max, Stefan Gradmann, and Carlo Meghini. guidesel/doccoll/en/index.htm 2009. Europeana Outline Functional Specification for Sproull, Nathalie. L. 1995. Handbook of Research Methods: Development of an Operational European Digital Li- A Guide for Practitioners and Students in the Social Sciences, brary. In Europeana Thematic Network Deliverable 2.5. 2nd ed. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow. Europeana Labs 2015. “Europeana Linked Open Data.” Szekely, Pedro, Craig A. Knoblock, Fengyu Yang, Xum- Getty Research Institute. 2014. “Categories for the De- ing Zhu, Eleanor E. Fink, Rachel Allen, and Geor- scription of Works of Art.” http://www.getty.edu/ gina Goodlander. 2013. “Connecting the Smithsonian research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/ American Art Museum to the Linked Data Cloud.” In index.html The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data; 10th Interna- Getty Research Institute. 2017. “Getty Vocabularies.” tional Conference, ESWC 2013, Montpellier, France, May http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/ 26-30, 2013; Proceedings, ed. Philipp Cimiano, Oscar Hallo, María, Sergio Luján-Mora, Alejandro Maté, and Ju- Corcho, Valentina Presutti, Laura Hollink, and Sebas- an Trujillo. 2016. “Current state of Linked Data in tian Rudolph. Lecture Notes in Computer Science digital libraries.” Journal of Information Science 42:117-27. 7882. Berlin: Springer, 593-607. ICOM (International Council of Museums). 2017. “Code Visual Resources Association. 2006. “VRA Core.” http:// of Ethics.” http://icom.museum/professional-stand core.’vraweb.org/index.html. ards/code-of-ethics/ Visual Resources Association. 2017. “The CCO Com- Kamura, Tetsuro, HideakiTakeda, Ikki Ohmukai, Fumi- mons: Cataloging Cultural Objects.” http://cco. hiro Kato, Toru Takahashi, and Hiroshi Ueda. 2011. vrafoundation.org/index.php. “Study Support and Integration of Cultural Informa- Weber, Robert Philip. 1985. Basic Content Analysis. Sage tion Resources with Linked Data.” In Proceedings of the University Papers Series. Quantitative Applications in 2011 Second International Conference on Culture and Com- the Social Sciences 07-049. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

494 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums

A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums Rick Szostak University of Alberta, Department of Economics, Tory Building 9-18, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H4, CANADA,

Rick Szostak is Professor and Chair of Economics at the University of Alberta. He is the author of fifteen books and fifty journal articles in economics, history, interdisciplinary studies, information science, and several other fields. He has studied the theory and practice of interdisciplinarity for two decades and has emphasized in the last decade the ways in which knowledge organization systems might better facilitate interdisciplinary research and teaching. He has long argued that a phenomenon-based synthetic approach to classification is both feasible and desirable; he has more recently stressed the use of grammatical construction in performing that synthesis. He recently co-authored Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. He has created the Basic Concepts Classification (BCC), and is engaged in efforts to evaluate the BCC and compare it to other classification systems.

Szostak, Rick. 2017. “A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums.” Knowledge Organization 44, no. 7: 494-505. 26 references.

Abstract: Several desiderata of a system of subject classification for museums are identified. The limitations of existing approaches are reviewed. It is argued that an approach which synthesizes basic concepts within a grammatical structure can achieve the goals of subject classification in museums while addressing diverse challenges. The same approach can also be applied in galleries, archives, and libraries. The approach is described in some detail and examples are provided of its application. The article closes with brief discussions of thesauri and linked open data.

Received: 9 June 2017; Revised: 5 September 2017; Accepted 10 September 2017

Keywords: Subject classification; Museums; Basic concepts; Grammar; Facets

1.0 Introduction ments, and yet is easy for both cataloguer and user to navigate. This paper seeks to address two key challenges in knowl- The solution that will be proposed involves a synthetic edge organization for museums. First, it is often recog- and grammatical approach to subject headings. This nized in the literature that it would be advantageous to would allow cataloguers in museums, archives, and librar- utilize the same knowledge organization system (KOS) ies to move fairly directly from a sentence in an existing across the entire GLAM sector since users increasingly object or document description to a synthetic subject search across galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. string that orders terms grammatically. Though objects McMarty (2014, 615) for example, argues that museums, and documents differ in many ways, they are each com- libraries, and archives now face a very similar set of user monly described—by publishers, authors, or curators—in expectations as a result of each developing an online a few sentences. Users in turn can move fairly directly presence; he cites a number of conferences and special from a query stated as a sentence to the most relevant issues of journals focused on how to respond. Yet, the subject string. Since object descriptions, document de- KOSs developed for libraries are often thought to be ill- scriptions, and user queries are all formulated in sen- suited to the classification of objects. Second, museums tences, there is obvious value in using sentence structure often have limited resources to devote to classification, also in the subject headings that mediate among these. and often do not have staff trained in knowledge organi- The next section of this paper provides more detail on zation. Museum training has tended to focus on under- the challenges of museum classification. The succeeding standing the artifacts rather than knowledge organiza- section then addresses the present state of museum clas- tion—though of course there has always been some in- sification and foreshadows the potential advantages of a terest in and familiarity with knowledge organization in new approach. We are then able to expand on the nature museums (Urban 2014). We would want, then, a KOS of a synthetic and grammatical approach to classification that is capable of addressing both objects and docu- that addresses the challenges identified. Examples are Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 495 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums provided of how this new approach could be imple- not strive to do so. We will find at multiple points in this mented. We then address the possibility of an associated paper that website redesigns often decrease subject ac- thesaurus and the benefits of the recommended ap- cess. Menard et al. (2010) worry that when information is proach for the world of linked open data. provided on artifacts this is often jargon-ridden and obscure. The authoritative “Categories for the Description 2.0 Challenges in museum classification of Works of Art” (CDWA, Baca and Harpring 2016) urges a more user-centered approach: “Information for Zoller and DeMarsh (2013) note that museums have tradi- display is assumed to be in a format and with syntax that tionally focused on documentation—providing minimal in- is easily read and understood by users.” The CDWA rec- formation on what the museum possesses and where it ognizes that jargon may be appropriate when detailed de- came from—rather than cataloguing, which provides users scriptions are developed for internal use but must be es- with multiple access points. They cite a 1984 Report of the chewed when developing finding aids for users. And American Alliance of Museums, which urged “Informa- Hider (2012, 49) notes that most object descriptions in tion sharing among museums … similar to the library in- museums were developed for the use of curators rather formation system that can locate all the books anywhere in than users (and those for public display served educa- the country on a certain subject is an ultimate goal.” The tional rather than organizational purposes). This suggests authors perform a survey and find a widespread belief that the value for subject headings of breaking the complex cataloguing requires curatorial expertise in a field. The au- concepts employed by professionals into basic concepts; thors worry that curators lack time, and that experts in concepts that have broadly shared understandings across cataloguing may not wish to offend curators. They further different groups of experts as well as non-experts. note that cataloguing gets little attention in museum train- Menard et al. (2010) appreciate that some sort of syn- ing. Only a small minority of museums had a position for thetic classification—which combines simple terms in cataloguer, and it was rare to want or require library-and- order to generate complex subject strings (that is subject information science (LIS) training. One oft-voiced concern headings composed of a “string” of simple terms)— was that cataloguing would not respect the uniqueness of a could allow museums to provide much better informa- collection. This has proven to be a serious barrier to the tion regarding their possessions. They further note that development of a common approach to classification. Mu- there are few tools available to museums wishing to pur- seums differ a great deal in size, type of artifact, guiding sue such an approach. mission, and in a host of other ways. It might seem an im- Museums were in the past often organized chronologi- possible task to facilitate searching across institutions while cally, and their artifacts thus classified primarily by time pe- respecting institutional individuality. A common approach riod. Museums (like art galleries) are increasingly organized to cataloguing that was easy to master and yet allowed thematically. It is thus of increased importance that their uniqueness to be represented would clearly be advanta- artifacts be classified by subject. This will among other geous. things increase the ability of curators to identify pieces to McMarty (2014) worries about the different goals of borrow for thematic exhibits. We should note in this regard museums compared to those of libraries and archives. that many museums have hundreds or thousands of arti- The last two have always had a greater interest in guiding facts for which they have lacked the staff to properly de- users to relevant documents. Museums have instead fo- scribe or classify. While our main concern in this paper will cused on placing artifacts in a context that museum visi- be with allowing museums to move fairly quickly from an tors had found by browsing. The museum might only existing description to a subject heading, we should appre- need to tell visitors what sort of artifacts would be found ciate that some museums may be interested in providing a in particular rooms. Libraries could be satisfied with pro- minimalist description that can guide a subject heading, viding just enough information to guide users to a docu- with the intention of developing a fuller description of ar- ment they could then read. Museums instead focused on tifacts that prove particularly important to the museum’s providing educational description for the objects they mission (or that might be leant to another museum). This displayed. huge backlog of undocumented artifacts also serves as a Museums around the world have launched websites reminder of the resource limitations that many museums over the last decades. These websites have encouraged face. museums to take a much greater interest in metadata Though some—especially national—museums have a (Hider 2012, 68). Yet these websites are only rarely useful broad remit, most museums focus on materials generated in guiding users, and especially professional researchers, by a particular group or within a particular region. Yet, of to appreciate the detailed contents of a museum’s collec- course, scholars (and many general users) are often inter- tion (Menard et al. 2010). Indeed, these websites often do ested in comparing artifacts produced by different people 496 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums or in different place—and thus would like to compare of disagreement in the object description. The subject across the holdings of multiple museums that each have a heading may then omit elements of subject that are con- special focus. There has, of course, been a huge debate troversial, though it would also be possible within a syn- within knowledge organization as to whether it is possi- thetic subject string to use “or” between differing inter- ble to identify a controlled vocabulary that can be under- pretations if this element of the subject were judged of stood in similar ways across disciplines or cultural groups. particular importance. As noted above, Szostak (2011) ar- This debate has obvious implications for the museum gued that ambiguity and controversy can be reduced by community, which often faces pressure from particular breaking complex terms into “basic concepts” for which social groups to respect the meaning which that group at- broadly shared understandings exist across individuals taches to particular artifacts. Is it possible to provide de- and groups; an approach that relied on basic concepts scriptors for similar artifacts from quite different societies might often be able to clarify areas of disagreement such such that all potential users could understand what these that these could be captured in a subject heading. descriptors mean? The solution I have proposed else- Cameron and Robinson (2007) are deeply concerned where focuses on “basic concepts” (Szostak 2011). with the contested nature of many museum artifacts. In- Whereas complex terms such as “globalization” may be deed, they suspect that objects are inherently polysemic understood in diverse ways, basic concepts such as “trade and that no curator can fully fathom their meaning. Yet, flows” or “American movies” are subject to broadly simi- they recommend in the end a mix of “modernist” ap- lar understandings across individuals or groups. And thus proaches to provide user access to objects and “post- a synthetic approach to subject classification in which ba- modern” approaches that then guide the user to appreci- sic concepts are combined can potentially allow users ate multiple interpretations of the object. That is, we from different disciplines or cultures to find what they must strive for some sort of “objectivity” in subject ac- are looking for in both museums and libraries. “Adobe” is cess but can then appreciate multiple interpretations in a familiar term, but many will not know that it is detailed descriptions. The user should be urged to read (clay)(for)(building), whereas “clay” and “building” are the detailed description once the subject heading has broadly understood concepts. guided them to a particular object. Though this paper fo- Synthetic classification will prove especially useful for cuses on subject headings, it respects the desirability of artifacts whose nature may only be fully appreciated by ex- detailed object descriptions and the importance of guid- perts in a field. We would want anyone searching for “tools ing users to these. Cameron and Robinson also appreciate for scraping” to find the “beamer,” a bone implement used the value of linking information resources, especially via for scraping by indigenous peoples in the Americas. An- linked open data (LOD), so that users can easily be other example is “abrader”—(tool)(for)(smoothing). To guided to related information. This paper will address the unfamiliar, “Apache tear” will hardly signify (round) these issues also below, noting that a synthetic approach (nodules)(of)(obsidian). Synthetic classification is also par- facilitates linking in general and LOD in particular. ticularly useful when terminology is ambiguous. Someone Museums hold some artifacts because they are typical— searching for awls used in working leather would like to say, the sort of sword used in a particular army—and other readily distinguish these from the quite different awls used artifacts, because they are unusual: say, a golden sword used for working wood. for ceremonial purposes. Note that a synthetic subject One challenge that many museums face is that differ- string employing basic concepts can serve to identify both. ent groups may attach different meanings to the same ar- A user seeking to compare a particular kind of artifact tifact. As an example, European explorers in nineteenth across time or place can thus readily identify these artifacts century Australia collected many Aboriginal artifacts but in many museum holdings. But a user interested in unique did not record the spiritual meaning that was attached to items can enter a very precise search string. We will provide these. Aboriginal groups understandably find that these many examples of possible subject classifications of mu- artifacts may be both mis-described and mis-classified in seum artifacts below. museums (Cameron & Robinson 2007). A synthetic ap- Museum artifacts might be usefully classified in terms proach may be helpful here in allowing a subject string of their purpose (both practical and symbolic), material that can combine both the practical use and spiritual composition, and (for some items) methods of manufac- meaning of an artifact (I argued in 2014 of the more ture (provenance is beyond the scope of this paper, though general value of a synthetic approach grounded in basic it should be noted that a synthetic approach is also useful concepts in addressing concerns around classification and in designating the group that created an artifact or the social diversity). There may, of course, be artifacts for place of creation: say, along a lake in southeastern Europe). which meaning—or other elements of subject—is con- A synthetic approach is useful for all three: (axe)(for)(war); tested. The advice of CDWA is to openly discuss areas (wooden)(shaft)(steel)(head); (mass)(produced). A synthetic Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 497 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums approach also allows these to be combined into one longer combination of facets can be found anywhere: an axe subject entry. This approach would allow the cataloguer to fashioned from gold but actually employed in battle. stress the most important characteristics of a particular ar- Hider (2012, 54) reminds us that users with only a vague tifact—but necessarily then allowing and perhaps encour- idea of what they are seeking can also suffer from reli- aging one or two of the three elements to be ignored. Such ance on full-text searching: they would potentially benefit an approach may also better identify artifacts whose spe- from the structure that a hierarchically organized con- cialness lies in unusual combinations of the three elements: trolled vocabulary can provide. (golden)(axe). Since objects can potentially be classified The standard resource for Cataloguing Cultural Objects along at least three key dimensions (design might be con- (CCO, VRA 2017), has been developed by the Getty Re- sidered as a fourth key dimension; see below), and users search Institute. It self-describes as follows: “CCO is de- will often wish to search for particular combinations across signed for use by professionals in museum collections, these dimensions, a synthetic approach to classification will visual resource collections, archives, and libraries that best allow users to find what they want. have a primary emphasis on art, architecture, and material Museums with different missions might in their object culture.” It devotes chapter six to subject classification. descriptions stress different aspects of the same object: a The CCO thinks subject classification important, and museum of technology might stress how it was made, a recommends controlled vocabulary but leaves museum museum of daily life might stress how it was used, and a cataloguers to choose which subject authorities they use museum focused on a local industry might stress what it and the degree of specificity in classification. The Getty’s was made of (see Cameron & Robinson 2007). A syn- “Categories for the Description of Works of Art” pro- thetic approach that encourages cataloguers to reflect on vides some dozens of recommended terms but also en- these three key elements may facilitate access across quite courages museums to choose among many sources of different institutions. As long as the museum’s object de- controlled vocabulary for additional terms. Such a rec- scription refers to all three elements (which will not al- ommendation naturally limits the ease of searches across ways be the case), a cataloguer can capture each in the museums. Yet, if museum cataloguers will be urged to subject string—though the cataloguer may also reflect in- consult subject authorities then we can potentially achieve stitutional mission by emphasizing the element(s) that the ease of access by encouraging instead the consultation of museum values most. We may thus achieve the hoped-for one easy-to-master classification. balance between providing user access while respecting We might also mention CIDOC, the committee on institutional differences. documentation of the International Council of Muse- It deserves to be emphasized here that a synthetic ap- ums. It has produced guidelines on documentation of proach does leave scope for under-resourced museums to museum artifacts. Though these are not explicitly focused provide less detailed subject descriptions than others, on subject classification, I have shown elsewhere how while nevertheless employing the same controlled vo- each of CIDOC’s metadata elements can be readily trans- cabulary. Some museums may also have less remarkable lated into basic concepts (CIDOC CRM Special Interest collections than others and, thus, require less extensive Group 2015; Szostak n.d.) subject strings. There are inevitably a host of subject classification schemes developed by different museums. These can po- 3.0 Existing approaches to museum classification tentially facilitate the development of shared controlled vocabulary (see below) but at the moment serve to encour- It has not proven easy to develop a common KOS that age different museums to utilize differing controlled vo- can address each of the challenges outlined above. The cabularies. For example, the United States National Park temptation of many museums has thus been to rely on Service (USNPS) has employed a list of artifacts several some combination of full-text searching of object de- pages in length that it has borrowed in turn from the Ari- scriptions and crowd-sourcing whereby users can tag zona State Museum. The examples that we explored in the items. Yet, we in the knowledge organization community preceding section often came from this list. A scan of the know that both strategies can be problematic. In particu- list allows us to draw some important conclusions regard- lar, both lack precision. Given that museum staff and ing artifact classification. Importantly we can note that taggers may both use a variety of terms to describe the many items in the classification will be needlessly obscure same thing, users may fail to find what they are looking not only to non-archaeologists but also to archaeologists for. Only controlled vocabulary can achieve precision in of non-American civilizations. search. This might be important both when users search We can identify three broad types of artifact. The for a particular item that they have read or heard about most important for our purposes are those that have ob- somewhere or when they are wondering if a particular scure titles. These will not be discovered by anyone but 498 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums experts (and perhaps only experts in a particular people). tended for battle. Of course, tools by their nature have It is desirable that these be coded in terms of more basic multiple uses. But it is nevertheless often invaluable to concepts. They can of course be classified as long as the identify the primary use for which a given tool was de- term used at present automatically invokes the basic con- signed. It is often also critically important to distinguish cept string. These strings are usually a handful of terms the materials from which a tool was made. in length but sometimes longer. We provided examples Particular artifacts from any of these three categories of beamer, abrader, and Apache tear above. “Atlatl” is may benefit from yet further clarification. They may, for (weapon)(for)(throwing)(spear) example, be decorated, intended for display or symbolic The “armor slat” will likely be appreciated only by ex- use, associated with a particular person or event or group, perts in Native American warfare. It is a flat wooden piece, and so on. Even if some of these elements are captured tied to others, employed as armor. Similar armor may well in other metadata elements, they should be recognized in have been used in other parts of the world but be referred a subject search as well. to by different terminology. It is thus useful to render this It should be noted that many of the entries on the compound as (flat)(wood)(for)(armor), where armor is it- USNPS list are themselves compounds: adze blade, arrow self coded as (protection)(for)(war). Note that there were shaft, bag handle. It is often useful to search by the com- other kinds of Native American armor. Some used ponent terms, but this will only be possible if these are ex- wooden rods tied together—this similarity with slat armor plicitly compounds of simpler terms. A particular user will be captured by a synthetic approach. Many used hides, might have an interest in blades or handles or even shafts. sometimes hardened with other substances, sometimes We should close this section by appreciating that this is padded with cotton—again a synthetic approach captures a historical moment in which significant change in cata- both similarity and difference. loguing procedures might be possible. As noted above the A second type of artifact involves those with familiar online presence of museums has exposed museums to user titles. Here a translation into even more basic concepts is demands for enhanced access (McMarty 2014, 618): less critical but may still be useful in identifying similari- ties between objects (as, say, between arrows and spears). They [users] want to be able to say, “I’m writing a Examples are numerous: paper about Hercules,” or “I’m researching the evolution of glass-making technologies,” and find all the – Arrow is (long)(round)(pointed)(projectile)(weapon) relevant resources in one search, in person or online, where (projectile) is (object)(propelled). regardless of the type of collections where the re- – Bag is (flexible)(container)(for)(carrying) [bags should cords they need may be stored. They do not want to then be distinguished by material]. learn that most information systems are not geared – Basket is (container)(for)(carrying)(made of)(strips) toward answering these kinds of questions, and they (intertwined). especially do not want to discover how difficult it still is today for cultural heritage organizations to share We can of course imagine a continuum of recognizability information about their collections and enable rather than the two distinct types of artifact identified searching across multiple institutions. above. One advantage of always defining terms with respect to more basic concepts is that the cataloguer need Museums have experimented with software that allows not constantly ask themselves which of the two types searches across institutions employing different controlled above an artifact belongs to. “Adze” is a good example vocabularies. Educational institutions have responded also. here; many people will know that this is a tool for carving It is increasingly common for museum students to learn wood but others will not. Fewer will know that the main about knowledge organization and for information schools characteristic distinguishing an adze from an axe is that to compare GLAM sectors or even offer integrated pro- the blade is perpendicular to the shaft (such that one grams addressing GLAM as a whole (McMarty 2014). As swings an adze sideways). Even fewer will appreciate that we have seen there are many challenges in providing sub- the mattock is similar to an adze but has a blunter blade. ject access to museums. But with attention increasingly fo- A third type of artifact involves terms that are am- cused on this issue, an innovative solution that addresses biguous. Those who recognize that an awl is a long these key challenges might prove attractive. pointed spike will still wonder if a particular awl was designed for making holes in wood, carving wood, making 4.0 A novel approach to museum classification holes in leather, or other uses. Axes have an even wider range of uses. In particular, those designed for cutting or We have in preceding sections identified several desiderata carving wood tend to be quite different from those infor a museum classification. We have suggested at many Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 499 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums points that a synthetic approach employing basic concepts we have now urged museums to move fairly directly from might prove advantageous. Such an approach clearly has object descriptions to synthetic subject strings. We can also advantages in achieving clarity; it allows us to translate the note that users concoct their queries in grammatical form quite different terminology that museums might use into as well: “bronze axe used in war.” Our ability to link users basic concepts for which there will be broadly shared un- to the precise objects they seek will be enhanced if we derstandings across users and cataloguers. It should be guide users to employ the same order of terminology that stressed here that this approach simultaneously addresses cataloguers employ—and provide users with a search algo- several other desiderata. Though museums have not—and rithm that privileges the order in which search terms are likely could not, given their emphases on different peoples entered. With regard to the latter, note that such a search and regions—identified a common controlled vocabulary algorithm circumvents the main criticism against a post- of complex terminology, we can aspire to a common clas- coordinated approach to classification (that is, one where sification of basic concepts. I have argued elsewhere that the cataloguer combines simple terms synthetically rather this approach is also feasible for libraries (Szostak 2011) than choosing from a set of complex headings): that users and galleries and archives (Szostak 2016a); it thus poten- searching for “philosophy of history” will be guided to tially fulfils the goal of facilitating search across the GLAM many useless (for them) works on history of philosophy. sector. A synthetic approach employing basic concepts al- As I have noted elsewhere (Szostak 2015), this result holds lows us also to: deal with both typical and exceptional arti- only if we limit ourselves to search algorithms available in facts; translate professional jargon into subject strings that the 1960s. We should instead design our classifications to users can comprehend; clarify terms that are ambiguous accord not with antiquated search techniques but to work and artifacts that might have multiple uses; identify pur- with search algorithms designed in concert with the classi- pose, mode of manufacture, material, and design; and may fication. A group of undergraduate computer science stu- even facilitate and encourage documentation of un- dents has developed for me a search algorithm that priori- documented artifacts. tizes the order in which terms are entered in a query. We want an approach to classification that is both easy- How can we best guide cataloguers and users to employ to-use and respects the individuality of different museums. the same word order? We can encourage them to structure It should thus be stressed that the approach recommended subject strings grammatically. That is, rather than requiring here allows the cataloguer to move fairly directly from a both to master some set of rules to govern the order in sentence in an object description to a subject classification. which they enter terms, we can encourage them both to- The cataloguer need not master a complex knowledge or- ward the standard grammatical approach that they employ ganization system. Rather, they translate each term in the in almost every other act of communication in which they object description directly into controlled vocabulary. As engage. Is there enough regularity in grammar to achieve noted above, complex terms such as atlatl or beamer can common word order? In Szostak (2017a), I surveyed the be used as long as they are also translated into basic con- basic rules of English grammar and identified the follow- cepts. Museums that have fewer resources or simpler arti- ing list of adjustments that a cataloguer (or computer) facts will produce shorter synthetic subject strings than might make in moving from an object (or document) clas- museums with more resources and complicated artifacts— sification to a standard grammatical format: but both can employ the same controlled vocabulary. We do not, of course, want the cataloguer to translate – Translating interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory an entire description of a paragraph or longer in length sentences or clauses into declarative format. into a subject string. The idea is that the cataloguer se- – Ignoring pronouns and most determiners. lects—or concocts—one sentence that captures the es- – Using only the most specific form when nouns are re- sence of the artifact in question. McMarty (2014, 618) re- petitive. ports a common joke in museum informatics: “if museum – Translating verbs into the infinitive. curators ran libraries, no one would be able to check out a – Using combinations with auxiliary verbs to capture book until it was first explained to them what it was about verb tenses. and why they should read it.” Museums will need to appre- – Translating phrasal verbs and idioms into synonyms (a ciate (as librarians long have with respect to documents) task for a thesaurus). that the subject string allows users to find an object; they – Placing simple adjectives before nouns but post- can then be directed to a longer description that places the adjectival phrases after. object in context. – Using compound adjectival forms to capture gradation. We have not yet in this paper discussed grammar at – Translating adjectival phrases with “that” (or similar great length. But we have provided subject strings above words) into adjectival phrases using prepositions or in- that read like sentences or at least sentence fragments, and finitives. 500 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums

– Ignoring or translating the rare adverb that does not eminence to the first term in a search query as was the appear after a verb or before an adjective or adverb. case when printed indices and card catalogs were the en- – Using an extra set of parentheses if necessary (or try point to collections (Szostak 2017b). some other notational device) to clarify whether a The use of grammar has some further important ad- modifier is an adjective or adverb. vantages that deserve to be briefly mentioned here: – Distinguishing adverbs from prepositions when the same word can be used for each. – Humans think in sentences. We spend our lives utter- – Ignoring the first component of a correlative conjunc- ing, hearing, reading, and writing sentences. We may tion. even have been genetically selected to appreciate basic – Addressing inverse verbs, ideally by preferring one grammatical constructions. We certainly master these form over its inverse. at a very early age (even if we had trouble consciously mastering rules of grammar in elementary school). A Most of the time, people employ very similar grammati- subject heading formulated in accord with standard cal constructions. None of the adjustments listed above rules of grammar will thus be more readily and accu- are then necessary. When people do not employ a stan- rately comprehended. dard word order it is quite straightforward to achieve this – Linguists stress that sentences provide context for the through a clear and manageable set of adjustments. Note, terms within the sentence and thus serve to clarify the moreover, that if we fail on occasion and user and cata- meaning of those terms. Scholars of knowledge or- loguer use different word orders to express the same idea, ganization worry a great deal about the ambiguity of we are no worse off than if we had no access to anything individual terms. I argued in Szostak (2011), and again better than Boolean operators when performing subject briefly above, that we can reduce ambiguity by focus- search (and we could if desired provide users with the ing on basic concepts. We can now reduce ambiguity option of employing different search algorithms). even further by placing these basic concepts within The experience of PRECIS (Preserved Context Index- subject strings with a sentence-like structure. ing System), an indexing system developed by Derek Aus- – Grammar is a kind of facet analysis. A subject string tin and colleagues for use in the British National Bibliog- that follows a grammatical format, and which draws its raphy in the 1970s, is instructive. Though the purpose of controlled vocabulary from logically organized sched- PRECIS was quite different—it was designed to identify ules of things, relators, and adjective/adverbial prop- a number of different subject headings with different erties will have one clear place for each facet appreci- lead entries—the designers of PRECIS found it useful to ated in the literature on facets. (And since grammar it- employ grammatical construction within the key elements self captures some facets it is much easier to pursue of their subject headings. This was not the original intent; logical subdivisions in our schedules.) A cataloguer— they had experimented with other types of word order. whether of an object or document—that first identi- But since they also were moving directly from document fies a sentence that captures the essence of the object descriptions to subject headings, PRECIS cataloguers or document and then translates this into a grammati- found over time that grammar worked best. “The fact cal subject string will have identified the key facets of that general rules of this kind can be deduced and ap- the object or document without having to explicitly plied in practical indexing would seem to indicate that perform facet analysis (Szostak 2017a). natural language is endowed with a greater measure of underlying logic than many classificationists would allow” The fact that humans think in terms of sentences is par- (Austin 1977, 82). It is also noteworthy that PRECIS was ticularly important, because information scientists might successfully translated into French. It would appear that be tempted to look at the sort of subject strings gener- the differences in grammar between the two languages ated in this paper and think “that’s not what a subject were not overwhelming. And PRECIS was used across heading looks like!” We have become accustomed over multiple media such as films (Dykstra 1989). PRECIS fell the last century and a half to subject headings that defy out of use for reasons that had nothing to do with its use grammatical conventions. As noted with respect to PRE- of grammatical construction; the success that it had with CIS, such subject headings were necessitated in an age of a grammatical approach—and in moving directly from card catalogues or printed indexes, because it was then document descriptions to subject headings—over a pe- absolutely essential to search by the first term in a subject riod of decades thus suggests that the approach recom- heading. But we should not infer from the characteristics mended in this paper is quite feasible. Indeed, this ap- of a particular time and place that there is some natural proach is far more feasible in the twenty-first century shape to subject headings. It is reported, for example, than in the 1970s for we no longer need to assign pre- that the famed Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh c. Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 501 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums

1180 BCE had subheadings such as “sheep with arthritic 6.0 Some Examples hips” (McNeely and Wolverton 2008). It should thus be stressed here that there is absolutely no reason why a sub- In Szostak (2017c) I showed how grammatical subject ject heading cannot take the format described in this pa- strings could be derived from document descriptions of a per. It is a historical convention that subject headings take handful of recently published books. I showed that it was the form that they do. Computers now allow searches for easy first to identify (or construct) a sentence that cap- any term in a subject string and indeed for combinations tured the essence of the document, and then to move to of such terms. a grammatically constructed subject classification employing terminology from the BCC. In Szostak (2016b) I 5.0 Reprise provided examples of synthetic strings for samples of museum, gallery, and archive holdings (though I was not Note the advantage here is that each museum starts from a stressing grammar at that point in time). description that it has already fashioned, identifying a key One item addressed briefly in Szostak (2016b) was a sentence(s) in/from that description. We do not require chalcedony cylinder seal. This used to be the first item that these descriptions be rewritten. Nor do we force mu- listed under the Achaemenid dynasty of ancient Persia on seums to fit their object into some set of complex subject the website of the British Museum (but is now harder to headings. We only insist on common grammatical phrasing find as the museum has moved to the Google cultural heri- and the use of a controlled vocabulary of basic concepts. tage interface which stresses virtual reality tours). We can Staff can move fairly directly from their own object de- usefully imagine that the curator of this collection wished scriptions to a subject classification. They can very quickly to provide subject headings for each item in the collection. learn to ignore pronouns and follow a very small set of The subject heading could capture the material, form, and other rules that are required to transform a sentence into a purpose of the item with (chalcedony)(cylinder)(seal). subject description. They can also quickly learn how to Scope notes in the schedules could define the nature of a employ a thesaurus or search the compact schedules for seal (to indicate official support for a particular document). controlled vocabulary. The grammatical approach will be Chalcedony is a compound crystal of quartz and moganite. particularly valuable for museums that lack dedicated staff We would want chalcedony to be in our schedule of mate- with knowledge organization training or responsibility. rials but linked by a thesaurus to crystal, quartz, and Yet, we need not worry overmuch that we will end up moganite. Users searching for these other three terms with idiosyncratic subject classifications. As we have seen, should be advised of the connection to chalcedony. Users the grammatical approach achieves the aim of facet analy- with a general interest in seals or especially cylinder seals, sis without requiring cataloguers to actually perform facet or in items made of chalcedony, and especially cylinder analysis. Each facet is represented by its place within a seals made of chalcedony, would be guided to this item— grammatical heading and/or within compact logical hierar- and to similar items held in this and other museums else- chies. For example, in a sentence of form (noun)(action) where in the world. Note that each term in the subject de- (noun)(action)(noun), it will be clear that the action verbs scription is a basic concept (though admittedly chalcedony fulfill the “operations” facet (in the Bliss Bibliographic Classifi- requires a very detailed classification of crystals, or must cation), the first noun is the “agent,” the second the “pa- receive a compound rendering itself). It might also be indi- tient,” and the last the “product.” The grammatical ap- cated that such a seal was only (used)(by)(officials). Since proach thus guides museum cataloguers to stress key fac- seals were generally used by officials, this qualifying phrase ets. And these in turn will be captured by a shared con- would likely be judged redundant. But we can imagine that trolled vocabulary. for other objects, a phrase clarifying who used an object The user then enters the terms that are of greatest im- might enable users to perform a more precise search. I dis- port to their search in the form of a sentence. If the search cuss in Szostak (2016b) how in a phrase such as (chalced- interface guides them to controlled vocabulary and stan- ony)(cylinder)(seal), which has the form (adjective/adjec- dard grammatical format (see below) then they can achieve tive/noun), there can be some ambiguity as to whether the great precision in their search without any need to com- first adjective qualifies the second adjective or the noun— prehend the classification system in use. But if they wish to but suggest that this will generally be clear in context. I browse, they can be guided to flat and logical schedules noted in Szostak (2017a) that we can indicate the materials within the classification—or shown how changing one facet (one of thirteen facets identified in the Bliss Biblio- term at a time in their search query guides them to related graphic Classification) by providing a unique notation to our artifacts. schedules of materials within our logical classification of things. Since materials modify things, it is thus clear that “chalcedony” is indicating the material of which the seal is 502 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums made. The cataloguer might choose to indicate the high shorter original string. A user searching for chalcedony quality of this particular seal—as noted in the object de- seals will still find this particular object whether the description—by adding yet another qualifier (perhaps “beau- tails of pictorial representation are provided in the sub- tiful” or “elaborate”) to the subject string. Such an addition ject string or not. Most importantly perhaps, we moved may be less useful, especially if there is a tendency for mu- directly from sentences in the museum’s own object de- seums to each laud the quality of the items in their collec- scription to develop our subject string. The cataloguer tion. could potentially perform this task in about the time it The most important way in which this (chalced- took to read these paragraphs—especially if aided by a ony)(cylinder)(seal) might be distinguished from others is thesaurus (see below). Yet, that subject string is com- in terms of the pictures inscribed on its surface. Here, the posed entirely of terms that are in a shared controlled object description provides clear guidance: “The most vocabulary that can be used by all museums and under- common subject is a crowned figure wearing Persian dress, stood similarly by all users. We have thus managed the here shown fighting a lion alongside a hero in Babylonian seemingly impossible task of respecting the individuality dress shown fighting a bull.” We could capture these key of museums while facilitating search across all museums. elements also: (crowned)(Persian)(male)(fighting)(lion) And since the same exact procedure can be employed (beside)(Babylonian)(male)(fighting)(bull). These are all ba- also in galleries, archives, and libraries, we can facilitate sic concepts, and diverse users should attach very similar search across the entire GLAM sector. meanings to each term in the subject string, especially since The Smithsonian Institution used to have a “highlights” the string itself clarifies the meaning of each; we know list, but this has disappeared sometime in the last year or what kind of fight it is because there is a man and a bull so—signalling yet again that museums often redesign web- involved (The Flora and Fauna schedules of the BCC have pages and sometimes make it hard to find objects that one not been fleshed out to the level of “lion” and “cow”— found there very recently. The third item on that list was bull would be (male)(cow)—but will be; crowned would at the well-known photograph “Migrant Mother” by Doro- present be a compound of (place)(crown)). So the cata- thea Lange. It might be captured by (photograph)(of) loguer might well opt for (chalcedony)(cylinder)(seal) (poor)(migrant)(worker)(mother)(in)(1930s). But this pho- (associated with)((place)(crown))(Persian)(male)(fighting) tograph is well-known, precisely because it captures the (lion)(beside)(Babylonian)(male)(fighting)(bull). This is, woman’s desolation, presumably regarding her limited abil- admittedly, a fairly long subject string. It is quite likely ity to provide for her family. This fact is signaled in the that museum objects will often be described with longer photograph’s description. So, we could hope that a cata- subject strings than library documents (archival docu- loguer would add at least (despair) and perhaps best (de- ments may also benefit from long strings that describe spair)(because)(poor) to the subject string (replacing just who produced the document and for what purpose and “poor”). Again, this addition does not interfere with those maybe where and when). Szostak (2016b) showed that looking for photographs of poor people or poor migrants notations of manageable length are generated even when or poor mothers or poor migrant workers. But it allows several terms are combined in a subject string—because precise search for those seeking photographs of “desola- flat logical hierarchies allow short notations for each tion because poor migrant worker mothers.” These might term. Such a string allows both the user seeking chalced- be users with some vague familiarity with the photograph ony seals and the user with a more specific interest in cer- in question or simply users with a very clear idea of what tain types of pictorial representation to find this particu- they are looking for. lar artifact. And, of course, the user with a precise interest in that type of picture on that type of object will 7.0 Thesaurus achieve great precision in their search. The importance of word order should be obvious: We would lose a great deal The cataloguer in moving from a sentence in an object de- of precision in our search if the crowned male were scription to a subject string will need to locate controlled linked as strongly to the bull as the lion in our search al- vocabulary. They will be aided in this task by the flat logical gorithm, and especially if he might be thought to be hierarchies of the BCC. Yet, the task could be further fa- fighting a chalcedony seal. And imagine if the Babylonian cilitated by the development of a thesaurus that could were kissing the bull rather than fighting it; it would then guide the cataloguer directly from terminology in the ob- be even more important that he be associated more ject description to controlled vocabulary. The approach strongly with “kissing bull” than “fighting lion.” recommended in this paper can facilitate the development Note that the cataloguer has a choice as to how much of such a thesaurus. As Richmond (1976) noted with re- detail to provide in the subject string. Note further that spect to the use of (what we would call) basic concepts adding detail does not interfere with the essence of the within PRECIS: “The fact that PRECIS focused on terms Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 503 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums rather than complex headings means it is possible to have a represented by unique identifiers for each term in that ‘true’ thesaurus just as if it were a post-coordinated sys- controlled vocabulary. tem.” That is, rather than trying to link terms to complex It is hoped that linked open data will allow computers and contested subject headings we can strive to identify to draw inferences across databases. If one website asserts synonyms and near-synonyms for basic concepts for which that swans are birds, and another that birds have wings, the fairly precise and shared understandings are possible. If a computer can conclude that swans have wings. Notably, close synonym cannot be achieved we might then guide the developers of the semantic web appreciate the limita- cataloguer (and user) to the relevant schedule from which tions of keyword searching—if the different databases in they can choose the most appropriate term. Fairly exhaus- the example above used different terminology for “bird,” tive lexicons such as WordNet already exist which can be no deduction would be possible—and, thus, advocate cod- harnessed to the task. There are also thesauri and object ing with the use of controlled vocabulary. The second lists within the museum domain—most notably the Art point to note is that the form of this coding centers on and Architecture Thesaurus developed by the Getty institute “RDF triples” of the form (subject)(predicate or prop- (http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/), erty)(object). That is, databases are to be coded in terms of the British Museum Material Thesaurus (http://www.vocabul combinations of things, verbs, and adverbs/adjectives. aryserver.com/materials/index.php?letra=H) and Object This is exactly the sort of approach recommended above Names Thesaurus (http://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/ for “coding” the subjects of museum artifacts—though british-museum-object-names-thesaurus/), but also multi- admittedly our subject strings will often be longer than ple editions of Nomenclature for Museum Cataloguing (Bourcier three terms in length. It is possible, though, to translate and Dunn 2015)—that can be harnessed to the task of longer strings into combinations of RDF triples. We can connecting object descriptions to BCC terminology. thus potentially provide subject classification of museum artifacts that facilitates not only searches by human users 8.0 Linked open data but also searches by computers. Computers, that is, can potentially link artifacts in one museum to artifacts in others, The museum community is intrigued these days by the and to books, archival documents, and works of art. And a possibilities of linked open data (LOD). Yet, efforts to controlled vocabulary adopted in the museum community employ LOD are often tangential to the purposes of sub- would likely be employed more widely, for the semantic ject classification; objects are linked to their creator or lo- web community has signally failed to achieve consensus on cale rather than readily compared and contrasted or con- controlled vocabulary (Hart and Dolbear 2012). nected to other objects. Linked open data are useful only if different databases employ the same (or interoperable) 9.0 Concluding remarks controlled vocabulary. This is possible at present with respect to names and places; we can all agree on a unique An approach to subject classification for museums that identifier for “William Shakespeare” or “Stratford on synthesizes basic concepts according to grammatical rules Avon.” And, thus, we can fairly easily connect an object achieves a diverse set of goals identified in the literature to a person or place. This may allow the user to move on museum classification: it respects the uniqueness of fairly easily from a paintbrush used by a particular painter individual collections; it nevertheless facilitates search in one museum to a painting by that painter in a gallery across museums—and also potentially libraries, archives, to a series of sketches by that painter in an archive to and galleries; importantly, it potentially facilitates search books about that painter in an archive. by computers as well as human users; the recommended But what if the user wants to identify which painters approach is easy to use both by users and by cataloguers painted a particular subject or to connect differences in in museums who often have limited resources or training subject with differences in artistic style? The combination in information science; the approach is flexible such that of grammatical structure and controlled vocabulary rec- different museums might provide different degrees of ommended above potentially allows cataloguers and users detail in their subject descriptions; the approach allows to draw such connections (especially if supported by ap- details of material, manufacture, and use of objects to be propriate visualization techniques), to identify objects combined with details regarding design in one subject that differ in one important way but are otherwise similar, heading. or to identify objects that go together (say, because they The recommended approach has been applied to small were part of the same ceremony). A user might, for ex- samples of objects or documents from across the GLAM ample, wish to compare seals made from chalcedony with sector. It seems to be entirely feasible—though the resul- seals fashioned from bronze. Such searches require a con- tant subject headings may seem unusual to information trolled vocabulary for subject headings which can then be scientists accustomed to the format more commonly pur- 504 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums sued. The recommended approach, which combines in- ogy to Support Web Site Development of Large Cul- novation in classification with innovation in search algo- tural Organizations.” Aslib Proceedings 62:523-32. rithm (and ideally innovation in thesaurus construction), Richmond, Phyllis A. 1976. “Classification from PRECIS: allows greater precision than existing approaches to sub- Some Possibilities.” Journal of the American Society for In- ject classification. This is because it allows cataloguers to formation Science 27:240-7. move fairly directly from an object or document descrip- Szostak, Rick. 2011. “Complex Concepts into Basic Con- tion to a subject string. The user likewise can search for cepts.” Journal of the American Society for Information Sci- precisely constructed combinations of search terms. ence and Technology 62:2247-65. Szostak, Rick. 2013. Basic Concepts Classification. https:// References sites.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/rick-szostak/research/ basic-concepts-classification-web-version-2013 Austin, Derek. 1974. PRECIS: A Manual of Concept Analy- Szostak, Rick. 2014. “Classifying for Social Diversity” sis and Subject Indexing. London: Council of the British Knowledge Organization 41:160-70. National Bibliography. Szostak, Rick. 2015. “A Pluralistic Approach to the Phi- Bliss Classification Association. 2017. Bliss Bibliographical losophy of Classification.” Library Trends 63, no. 3: Classification: Using the Scheme. 2017. http://www.bliss 591-614. classification.org.uk/bcclass.shtml Szostak, Rick. 2016a. “Employing a Synthetic Approach Baca, Murtha and Patricia Harpring, eds. 2016. Categories for to Subject Classification across Galleries, Libraries, the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), rev. Patricia Archives, and Museums,” Knowledge Organization for a Harpring. J. Paul Getty Trust; College Art Association. Sustainable World: Challenges and Perspectives for Cultural, http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic Scientific, and Technological Sharing in a Connected Society; _publications/cdwa/ Proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference Bourcier, Paul and Heather Dunn, eds. 2015. Nomenclature 27-29 September 2016 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, ed. José Au- 4.0 for Museum Cataloging: Fourth Edition of Robert G. gusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, and Chenhall's System for Classifying Man-Made Objects, 4th ed. Vera Dodebei. Advances in Knowledge Organization American Association for State and Local History 15. Wurzburg: Ergon, 359-67. Book Series. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefiedl. Szostak, Rick. 2016b. “Synthetic Classification of Museum Cameron, Fiona & Robinson, Helena. 2007. “Digital Artifacts Using Basic Concepts.” Paper presented at Knowledgescapes: Cultural, Theoretical, Practical, and MW2016: Museums and the Web 2016: The Annual Confer- Usage Issues Facing Museum Collection Databases in ence of Museums and the Web, April 6-9, 2016, Los Angeles, a Digital Epoch.” In Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: CA, USA. http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/ A Critical Discourse, ed. Fiona Cameron and Sarah proposal/synthetic-classification-of-museum-artifacts- Kenderdine,. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 165-91. using-basic-concepts/ CIDOC-CRM Special Interest Group. 2015. “Definition Szostak, Rick. 2017a. “Facet Analysis without Facet Indi- of the CIDOC-CRM Conceptual Reference Model.” cators” in Dimensions of Knowledge: Facets for Knowledge Last modified May 2015. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/ Organization, ed. Richard Smiraglia and Hur-li Lee. Version/version-6.2 Wurzburg: Ergon, 69-86. Dykstra, Mary. 1989. “PRECIS in the online catalog.” Szostak, Rick. 2017b. “Theory versus Practice in Facet Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 10, nos. 1-2:81-94. Analysis,” In Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technol- Hart, Glen and Catherine Dolbear. 2013. Linked Data: A ogy and End Users; Proceedings of the International UDC Geographic Perspective. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Seminar 2017, London (UK), 14-15 Sept. 2017, ed. Aida Hider, Philip. 2012. Information Resource Description: Creating Slavic, and Claudio Gnoli,. Würzburg: Ergon 259-69. and Managing Metadata. Chicago, IL: American Library Szostak, Rick. 2017c. “Facet Analysis Using Grammar.” Association. In Proceedings of the NASKO Conference, Champaign, IL, Marty Paul F. 2014. “Digital Convergence and the Infor- 14-15 June, 2017, ed. R.P. Smiraglia and L. Ridenour. mation Profession in Cultural Heritage Organizations: https://iskocus.org/publications.php Reconciling Internal and External Demands.” Library Szostak, Rick, trans. n.d. Translation of CIDOC Reference Model. Trends 62, no. 3:613-27. https://sites.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/rick-szostak/ McNeely, Ian F., and Lisa Wolverton. 2008. Reinventing publications/appendix-to-synthetic-classification-of- Knowledge: From Alexandria to the Internet. New York: museum-artifacts/national-gallery-us-highlights/ W. W. N o r t o n . translation-of-cidoc-reference-model Menard, Elaine, Sabine Mas, and Inge Alberts. 2010. “Fac- United States National Park Service. 2016. Archaeological eted Classification for Museum Artefacts: A Methodol- Object Name List used by the US National Parks Service, Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 505 R. Szostak. A Grammatical Approach to Subject Classification in Museums

annotated by Rick Szostak. https://sites.google.com/ Visual Resources Association. 2017. “The CCO Com- a/ualberta.ca/rick-szostak/publications/appendix-to- mons: Cataloging Cultural Objects.” http://cco.vrafound synthetic-classification-of-museum-artifacts/archaeol ation.org/index.php. ogy-object-name-list-used-by-the-us-national-parks- Zoller, Gabriela and Katie DeMarsh. 2013. “Museum Ca- service taloging from a Library and Information Science Per- Urban, Richard J. 2014. “Library Influence on Museum spective.” Art Documentation 32: 54-70. Information Work.” Library Trends 62, no. 3: 596-612.

506 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects Through Bourdieu’s Lens Lala Hajibayova*, Kiersten F. Latham** Kent State University, School of Information, 1125 Risman Dr, Kent, OH 44243, USA *, **< [email protected]>

Lala Hajibayova is an assistant professor in the School of Information at Kent State University where she conducts research and teaches in the area of information representation and organization, and scholarly communication. Her research is focused on the investigation of how humans’ experiences and practices of engaging with objects can complement traditional systems of representation and organization to build more human centered systems.

Kiersten F. Latham is an associate professor in the School of Information at Kent State University where she developed and teaches in the museum studies specialization from an information perspective. She has worked in, on, and about museums in various capacities for over 25 years. She has done research on numinous experiences with museum objects, imaginative touch (of museum objects), user perceptions of “the real thing” in museums, museums as ecological systems, and conceptual ramifications of museum object as document. In addition to teaching and research, Dr. Latham runs the experimental MuseLab and is heavily involved in The Document Academy.

Hajibayova, Lala and Kiersten F. Latham. 2017. “Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bor- dieu’s Lens.” Knowledge Organization 44(7): 506-514. 40 references.

Abstract: Museum crowdsourcing projects have drastically changed the ways in which individuals engage with cultural objects. In particular, individuals’ participation in representation of cultural objects through creating, sharing, and curating museum cultural objects contributes to the creation of multifaceted and rich representation of cultural objects as well as transgression of institutional boundaries between cultural heritage institutions. Applying Bourdieu’s (2010) conceptualization of cultural capital to museum crowdsourcing initiatives, this study suggests that cultural objects should be considered not only in relation to other objects, but also in relation to the social structure of the world and suggests that successful engagement with the crowd is grounded on an understanding of engaged individuals’ cultural capital and habitus. This approach will facilitate creation of not only multifaceted and multivalent representation of cultural objects but also ensure sustainable and meaningful engagement of individuals.

Received: 21 June 2017; Revised: 20 September 2017; Accepted: 26 September 2017

Keywords: cultural capital, museum objects, representation, crowdsourcing, social worlds

1.0 Introduction phasized the need to shift professional focus from museum methods to museum purposes, suggesting that, at In 1917, John Cotton Dana, a well-known museum pio- the core, museums are not just research, collection, and neer, published his seminal article, “The Gloom of the preservation institutions, but, more importantly, educa- Museum,” in which he called on museum professionals to tional institutions. Accordingly, Srinivasan, Boast, Becvar, reevaluate their notions of an exclusive museum patron- and Furner (2009, 667) characterize museums as cultural age and develop new methods to reach out to a greater heritage institutions that transform “social practices audience. Today, a hundred years later, Dana’s call is still a through the transformation of the museum from the dis- challenge to museum professionals. Embracing diverse play of singular expert accounts to a site of diverse edu- and multifaceted cultural and disciplinary approaches, to- cational engagements.” day’s museum professionals are not just curators and cus- To enhance representation, organization, and discov- todians, but as McLean (2004, 205) stated are, “first and erability of cultural heritage expressions, such institutions foremost communicators, dedicated to sustaining the re- as libraries, archives, and museums have been actively en- lationship and enriching the conversations between exhi- gaged in various crowdsourcing projects, defined by bition and visitor.” This role was captured in Vergo’s Howe (2006) as the act of taking work once performed (1989) classic concept of a “new museology,” which em- within an institution and outsourcing it to the general Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 507 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens public through an open call. Further developing this which individuals are situated, representing individuals’ un- characterization, Ridge (2014, 2) defines cultural heritage conscious internalization of their objective social condi- crowdsourcing projects as “projects [that] ask the public tions as well as their tastes and practices relevant to their to undertake tasks that cannot be done automatically, in social positions, which largely determine their cultural capi- an environment where the activities, goals (or both) pro- tal or social currency. As discussed below, Bourdieu’s con- vide inherent rewards for participation, and where their cepts provide insight into how individuals’ particular habi- participation contributes to a shared, significant goal or tus affects the quality as well as the overall integration of research interest.” Oomen and Aroyo (2011) suggest the their contributions to the representation of museum ob- following typology of cultural heritage institutions’ jects. Through this lens, this paper aims to contribute to crowdsourcing initiatives: theoretical understanding of museum crowdsourcing projects as a way to enhance sustainable and meaningful en- 1) transcription and editing projects that utilize partici- gagement with and discoverability of museum heritage. pants to edit and/or transcribe digitized artifacts; The first part of this paper synthesizes the theoretical 2) contextualization initiatives that engage participants to and empirical literature, examining representation of mu- contribute their experience and understanding of arti- seum cultural objects and museum crowdsourcing pro- facts; jects. In the following section of this paper, Bourdieu’s 3) complementation of online exhibits and/or collec- concepts of cultural capital and habitus are discussed to tions with participants’ contributions; provide in-depth understanding of the role of crowd in 4) creation of user-generated metadata for digitized col- representation of museum objects. lections; 5) co-curation initiatives that invite participants to curate 2.0 Representation of museum objects through web exhibits and collections; and, crowdsourcing 6) crowdfunding projects that seek financial contributions to support new cultural heritage initiatives. Parry (2007, 57), taking into consideration both tangible and in-tangible manifestations of museum collections, Museum scholars point out that the online collaboration describes these collections as “discrete, contained units and sharing of knowledge toward common goals involved of human experience, identified and extracted in order to in crowdsourcing projects offers museums valuable oppor- help substantiate (to evidence), record or define an indi- tunities for truly deep connections with cultural heritage vidual or collective epistemology (system of knowledge) resources (e.g., Noordegraaf, Bartholomew, and Eveleigh or ontology (sense of being).” There have been many 2014; Ridge 2014). For instance, Srinivasan, Boast, Furner studies proposed in the past few decades aimed at ex- and Becvar (2009, 268) contend that application of Inter- plaining the museum experience (e.g., Packer and Ballan- net technologies allows representation of museum objects tyne 2016; Wood and Latham 2014; Packer 2008). For in- as “more than illustrations, more than brief educational stance, Falk and Dierking (2016, 33) proposed the con- diagrams, [and] more than standardized edifying images.” textual model of learning of understanding the museum Ridge (2013) argues that crowdsourcing projects provide a experience, which involves three overlapping spheres of powerful platform for audiences to actively engage with experience, all threaded by time: museums. Owens (2013) suggests that crowdsourcing projects not only facilitate accessibility of digital collections, – Personal context, i.e., each museum visitor brings with but also empowers participants as authors of our historical her a unique background of prior experiences, inter- records. However, the literature to date lacks comprehen- ests, knowledge, motivations, beliefs, and values, about sive critical analysis of museum crowdsourcing projects, museum objects and the understanding of the mu- making it difficult to systematically understand these proc- seum as a societal institution; esses and relationships. – Sociocultural context, i.e., every museum experience is In this study, we adopt the lens of Bourdieu’s (2011; embedded within the larger socio-cultural context of 2010) concepts of “cultural capital” and “habitus” to begin museum as societal institutions and is mediated by mi- an investigation into crowdsourcing activities in museums. cro sociocultural interaction with other agents; Bourdieu (2011) theorizes cultural capital as an accumu- – Physical context, i.e., physical setting, such as museum lated, embodied form of capital, which is manifested in architecture, exhibition and objects, that individuals agents’ competence in society’s high-status culture. engage with; and Bourdieu’s empirical testing of the concept of cultural – Time, i.e., all museum experience occurs and change capital is based on consideration of individuals’ habitus over time, therefore, understanding of the museum that is directly derived from the socioeconomic position in experience, requires consideration of time. 508 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

Representation of museum objects involves a range of tween the ill-structured and well-structured aspects of the what Star and Griesemer (1989, 387) describe, in relation arrangements.” This might be particularly true for museum to museum scientific objects, as diverse visions stemming crowdsourcing projects that involve a quite diverse Internet from the intersection of participating social worlds. Their population to represent museum cultural objects. theoretical construct of “boundary objects” serves to ex- Like other cultural heritage institutions, museums have plain how diverse groups of actors—researchers from long been concerned with provision of comprehensive various disciplines, amateurs and professional, functionar- metadata to represent, organize, and make accessible the ies and visionaries—balance the multifaceted nature of sci- museums’ collection of cultural objects. Traditionally, rep- entific objects and cooperate to represent these objects. resentation and organization of museum collections have Star and Griesemer (393) argue that scientific objects, be- reflected museum specialists’ perspectives and museum ing linked to several intersecting social worlds, can serve as disciplinary processes (Trant 2006). Along these lines, an informational common ground as these objects are Macdonald (1998) argues that conception of museums as “plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints” of authorities has resulted in a dominant curatorial voice in the various stakeholders engaged with them and, at the representation of the museum objects. However, the rich, same time, these objects are “robust enough to maintain a multifaceted, and interconnected nature of museum ob- common identity” across various environments. For Star jects (Wood and Latham 2014), coupled with the limited and Griesemer, boundary objects are a basis for communi- ability of metadata standards (Smiraglia 2005) and norms cation, cooperative work, and having and reaching mutual to reflect the complexity of the cultural objects (Klavans, goals. Star and Griesemer (1989) define boundary objects LaPlante, and Golbeck 2014), challenges the process of as: representation (De Vorsey, Elson, Gregorev, and Hansen 2006). Accordingly, Trant (2006) states that traditional sys- – Scientific objects, which inhabit several intersecting tems of representation of museum objects are not neces- social worlds and fulfill the informational require- sarily comprehensive and comprehensible. For example, ments of each of them; representative characteristics of an artifact a viewer might – Objects plastic enough to adapt to local needs and deem exceptional might be all together excluded from the constraints of several parties employing them yet ro- traditional representation or metadata of the artifact (Trant bust enough to maintain a common identity across 2006). Baca, Coburn, and Hubbard (2007) point out that as sites; controlled vocabularies for representation of cultural ob- – Weakly structured in common use, but become robust jects are generally created for a particular audience, such as in individual site use; museum visitors, “re-purposing” the representation of the – Abstract or concrete; cultural objects for diverse online environments further – Possess different meanings in different social worlds challenges the process of metadata creation. In this regard, but a structure common enough to more than one Jörgensen (2004, 462, emphasis in original) suggests to re- world to make them distinguishable. consider the traditional approach to representation of cultural heritage, arguing that: Star and Griesemer (1989), identified four different types of boundary objects used at the Museum of Vertebrate a revolutionary reconceptualization of practice Zoology they studied: repositories of things (such as “or- which provides flexibility in the concept of the locus dered piles of objects”), ideal types (such as diagram and of authority in the description of documents could atlas), coincident boundaries (i.e., objects with same not only offer hope for tangible solutions to these boundaries but different contents, such as the creation of problems of description, but could facilitate the crea- the state of California itself as a boundary object for tion of new knowledge from these documents and workers at the museum), and standardized forms (such as empower communities who heretofore have been application forms and other methods of standardizing limited, for a variety of reasons, from participating in work). In her most recent work, Star (2010), reflecting on and contributing to intellectual understanding and the origin of a concept of boundary objects, points out the growth of knowledge. that not all things are boundary objects. Star proposes to consider scale and scope in defining whether an object op- Moreover, traditions of development standards for repre- erates as a boundary object in a given condition. Star (2010, sentation and organization of museum heterogeneous 601) points out that much of the use of the concept of objects as well as consortia forming for data sharing and boundary objects has focused on the aspect of “interpre- managing among museum institutions are relatively weak tive flexibility and has often mistaken or conflated this compared with the experience of libraries (Srinivasan, flexibility with the process of tackling back-and-forth be- Boast, Furner and Becvar 2009). Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 509 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

In recent years, museums have embraced internet sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and technologies, in particular Web 2.0 tools, to increase ac- understandings” is still needed. Furthermore, Srinivisan, cessibility of museum collections, expand museum ser- Boast, Furner and Becvar’s 2009 study of indigenous mu- vices, and, most importantly, include individuals’ voices in seum projects suggests that adaptation of technologies the representation and organization of the cultural heri- should be grounded on a strong collaboration with the tage resources through crowdsourcing projects (Ridge indigenous communities to ensure that both “expert” and 2013). Museums’ online galleries have provided interac- “source” community voices are reflected in representative avenues for viewers to engage with the museum col- tion of the historical, cultural, and social significance of lections, thus, moving from univocal to multivocal and indigenous cultural heritage. They also suggest that ar- multivalent representation of cultural heritage (Holley chaeologists, cultural preservationists, curators, and, criti- 2010; Owens 2013). Such projects can range from users cally, indigenous people must all interact to influence the tagging of objects to generation of exhibition contents. selection, acquisition, classification, and presentation of As examples of such practices, the Powerhouse Museum an object. Cultural objects are gateways to cultural heri- (https://maas.museum/powerhouse-museum/) provides tage and history, and, most importantly, the personal and options to tag museum objects, the Smithsonian Ameri- communal stories behind the cultural objects, which re- can Art Museum (http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/ quire the strong engagement of communities and coop- online/day/) allows viewers to provide comments, the eration among various actors. British museum (http://britishmuseum.libsyn.com) pro- Crowdsourcing research (Kittur 2013) suggests that ma- vides podcasting, and the Oakland Museum of California jor challenges to the success of collaboration between cul- (http://museumca.org) has created user-generated exhi- tural heritage professionals and volunteers include finding bitions. Parry (2007) argues that Internet technologies knowledgeable and loyal volunteers and maintaining a rea- encourage various interpretations of cultural objects and sonable level of quality work produced. In order to over- liberate objects from the “one-size-fits-all” of predefined come these challenges, museum studies (Noordegraaf, Bar- frames of representation and organization. Crowdsourc- tholomew, and Eveleigh 2014; Holley 2010) concerned ing projects also allow for enhancement of services for with sustainability of crowdsourcing projects have recently visitors with special needs, such as the Access American proposed taking into consideration such issues as availabil- Stories app offered at the Smithsonian National Museum ity of human and financial resources for designing, manag- of American History (http://americanhistory.si.edu) ing, and providing training for participants, and evaluating which uses a visitor’s smart phone to crowdsource verbal crowdsourcing initiatives. However, in spite of overwhelm- descriptions of American Stories exhibition objects to ing agreement on the necessity of multivocal representa- make these resources more accessible to visitors with vis- tion and organization of museum collections, the actual ual impairments (Davis 2013). shift to such a pluralistic approach to representation of A number of museum crowdsourcing studies have museum collections has yet come. In this vein, Srinivasan, analyzed the potentials of user-generated tags for multi- Boast, Becvar and Furner (2009, 667) argue that while the faceted representation of cultural objects (e.g., Chae et al. extension of the “new museology” into museums has in- 2016; Trant and Wyman 2006; and Trant 2009). For ex- troduced diverse educational programs and voices of vari- ample, Trant’s (2006) analysis of The Metropolitan Mu- ous experts and authorities, “rarely do these voices pass seum of Art experimental social tagging project revealed beyond a local and temporary educational performance, that users were able to identify content elements in cul- and rarely are they recorded in an enduring way in the mu- tural objects that were not described in formal museum seum's catalog.” Moreover, technological innovations have metadata and assign tags, most of which were validated hardly affected the traditional museum representation and by professional museum cataloguers. In contrast, an ex- organization of cultural objects, which remains the busi- perimental study by Srinivasan, Boast, Becvar and Furner ness of a “small, select group of ‘expert’ contributors.” (2009) of an online museum catalog interface that in- Perhaps, a good example of this stasis is the fate of the cluded social tagging and blogging features, revealed that highly-rated Steve museum project, established to improve merely adding these features to a traditional catalogue access to museum collections through user-generated tags, does not necessarily help users to learn about and/or en- which after few years of operation is not currently accessi- gage with the cultural objects represented in the catalog. ble (http://www.steve.museum), leaving such questions as The authors argue (666) that due to lack of the context whether and/or how participating museums utilized the and limited language for representation of museum ob- user-generated tags. Overall, while the openness and acces- jects, there is need for “more nuanced application of Web sibility of crowdsourcing projects are plausible, there is a 2.0 technologies with museums,” in particular, provision lack of persistent and cross-institutional projects and plat- of a contextual basis that would help users to “make forms that not only represent museum objects, but also in- 510 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens terrogate the deep impact of meaningful and sustainable nobility; and, 3) cultural capital, which, in certain condi- engagement through multifaceted representation of cul- tions, can be convertible into economic capital and institu- tural heritage through by all interested parties, including tionalized as educational or otherwise certifiable qualifica- professionals and amateur experts. Oomen and Aroyo tions. (2011) argue that the future of cultural heritage institutions To exemplify his concept of cultural capital, Bourdieu is grounded on an open, connected, and smart infrastruc- (2010, xxiv) quotes a line in a medieval play in which a ture, wherein “open” implies shared and accessible data; teacher suggests that the knowledge pupils acquire “connected” implies utilization of semantic web technolo- through schooling is an “intellectual stock in trade” that gies and the use of linked data for interoperable infrastruc- they possess as “if it were a house, or money.” For ture; and “smart” implies effective use of knowledge and Bourdieu (2011), cultural capital can be valued as much as web technologies to provide relevant contextualized in- economic forms of capital and, most importantly, can be formation to the users. However, utilization of Internet inherited and converted interchangeably with economic technologies that aim to enhance representation of cultural capital. He (82) further breaks down his concept of cul- objects as well as improve sustainable and meaningful in- tural capital into three forms: embodied, objectified, and teraction of diverse population of viewers with cultural institutionalized. Bourdieu conceptualizes the embodied objects should be transparent and “understandable” to all form of cultural capital as a long-lasting disposition of interested parties both in terms of provision of sources the mind and body that signifies the agent’s ability to un- and harvesting techniques behind the presented data. In derstand and appreciate the cultural objects and produc- this vein, Hartig (2009) argues that due to the openness of tion. In online environments, the embodied form of cul- the Web little is known about who created the data and tural capital denotes one’s perception of nature, norms, how it was created. As a large amount of the data is de- values, and functionalities of the online environment rived by replication, query processing, modification, (Lawton 2005). The objectified form of cultural capital and/or merging, to ensure quality and trustworthiness of signifies artifacts of cultural value that are in the form of the data, the analysis of provenance of information is cultural goods that can be obtained or owned, such as needed (Hartig 2009). pictures, books, instruments, and machines, and that can Most importantly, to promote sustainable and mul- be obtained or owned (Bourdieu 2011). In an online envi- tivocal representation of cultural objects as well as mean- ronment, the objectified form of cultural capital can be ingful interaction of diverse viewers with the museum defined as visual or textual content that is created or cultural objects, individuals’ socioeconomic positions or shared by agents (Lawton 2005). And, finally, institution- habitus should be considered. Therefore, this study seeks alized cultural capital is in the form of academic qualifi- a theoretical understanding of cultural heritage crowd- cations or other credentials that are earned through rec- sourcing projects to enrich representation, organization, ognized procedures (Bourdieu 2011), which can also be and access to museum cultural objects by applying operationalized as an agent’s status or role in a given Bourdieu’s concept (2010) of cultural capital and habitus. online community (Lawton 2005). Bourdieu’s conceptualization of the consumption of 3.0 Understanding crowdsourcing through works of art as cultural goods is relevant to the role of Bourdieu’s lens museums, art galleries, and universities (in his terms, institutions of legitimation). In particular, in the evaluation Bourdieu (2011) utilizes the concept of capital to under- and classification of cultural works, the differentiation stand the structure and functioning of the social world. He between cultural works that are canonized as “art” and (2011, 81) theorizes capital as an accumulated, materialized those relegated to lower status. Through bringing to at- form of labor, which, once appropriated by agents in its tention the fact that there is no one legitimate way of materialized or embodied form, empowers agents to “ap- consumption of canonized works of art, Bourdieu (2010, propriate social energy in the form of reified or living la- 225) highlights the social nature of the mechanism of bor.” In Bourdieu’s terms, capital is a “force” that is “in- valuing and appropriating of works of art: scribed in objective and subjective structures” and is an underlying principle of the inherited orderliness of the so- Works of art …, all objectified cultural capital, …, cial world. Bourdieu (2011, 82) conceptualizes three forms present themselves as an autonomous world which, of capital: 1) economic capital, which can be immediately although it is the product of historical action, has its and directly convertible into money and institutionalized as own laws, transcending individual wills, and remains property rights; 2) social capital, which comprises social irreducible to what each agent or even the whole obligations or connections that can be convertible in cer- population of agents can appropriate …, just as the tain conditions and institutionalized such as in a title of language objectified in dictionaries and grammars Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 511 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

remains irreducible to the language really appropri- ciple of division into logical classes which organizes the ated, that is, to what is internalized by each speaker perception of the social world [and] is itself the product or even the whole population. of internalization of the division into social classes.” Bourdieu (2010) further applied his theoretical con- For Bourdieu, what is most important is that culture has struct of habitus to an empirical study of the relationship broad anthropological meaning that goes beyond its between taste and class through survey and qualitative in- standard and constrained connotations. From this per- terviews in 1960s (1963 and 1967-1968) France. His study spective, Bourdieu (2010, 228) utilizes the concept of aimed to find how participants’ tastes or cultivated disposi- “taste” or “manifested preferences,” arguing that: tions and cultural competencies were revealed through their ways of consumption of cultural goods and in varia- a cultural product – an avant-garde picture, a politi- tions based on the social status of agents and the areas to cal manifesto, a newspaper—is a constituted taste, a which they attended, such as painting or music as well as taste which has been from the vague semi-existence more personal categories, such as clothing and furniture; of half-formulated or unformulated experience, and, within the legitimated domains, such as academic implicit or even unconscious desire, to the full real- qualifications, i.e., academic or non-academic. Bourdieu’s ity of the finished product, by a process of objecti- analysis reveals the very close relationship between cultural fication which, in present circumstances, is almost practices and educational capital (measured by qualifica- always the work of professionals. tion) as well as to the social origin. Even though critics of the Bourdieu’s work emphasize the French centrism of his Bourdieu (2010, 228) conceptualizes taste as a classifica- research, his findings echo a large corpus of work in other tion system which is “constituted by the conditionings as- domains highlighting the effects of culture and education sociated with a condition situated in a determinate posi- on perception and use of objects (e.g., Hofstede and Bond tion in the structure of different conditions, [which] gov- 1988). erns the relationship with objectified capital.” Thus, seen For Bourdieu, agents do not act in isolation, but rather through Bourdieu’s lens, agents who have a particular in the world of objective social relations that are independ- taste in art will have similar kinds of taste in other cul- ent of individual consciousness (Bourdieu and Wacquant tural and/or symbolic commodities and practices, such as 1992). Bourdieu’s concept of “field” accounts for the con- food, music, film, literature, fashion, and so on. That is, text in which agents’ social relations or positions are gov- Bourdieu argues that commonalities of taste across vari- erned. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, 97) argue that field ous forms of symbolic practices underlie social class is a “network, or a configuration, of objective relations be- identification and divisions among social groups. tween positions,” wherein positions are (Bourdieu and Bourdieu’s theorization of taste is the underlying princi- Wacquant 1992, 97): ple of his notion of “habitus” and “field,” developed to overcome the standoff of subjectivism, i.e., explanation objectively defined, in their existence and in the de- of the social world primarily through individual experi- terminations they impose upon their occupants, ence and perceptions, and objectivism, i.e., objective con- agents or institutions, by their present and potential ditions that structure practice independent of agent reali- situations (situs) in the structure of the distribution zation. For Bourdieu (1990, 135), neither subjectivism of species of power (or capital) whose possession nor objectivism accounts for, in his terms, “objectivity of commands access to the specific profits that are at the subjective.” In particular, subjectivism does not take stake in field. into account the social nature of an agent’s consciousness, whereas, in contrast, objectivism fails to recognize Bourdieu’s theory of the field of cultural production en- the extent of the influence of an agent’s perception of tails the position that material and symbolic production the social world on the social reality. As an alternative to of cultural work involves various intermediaries that con- the conceptualization of subjective vs. objective, tribute to the process of understanding or making sense Bourdieu (2010, 166) introduces the concept of habitus, of it. Therefore, reception of cultural work implies a that is the, relationship between “the capacity to produce consideration of those who were engaged and had power classifiable practices and works, and the capacity to dif- in the representation of cultural objects at different ferentiate and appreciate these practices and products stages. Based on Bourdieu’s conceptualization of cultural (taste), the represented social world, i.e., the space of life- production, understanding and appreciation of the aes- styles, is constituted.” Bourdieu considers the habitus as thetic of cultural work is not equally shared but accumu- not only a “structuring structure, which organizes prac- lated as a form of cultural capital and represent individu- tices and the perception of practices,” but also “the prin- als’ educational and socioeconomic dispositions or taste. 512 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

Taking the multifaceted nature of the cultural objects 2016, 121). Applying Bourdieu’s (2011) conceptualization into account, comprehension of cultural work is directly of cultural capital to museum crowdsourcing initiatives, related to individuals’ cultural capital. this study argues that the successful engagement with the The implication of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capi- crowd is grounded on understanding the cultural capital tal, habitus, and field for museum crowdsourcing projects and habitus of engaged users. This paper suggests that this is that any form of engagement of individuals or approach will facilitate creation of not only multifaceted “crowd” should involve consideration of the individuals’ and multivalent representation of cultural objects, but also cultural capital and habitus. As agents are not isolated, ensure the sustainable and meaningful engagement of the but rather operate in the world of objective social rela- participants. tions that are independent of individual consciousness (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992), representation of a cul- References tural object should be grounded on Bourdieu’s concept of “field,” which accounts for the context in which Baca, Murtha, Erin Coburn, and Sally Hubbard. 2007. agents’ social relations or positions are governed. This “Metadata and Museum Information.” In Museum Infor- approach would help to avoid misconceptions regarding matics: People, Information, and Technology in Museums, ed. the universality of cultural practices and ensure quality Paul F. Marty and Katherine Burton Jones. Routledge and sustainability of crowd engagement. Moreover, this Studies in Library and Information Science 2. New approach would allow for comprehensive critical assess- York, NY: Routledge, 107-28. ment of museum crowdsourcing projects to systemati- Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The logic of practice. Trans. Richard cally understand the processes and relationships desirable Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. for the success of individuals’ engagement. For example, Bourdieu, Pierre. 2010. Distinction: A Social Critique of the consideration of native population worldview in repre- Judgment of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Routledge Clas- sentation of indigenous culture would not only enhance sics. New York, NY: Routledge. quality of representation but also foster harmony and Bourdieu, Pierre. 2011. “The Forms of Capital.” In Cul- cohesion of different worldviews. For instance, for an in- tural Theory: An anthology, ed. Imre Szeman and Timo- digenous Hawaiian viewer, a hula dancer is seen as a sa- thy Kaposy. Chicester, UK: Willey-Blackwell, 81-93. cred celebration in which every movement symbolizes Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invita- “connectedness to the text, to the context of a perform- tion to Reflective Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chi- ance, and to the layers of symbolism that attend it, cago Press. among a host of other factors” (Rowe 2008, 41), and lack Chae, Gunho, Jaram Park, Juyong Park, Woon Seung Yeo of understanding and acceptance of this worldview and Chungkon Shi. 2016. “Linking and Clustering Art- would result in a limited and biased depiction of Hawai- works Using Social Tags: Revitalizing Crowd-Sourced ian culture. Information on Cultural Collections.” Journal of the Asso- ciation for Information Science and Technology 67:885-99. 4.0 Conclusion Davis, Daniel. 2013. “New Ways of ‘Seeing’: The Evoca- tive Power of Audio and the Empowerment of The application of Internet technologies to improve and Crowdsourcing in Exhibition.” Curator: The Museum enhance access to museum collections and services seems Journal 56:371-3. to hover at the edge of principal systems of representation De Vorsey, Kevin, Christina Elson, Nina P. Gregorev, and and organization of the museums’ collections. While even John Hansen. 2006. “The Development of a Local limited online access to the museum collections allows us- Thesaurus to Improve Access to the Anthropological ers to engage with the collections as well as contribute to Collections of the American Museum of Natural His- representation of cultural objects through creating, sharing tory.” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 4. http://www.dlib.org/ metadata, and curating the online museum collections, the dlib/april06/devorsey/04devorsey.html users’ contributions are rarely hardly fully integrated into Falk, John H. and Lynn D. Dierking. 2016. The Museum the core systems of representation and organization of Experience Revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. museum collections. True access to museum cultural ob- Hartig, Olaf. 2009. Provenance Information in the Web of jects implies that museums not only serve as nodes in a Data. In WWW'09: Proceedings of the 18th International network of interconnected objects, information, places Conference On World Wide Web. New York, NY: ACM. and people, but also fully utilize the capabilities of the http://www.dbis.informatik.hu-berlin.de/fileadmin/ Internet technologies to transgress the institutional research/papers/conferences/2009-ldow-hartig.pdf boundaries in the online environment where new collections are being created (Navarrete and Mackenzie Owen Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 513 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

Hofstede, Geert and Michael Harris Bond. 1988. “The ence on Communities and Technologies. New York, NY: Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Eco- ACM, 138-49. doi:10.1145/2103354.2103373 nomic Growth.” Organizational Dynamics 16, no. 4:5-21. Owens, Trevor. 2013. “Digital Cultural Heritage and the Holley, Rose. 2010. “Crowdsourcing: How and Why Crowd.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56:121-30. Should Libraries Do It?" D-Lib Magazine 16, no. 3/4. Packer, Jan. 2008. “Beyond Learning: Exploring Visitors' http://dlib.org/dlib/march10/holley/03holley.html Perceptions of the Value and Benefits of Museum Howe, Jeff. 2006. “The Rise of Crowdsourcing,” Wired Experiences.” Curator: The Museum Journal 51:33–54. Magazine 14.06. http://sistemas-humano-computacio Packer, Jan and Roy Ballantyne. 2016. “Conceptualizing nais.wdfiles.com/local--files/capitulo%3Aredes-sociais/ the Visitor Experience: A Review of Literature and Howe_The_Rise_of_Crowdsourcing.pdf Development of a Multifaceted Model.” Visitor Studies Jörgensen, Corinne. 2004. “Unlocking the Museum: A 19:128-43. Manifesto.” Journal of the American Society for Information Parry, Ross. 2007. Recoding the Museum: Digital Heritage and Science and Technology 55:462-4. the Technologies of Change. Museum Meanings. New Klavans, Judith, Rebecca LaPlante, and Jennifer Golbeck. York, NY: Routledge. 2014. “Subject Matter Categorization of Tags Applied Ridge, Mia. 2013. “From Tagging to Theorizing: Deepen- to Digital Images from Art Museums." Journal of the ing Engagement with Cultural Heritage through Association for Information Science and Technology 65:3-12. Crowdsourcing.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56:435-50. Kittur, Aniket, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Ridge, Mia. 2014. “Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage: Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Introduction.” In Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage, Matt Lease, and John Horton, John. 2013. “The Fu- ed. Mia Ridge. Digital Research in the Arts and Hu- ture of Crowd Work.” In CSCW 2013: Proceedings of the manities. Burlington: Ashgate, 1-16. 2013 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Smiraglia, Richard P. 2005. “Content Metadata–An Work. New York: ACM, 1301-18 Analysis of Etruscan Artifacts in a Museum of Ar- Lawton, Paul. 2005. “Capital and Stratification Within cheology.” Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly 40, nos. Virtual Community: A Case Study of Metafilter.com” 3-4:135-51. PhD diss., University of Lethbridge. https://www. Srinivasan, Ramesh, Robin Boast, Katherine M. Becvar uleth.ca/dspace/handle/10133/267 and Jonathan Furner. 2009. “Blobgects: Digital Mu- Rowe, Sharon Māhealani. 2008. “We Dance for Knowl- seum Catalogs and Diverse User Communities.” Jour- edge.” Dance Research Journal 40, no. 1:31-44. nal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech- Macdonald, Sharon. 1998. “Exhibition of Power and Pow- nology 60:666-78. ers of Exhibition: An Introduction to the Politics of Srinivisan, Ramesh, Robin Boast, Jonathan Furner and Display.” In The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Cul- Katherine M. Becvar. 2009. “Digital Museums and Di- ture, ed. Sharon Macdonald, 1-24. The Heritage: Care, verse Cultural Knowledges: Moving Past the Tradi- Preservation, Management. London, UK: Routledge. tional Catalog.” The Information Society 25:265-78. McLean, Kathleen. 2004. “Museum Exhibitions and the Star, Susan Leigh and James R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institu- Dynamics of Dialogue.” In Reinventing the Museum: His- tional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: torical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift, Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of ed. Gail Anderson. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 193-211. Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science Navarrete, Trilce and John Mackenzie Owen.2016. “The 19:387-420. Museum as Information Space: Metadata and Docu- Star, Susan Leigh 2010. "This is not a Boundary Object: mentation.” In Cultural Heritage in a Changing World, ed. Reflections on the Origin of a Concept." Science, Tech- Karol Jan Borowiecki, Neil Forbes and Antonella nology & Human Values 35:601-17. Fresa. [Cham?]: Springer Open, 111-23. Trant, Jennifer and Bruce Wyman. 2006. “Investigating Noordegraaf, Julia, Angela Bartholomew, and Alexandra Social Tagging and Folksonomy in Art Museums with Eveleigh. 2014. “Modeling Crowdsourcing for Cultural steve.museum.” Paper presented at the Tagging Work- Heritage.” Paper presented at the MW2014: Museums shop, World Wide Web 2006. Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Web 2014 The annual conference of Museums May 22, 2006. http://www.ra.ethz.ch/cdstore/www and the Web April 2-5, 2014, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2006/www.rawsugar.com/www2006/4.pdf http://mw2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/ Trant, Jennifer. 2006. “Exploring the Potential for Social modeling-crowdsourcing-for-cultural-heritage/ Tagging and Folksonomy in Art Museums: Proof of Oomen, Johan and Lora Aroyo. 2011. “Crowdsourcing in Concept.” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia the Cultural Heritage Domain: Opportunities and 12:83-105. Challenges.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Confer- 514 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 L. Hajibayova and K. F. Latham. Exploring Museum Crowdsourcing Projects through Bordieu’s Lens

Trant, Jennifer. 2009. “Tagging, Folksonomy and Art Mu- Wood, Elizabeth and Kiersten F. Latham. 2011. “The seums: Early Experiments and Ongoing Research.” Thickness of the World: Exploring the Curriculum of Journal of Digital Information 10, no. 1. https:// Museums through Phenomenological Touch.” Journal journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/270/ of Curriculum Theorizing 27, no. 2:51-65. 277 Wood, Elizabeth and Kiersten F. Latham. 2014. The Ob- Vergo, Peter. 1989. “Introduction.” In The New Museology, jects of Experience: Transforming Visitor-Object Encounters in ed. Peter Vergo. London: Reaktion, 1-5. Museums. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 515 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms

Organization of User-Generated Information in Image Collections and Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms Ina-Maria Jansson Uppsala University, Department of ALM, Thunbergsvägen 3H, 752 38 Uppsala,

Ina-Maria Jansson is a doctoral student at the Department of ALM at Uppsala University, Sweden. She has a master’s degree in library and information science. Before becoming a doctoral student, she worked as a library assistant at Uppsala University Library and as an archivist at Västerås City Archives. Her research interests are crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain, knowledge organization and digital heritage. In her thesis, she studies the impact of institutional information structures on crowdsourcing.

Jansson, Ina-Maria. 2017. “Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms.” Knowledge Organization 44(7): 515-528. 40 references.

Abstract: To collect information with crowdsourcing is a popular method for cultural heritage institutions. User comments in free-text format are especially propagated as empowering users and their influence on cultural heritage. However, in adjusting user-created information to suit the collection management system in use, rhetorical mechanisms of the system have impact on the moderation of the information. This article investigates how rhetorical mechanisms of information systems influence user-generated information and users’ possibilities of impacting heritage collections. The results are based on twelve interviews with professionals working with administration of user-comments in cultural-heritage image collections, covering six different systems. Several rhetorical mechanisms of the systems were identified based on professionals’ statements about how systems affected decisions made in the moderation process. This article shows that the design of collection management systems can cause user-generated information to be discriminated and lead to decreased data reliability, searchability, and even loss of crowdsourced data. In particular, personal memories and perspectives are among the types of information that are most negatively affected. To conclude, collecting user comments is a problematic method to use in adding multiple perspectives to cultural heritage collections and demands carefully designed collection management systems in order to avoid distortion of user-created information.

Received: 20 June 2017; Revised: 1 September 2017; Accepted: 30 September 2017

Keywords: information, user-generated, comments, knowledge organization systems (KOSs), image collections, collection management systems (CMSs)

1.0 Introduction be included in the collections. That organizational systems have a mediating effect on the information that is organ- “Write a comment,” “Leave more information” or “If you ized within the systems is a view held by many in the field want to tell anything, you have the possibility of writing a (see for example Bowker and Star 1999; Beghtol 2001). As comment under the description of each image.” These are argued by MacNeil, regarding finding aids for cultural heri- requests you might encounter when browsing an online tage collections, such as collection management systems image collection of a museum or an archive. For a person (CMSs) as generic forms belonging to a genre, is to assign visiting the collection, this can be perceived as an invitation them a rhetorical influence on how the collections they or- to add childhood memories, correct erroneous information ganize are communicated and perceived by an audience about the image, share expert information about cars and (2012). Feinberg has explained (2007; 2009a; 2010; 2011; whatnot, or maybe help the museum to identify that per- 2012) how catalogue structures and information systems son in the image that you recognize as your old grandma. can be seen as a genre of their own, and how they can in- You write your comment, add your name and e-mail ad- fluence their content through different rhetorical mecha- dress, press the “send” button, and suddenly, you have nisms. For example, they may form logical arguments, ap- made your mark on the collections. Or at least, that is how peal to the ethos of their audience or structure informa- it might appear. The way your contribution is received and tion through an authorial voice. These rhetorical mecha- valued will have an impact on how, or even if, it is going to nisms shape all information added to the systems, which 516 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms also includes non-professionally created data, such as user Gorzalski 2013; Farley 2014; Gregory 2015) that cultural comments. It is against this background that this study heritage collections and finding aids, such as museum cata- aims to find out what happens to user-generated informa- logues, can be given extended value through user annotation when it is absorbed in CMSs by investigating the or- tions. User annotations can also provide new context and ganization process of user-generated information contrib- authentic voice (Yakel 2011) and make cultural heritage uted via crowdsourcing to heritage collections. It is done collections more inclusive of various perspectives (Ander- by applying a theoretical framework, stating that informa- son and Allen 2009; Light and Hyry 2002). However, the tion systems shape their content with rhetorical mecha- importance of academic studies on how these user annota- nisms. Through interviews of professional administrators tions are moderated and incorporated into current classifi- of crowdsourced data, mechanisms in six different CMSs cation structures has been pointed out by, for example, will lay ground for the results of this article. More speci- Van Hooland (2006) and MacNeil (2012), although such fied, the research questions for this present study are: calls have garnered little attention. Indeed, the inclusion of user annotations and comments involves moderation such – How is user-generated information incorporated in ex- as selection, organization, and editing, all processes where isting collection content? the rhetorical mechanisms discussed by Feinberg have an – How is user-generated information affected by rhetori- impact on the final result. cal mechanisms in information systems? Also to be kept in mind is that changed ways in information-collection practices also call for changed ways in The incorporation process is studied through interviews organization of information. Lauruhn and Groth point out of Swedish professionals, working with CMSs in use at information from non-professional contributors as a main Swedish cultural heritage institutions. However, this is not source of change in the design of knowledge organization seen as a limitation for applying the results on systems systems (2016). Despite their observation, the same collec- and crowdsourcing projects outside of Sweden. tion-management systems that are used for storing profes- In the literature discussing user participation and cul- sionally created data are also often employed for crowd- tural heritage, user participation and crowdsourcing are sourced data, without any adjustments for information cre- sometimes talked about interchangeably although they ated by non-professionals. Consequently, user comments have slightly different meanings. In this article, crowd- have no given place in most information-system structures sourcing refers to an online process managed by an insti- (Yakel 2011), despite the fact that a deliberate structure for tution, referring to a certain task and leveraging the en- user-created information is pointed out (Ridge 2013; gagement of an online community. In line with Brabham, Owens 2014) as necessary for building a well-functioning crowdsourcing refers to a top-down structure and a rela- crowdsourcing project. tionship between user and organization (2012). User par- As already been pointed out, and according to, for ex- ticipation, on the other hand, is in this article used as a ample, Feinberg, no information system is neutral but broader term, including offline activity and projects with- rather imposes a view on its information content (2007). out a well-defined task. The rhetorical mechanisms constructing this specific view Although crowdsourcing appears in many contexts, also construct the conditions for valuating and document- image collections will serve as a framework for studying ing user-generated information. For example, in judicial crowdsourcing in this article. To a higher extent than tex- documents, authenticity and reliability both rest on docu- tual material, images invite people to engage in multifac- mentation of specific elements, which are constructed with eted discussions, storytelling, and sharing of associations rhetorical mechanisms and evaluated with diplomatics. and opinions and are, therefore, especially appropriate as How diplomatics can be applied to evaluate documenta- a backdrop for studies of user participation. Focusing on tion quality of non-professionally created information will user contributions made to image collections also facili- be explained and applied further on in this article. tated collection of research material because the engaging Well-known institutions like the Library of Congress, effect of images also renders image collections more the National Library of New Zealand, and the National common as crowdsourcing projects. Archives of the Netherlands, are just some examples of institutions that collect photographic metadata via crowd- 2.0 Background sourcing (Zinkham and Springer 2011; Liew 2014; Van Hooland 2006). The widespread combination of crowd- User participation, as a way to collect information, has be- sourcing and image collections indicates that images are come increasingly common in the last decade (Simon especially suitable for inspiring users to share informa- 2010). It has been argued (Van Hooland 2006; Krause and tion, memories, and their own approaches to images. Ba- Yakel 2007; Peccatte 2011; Zinkham and Springer 2011; sed on studies of user comments provided to the image Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 517 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms database of the National Archives of the Netherlands, comments are received and incorporated into the existent Seth van Hooland classified user comments provided to collections or what implications the information structure image collections in six categories (2006): of collection catalogues have on the data they host. In previous research describing and discussing various – correctional (corrections of erroneous factual data as crowdsourcing initiatives, the main concerns of receiving date or name); user-generated information seems foremost to concern – additional (addition of new data to complete the in- validation of user-generated information and operability formation about the image); between systems used to collect comments and systems – memorial (sharing personal histories or memories); used to store them. Only some texts touch on the impor- – judgemental (positive or negative judgements about tance of a sufficient information structure in order to be the image or about specific circumstances displayed); able to incorporate user-generated information. – critical (critique of the image being displayed or falsely Validation of user-generated information was discussed rendered, like negatives being reversed by mistake); as a potential problem from the very beginning of heritage and, institutions’ use of crowdsourcing. For example, difficulties – communicative (questions to users or staff or replies in judging the credibility of user comments that conflicted to earlier comments). with each other or with original information about the collections was pointed out as a problem by Oomen and Van Hooland’s classification illustrates the variety of user- Aroyo (2011). One possible method of assessing data qual- generated information and in what way users can add value ity or relevance of information is the application of peer to image collections. A main body of literature on crowd- control of user contributions, where participants them- sourcing and user participation in the heritage sector (Cook selves are encouraged to validate information in online dis- 2001, 15; Oomen and Aroyo 2011; Phillips 2014) has cussions (Peccatte 2011). Such a solution, on the other planted the image of crowdsourcing as a useful method for hand, requires a separate field dedicated to comments and heritage institutions to include diversity, knowledge, and that all comments be published and accessible online. Fur- experiences of their users and thereby democratize their thermore, if that is the only method used for evaluation, repositories. From the user perspective, participation is of- without any mediating hands from professionals, this ten framed with a discourse of empowerment, depicted as commentary infrastructure also has to be included or satis- being the key to ordinary people’s involvement in domains fyingly incorporated in the catalogue structure. Another so- that previously were closed to them (Huvila 2015, 372). lution is to allow for a heritage professional to select and The wording “closed to them” in this case refers to archi- edit information from comments and incorporate them in val collections in the extensive debate calling into question the collection catalogue (Peccatte 2011). That method the neutrality of archivists and other heritage professionals. might be preferred if comments are only submitted hidden Based on their prerogative of constructing and describing from other participants and only accessible to administrat- collections, archivists are said to create a biased notion of ing professionals. The methods demand either careful in- the past by re-enacting existing established power relation- formation design or professional activity and surveillance; ships in society. This bias is reflected in the selection, ap- in any case, incorporation of user-generated information is praisal and mediation of records but maybe foremost in adjusted to the existent system structure. the absence of archival records concerning certain people Often, external applications such as Tumblr (Sherratt or phenomena, symbolizing the absence of social or ethi- 2011) or Flickr (Zinkham and Springer 2011; Peccatte cal groups in collections of cultural heritage (Blouin 1999; 2011) are used for crowdsourcing initiatives due to their Cook 2007). Dewitt pointed out (2009) that the absence of already large user communities and technical averages. Al- elements in textual generic forms (in this article these though this might seem a clever idea at first, interopera- forms are represented by CMSs) is as much a statement as bility between such an external interface and a CMS the presence of them, both shaping the message of the fi- could pose other problems than if a specially designed nal product. crowdsourcing tool that is adjusted to, or part of the It is against this background that the involvement of CMS, were used. For example, if there is no integration users to claim the ground of their own heritage is per- between the crowdsourcing tool and the CMS, CMS conceived as a possible remedy to a bias in the power struc- tent may not be allowed to be mirrored online. Thus, in tures of heritage collections. Free-text comments are es- order to include user-generated information in the CMS pecially advocated as an effective tool to include narra- and in addition update the information online, the whole tives and understanding of collections from multiple per- collection has to be exported online all over again, merely spectives (Light and Hyry 2002; Anderson and Allen to update one resource. At the same time, user comments 2009). However, few reflections are made on how user that are not incorporated in the CMS at the point of up- 518 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms date, can then be erased. One example of deficits in generated information contributed to the CMSs studied communication between an internal system for image in this article, rhetorical mechanisms influence the final metadata and an external application is the Flickr project results of the crowdsourcing activity. PhotosNormandie, where the community discussion was Feinberg has explored types of rhetorical mechanisms lost when captions were updated in the application. This of information systems in a series of articles, covering resulted in the loss of both important information ren- genre adaptation (2009b), ethos (2009a; 2012), logic ar- dered by the discussion and validation of this informa- guments (2010) and authorial voice (2011). These are the tion (Peccatte 2011). mechanisms that will be investigated in the present arti- References for crowdsourced data, such as prove- cle, in respect to how they influence organization of user- nance, are identified as crucial to ensuring data quality generated data in information systems. when assimilated into cultural heritage collections Looking closer on each type of mechanism, starting (Oomen and Aroyo 2011). Provenance supports the with logical rhetorical arguments, they are formed in at transparency of information and is essential to protecting least two ways: by structure, expressed in the categories information authenticity. “Transparency and attribution and category relations included in the system, or by the related to the narrative activity associated with the mate- resources reflected in the system, consisting of the ob- rials will be critical for preserving the authenticity of the jects the system holds and the categories they are as- materials themselves versus subsequent additions about signed (Feinberg 2010). Logical arguments, together with them” (Anderson and Allen 2009, 395). Although there is other decisions and elements of a system, form both the an awareness of the importance of provenance, it can ethos and the authorial context of that system or infor- still be a challenge to describe provenance. An example is mation structure. Both concepts are synthetic, which the problem with connecting a user’s corrective comment means that both the ethos and the authorial voice of sys- to the right data post in a case where the link for submit- tems are aggregated through administrative decisions and ting corrections is general for the whole collection and structural elements which all together shape a general not associated with any particular post (Sherratt 2011). impression of the system. Ethos is in this article connected to believability of 3.0 Rhetorical mechanisms and diplomatics as a systems. Even though ethos can be used in information theoretical framework systems to appeal to common values of an audience, as- suring them of your goodwill on their behalf, the audi- The theoretical approach of this study is based on the ence does not have to agree with the message in order for view of information systems as forms of writing in their it to be a manifestation of ethos (Feinberg 2009a). They own genre, thus shaping the incorporation of user- only have to find it reasonable and understandable. For generated information in accordance to the genre (Fein- example, the use for ethos in CMSs may be to convince berg 2009b; Andersen 2015). By studying the assimilation the audience of its genuine, institutional quality. Users do process of user comments, an understanding of the for- not have to be convinced of the truth of all information ming process of user-generated information will be ac- the system conveys, but the ethos should at least impose quired. In addition, a framework building on diplomatic believability in order for users to take the information se- principles is used in order to further discuss how rhetori- riously and find it worth considering. cal mechanisms influence information. This comple- Just like ethos, authorial voice is synthesized by several ments genre-adapted thinking with a more idealistic ap- elements of the system that together form the unique proach with outlined requirements for accomplishing in- “personality” of a system similar to a narrative voice in formation authenticity, as suggested by Foscarini (2012). some literature genres. System-specific concepts, expres- Although information systems are designed by multi- sions, or biases are evidence of authorial voice. The voice ple creators and not written by a single actor as most tex- may, but does not have to be, consciously constructed. It tual documents are, systems can be thought of as docu- is the perceived experience of the user that defines au- ments, able to adapt to a genre to communicate a mes- thorial voice (Feinberg 2011). sage (Feinberg 2009b; 2015). This message is expressed While Feinberg herself primarily focuses on the func- through rhetorical mechanisms and manifested in system tionality of rhetorical mechanisms in the design of new design, selection, arrangement, description, and provision systems, she also argues that they can be used for critical of access to information (Feinberg 2009b). In other inquiry of system elements as a technique for system eva- words, through their structure and design elements, in- luation. She describes it with an analogy of how different formation systems express a specific view on their con- aspects of a building can be evaluated, for example by its tent, which also shapes new material that is incorporated structural integrity or its architecture (2011). However, in the system. In the organization process of user- not only to evaluate the system but to enable a discussion Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 519 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms of the impact the system has on user-generated informa- Nine interviews were made by telephone, three face-to- tion, information quality needs to be evaluated somehow. face with the informant. Three of the interviews were In the present article, diplomatic principles are applied to conducted with two persons at the same time, in cases evaluate and discuss how incorporation in the CMS af- where responsibility for image and comment administra- fects information quality of user-generated information. tion was shared. Diplomatics is thus used to complement the rhetorical All user-generated information that was submitted to genre perspective. Diplomatics can evaluate the quality, the CMSs had to be collected by methods that con- reliability, and authenticity of information, while genre formed with the definition of crowdsourcing stated ear- theory can provide the wider discussion base to explain lier in this article. Therefore, systems (and informants) why these diplomatic properties of a document are miss- were selected on the basis of how institutions used their ing or divergent (Foscarini 2012). The birth of diplomatic CMS to encourage user activity. In addition, the institu- principles is traditionally ascribed to seventeenth-century tions should have enough experience of crowdsourcing France, where it provided methods of assessing the au- in order for their employees to be able to answer ques- thenticity, reliability and information quality of judicial tions about different variations of user comments. Thus, documents. By studying practices of document creation the selection criteria for studying a system were that the and elements as signatures, seals, or structuration of a institution that used it should provide: document, diplomatics can be utilized to determine whether a document is authentic or not. In a similar way, a) open web access to objects in their image collections, quality of user-generated information added to CMSs can including metadata; be evaluated in respect to documented provenance, date b) a call for visitors of the online image collection to of creation, and estimated correctness or believability. contribute with information to the published images; From the very start of heritage institutions’ use of c) Web functionality such as a commentary field, a form crowdsourcing, registration of the provenance of user- or a link to a form where visitors can add this infor- generated data has been a concern (Oomen and Aroyo mation online, in connection to the archive website; 2011). Provenance, together with other contextual meta- and, data, is central to establishing reliability and authenticity d) Substantial experience of user contributions, added via of information (Foscarini 2012). Likewise, Duranti points the functionality described in b. to the completeness of a document as one of the foundations for the reliability of its information. Complete- Although several Swedish institutions fulfilled these crite- ness is reached (Duranti 2002, 26) if “the record pos- ria, this article does not claim to contain all institutions sesses all the elements of intellectual form necessary for that were qualified to be included in the study. Moreover, it to be capable of generating consequences of reaching some CMSs were more common than others, wherefore the purpose for which it is issued.” Such elements are there were some preponderance of the most common date of creation, name of creator, the action the record CMS in the study. relates to, and the archival bond to other documents (Du- ranti 2002, 26). In the present study, the concept of re- 4.1 Case systems cords refers to user comments, and “the purpose for which it is issued” refers to the purpose of complement- All in all, six different collection systems for images were ing information about items in the collections. included in the study: Collective Access, Sofie, Primus, Svenskt kommunalt bildarkiv (SKOBA), Cumulus and 4.0 Method and material Windows File Explorer. They were all in use at Swedish cultural heritage institutions. They collected, presented, The research design of the project was explorative and and stored user comments differently, however all sys- used a qualitative, interpretive method to answer the re- tems had the purpose to manage images and metadata. search questions. The internalization of user comments Photographs in the range from the nineteenth century to and the effect of the CMS on that process was studied by today were in the majority, but other types of images like way of twelve semi-structured interviews with fifteen drawings, prints, or building plans were also included. employees working with administration in the CMS in use Invitations for users to participate could be found ei- at their institution. The interview questions focused on ther in connection to each image or as a general invita- the reception of contributions and collection systems tion on the main-menu page of the online collection. structure but also covered topics such as work activities. Only one of the studied websites makes a remark on The interviews were carried out during the spring of their website that they will also publish comments that 2016 and lasted between fifty and one hundred minutes. contradict each other, that they do not have any possibil- 520 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms ity for checking the facts of user-generated information, Institu- Number of Current Contribu- and that they will administrate comments as soon as pos- tion images pub- system tions/month* lished online online (intervals of sible. Otherwise, the institutions never address the ques- (years) 1 – 25, 26 – 50, tion of the moderation process for comments. 51 – 100, >100) A 210 000 2 1 – 25 4.2 Institutions and informants B 35 000 2.5 1 – 25 C 112 000 0.5 51 - 100 Image collections can be found in museums, archives, D 5 000 0.5 1 – 25 and libraries, but at the time of the collection of research E 6 000 2 1 – 25 data, no library institution was found that fulfilled the se- F 86 000 2 51 – 100 lection criteria. Consequently, museums and archives are G 48 000 7 26 – 50 included in the study but no library. H 146 000 8 >100 In total, twelve institutions were included in the study; I 148 000 3 51 – 100 eight museums and four archives (Table 1). Institutions J 19 000 10 1 – 25 varied greatly in size and span of their agency, from small, K 201 000 7 1 – 25 municipality-based organizations to national agencies. L 367 000 7 1 – 25 Some institutions were specialized, with collections focused on one main domain, while others had more diverse Table 2. Scope and activity in the online image collections. *The collections but only with connection to their local city or intervals are wide for two reasons. The first is that the flow of user comments could be very uneven depending on the season region. One institution was self-sustaining, while two de- or the release of new images. The second is because not all in- pended partly on public subsidies. The rest were publicly stitutions kept track of their incoming comments and could not financed. Respectively, the image-collection websites where provide exact numbers. the crowdsourcing took place were also very different; some were small, others voluminous; some had collected 4.4 Coding and observations comments for many years while others had nearly just begun, all with different levels of activity (Table 2). Qualitative content analysis was applied to find patterns in the organization of user contributions, especially decisions 4.3 Ethics that were influenced by system design. This was done according to an inductive, comparative approach, where In agreement with the informants, interviews are ano- coded categories were derived based on the interview ma- nymized and names of interviewees replaced by numbers. terial (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Not only manifest con- Some of the informants were the only ones administrat- tent was coded, but also latent meanings in the dictums. ing the CMS at their institutions, so institutions too are Furthermore, connotative coding, connecting latent mes- anonymized and represented by Latin letters. A few of sages in separate parts of an interview, was also applied the systems studied were uncommon in Sweden and, the- (Drisko and Maschi 2016, 65). Coding was carried out in refore, to link a system to an informant would expose ATLAS.ti, a software for coding analysis. All interviews them the same way as naming them. Consequently, the were transcribed and coded by the author. Besides inter- systems are represented with names of Greek letters. views, observations were made of crowdsourcing functionality, invitations for users to participate and user activity Collection manage- Institution Informant in the image-collection websites of the participating insti- ment system tutions. (CMS) Alfa A, C, E, F, I, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 5.0 Findings and discussion K, L 14, 15

Beta B 3 Analysis of the empirical material reveals that rhetorical Gamma G 8, 9 mechanisms of CMSs influence the selection, description, Delta H 10, 11 arrangement, and access of user-generated information. Epsilon J 13 Different types of user-generated information were influ- Zeta D 5 enced in various ways by rhetorical mechanisms wherefore Table. 1. Collection management systems, institutions and in- the comment categories identified by Van Hooland (2006) formants. are used in the discussion to separate the types. Rhetorical mechanisms in the organizational schemes of the CMSs studied have two consequences. First, they Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 521 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms cause certain categories of user-generated information to Contradictory to associations relating to the concept be discriminated from incorporation in the CMS. This can of discrimination, most professionals had a positive ap- be explained by the influence of the system-rhetorical proach to the categories that were most discriminated mechanisms imposed on information resources (Feinberg against. The informants experienced joy, enthusiasm, and 2010). Especially memorial, judgmental, and additional in- admiration of expert knowledge possessed by users, for formation is often opted out. Secondly, CMSs tend to un- example, informant 11: “I’m happy the comments are dermine the trustworthiness of user-generated information added. They give life to the website. It shows that people because of the typical limitations of the systems in sup- know a lot.” The shared memories made the images co- porting structured documentation of the reliability, prove- me alive and granted them a deeper and more affection- nance, and authenticity of the user-generated information. ate dimension, stated by informant 8: “It’s nice that it These problems of distinguishing different types of data triggers so many feelings in people. It’s the photos above result occasionally in a parallel management and storage of all that brings out the memories, people become happy.” user-generated information, which leads to constrained ac- This kind of information also created enhanced value for cess, searchability, and even permanent loss of user- subsequent visitors of the image collection and provided generated information. The findings are summarised in them with information about other dimensions of the Table 3. motif (such as smell) that could not be found in the existing image descriptions (informant 8). Identified im- Description pact of rhetori- 5.1.1 Inter-post and intra-post resource arguments cal mechanisms

Discriminated User-generated information that is not information included. Mainly caused by logic ar- Despite the professionals’ appreciation of the users’ me- guments, either resource-related or mories and personal histories, this information was rarely structural. Manifested in fear of noise included in the CMS (for example reported by informant and institutional approach. Also en- 8, 9, 11 and 14). According to the professionals, the dis- couraged by ethical argumentation. crimination against memorial comments results from the Loss of reliability Insufficiencies in information completeness and levels of trustworthi- fact that there is no place for these kinds of comments in ness. Both structural and resource evi- the system structure. dence. 14: But it [memorial comments] isn’t anything we Insufficiencies in Insufficiencies in migration possibili- include in the database in any way, because there is preservation and ties and connection between image no good field … we don’t know how to add it or searchability and comments. Limited search for comments stored both internal and what we should call it. external of CMSs. The absence of a data field for “associated memories” or Table 3. Impact of rhetorical mechanisms on moderated user- “experiences related to the image” rules out memorial in- generated information. formation as an information resource. According to Devitt (2009), the absence of a data field is as significant as the The two main consequences, namely discriminated in- presence of it and following Feinberg, the inclusion and formation and reliability loss, will now be discussed in arrangement of categories is a form of logical argumenta- more detail, followed by a discussion of preservation and tion that shapes the interpretation of the category searchability of user-generated information. (Feinberg 2010). Thus, this absence of structural space for memorial comments is the evidence of a logical rhetorical 5.1 Discriminated information mechanism, imposing limitations of the resources allowed in the system and persuading the professionals that, despite For this article, the concept of discriminated information their opinions, memories do not have a place in the collec- was introduced, referring to user-generated information tions. However, user-generated information that was not that is not incorporated by professionals in a CMS. The included in the CMS was often stored somewhere else (in- main cause of this discrimination is the absence of a sui- formant 9): table data field where the information can be registered. Most salient among discriminated information were me- That you could feel the smell of chocolate next to a morial and judgmental comments but also observations certain store, that they went shopping there as kids, and facts concerning peripheral content or facts about together with their grandparents. I don’t add that in- aspects other than the main motif of the image. formation, but I keep the comments … And those 522 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms

comments, maybe it would have been nice to have rangement of categories within a system, is a logical rhe- them [in the CMS] but we have chosen not to add torical argument (2010). However, in this case, the argu- them. ment is expressed through arrangement of information within a category and not between categories. All the In conformity with memories, peripheral information same, just as logical rhetorical arguments cause some (e.g., information about something in the image back- types of user comments to be rejected, the fear of noise ground or some anecdote about a depicted person) was could be interpreted as further evidence of logical argu- also discriminated. For instance, this example from one ments in the systems. institution that had a collection of boat pictures: 5.1.3. Institutional approach in creation of 7: And here, there is information about that this authorial voice ship has also been about on something else. That information … is not connected to the object, but Organization of user-generated information is also com- to this other ship that is named here. Unfortunately, plicated by institutional profiling and organizational ob- our possibilities of storing this information are re- jectives and goals. This forces professionals to keep the stricted, other than in free-text format and unfor- institutional approach at the top of their minds and con- tunately, we don’t value free-text format that highly. stantly ask themselves whether the user-generated infor- It’s hard to search in general and especially in this mation is in line with the special orientation of their or- system [Alfa] …That is typical example of informa- ganization. Even though it seldom led to information be- tion that we can’t really handle. ing rejected, the subject of a comment decided how much time professionals could spend on verifying com- This quotation illustrates not only how the structure and ments and how information was registered. connections between database posts in the CMS form logical rhetorical arguments for not including user- 15: You try to think about the mission of the mu- generated information (see for example (Feinberg 2010)) seum, so to speak. We’re not a car museum, then to but also how internal fields within a database post work waste time on controlling every car [image in the the same way. collections] is not as relevant as if it had been about the history of a workplace or people in the images 5.1.2 Fear of noise as a resource argument … If it’s clothing, which is one of our topics, if you’ve made comments about, like, textiles, then it’s Discriminated information was described by one inter- worth spending more time on it because that’s one viewee as noise that complicates information searches. of our main areas. So, that’s how you can think. Noise is a concept in information retrieval research, usually defined as the irrelevant search hits generated in a Institutional profiling thus influences the organization of search (see for example Rowley and Farrow 2000). user-generated data and contributes to an aggregation of bias towards information that suits the organizational pro- 5: Then one would get many hits, if the text is very file. A prioritization of what topics that are important and long. That’s why I call this information noise. You worth spending time on is thereby communicated through have to clear it away. One could imagine a possibil- selection, description, and arrangement, something that is ity for the public to directly add information [to the symptomatic of authorial voice (Feinberg 2011). The rhe- collections] …. That would mean that the precision torical mechanism of voice also establishes a closer con- we want … disappears because there is too much nection with users that would have been alienated with an irrelevant information. emphasis of car-related content but who shares the visions of clothing as an interesting topic, thus creating a narrative The informant is talking about information in free-text that evokes identification of the users (Feinberg 2011). format and depicts incorporation in the system of such information as undermining precision in an information 5.1.4 Believability through ethos search procedure. She states that in order to maintain system relevance, information that causes noise has to be The interviews make evident that professionals feel re- kept away from the system. However, the informant does sponsible for all information connected to their institu- not reflect over the fact that it is not the information it- tions, including user-generated information. Nevertheless, self that causes noise but rather its poor structuration. As a clear separation of user-created and professionally cre- Feinberg pointed out, structural evidence, or the ar- ated data on the image collection website is proclaimed Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 523 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms by several of the informants. This is explained to be nec- 5.2 Rhetorical influence on authenticity and essary in order to protect institutional credibility and le- reliability, demonstrated through diplomatics gitimacy. According to the informants, the audience of the museums and archives studied expects heritage insti- The interviews also provided information about how tutions to be in control of their data (informant seven). CMS design influenced not only the selection of user- In order to uphold their authority as information experts, generated information but also its quality. Through the professionals have to make sure that the CMSs commu- use of principles of diplomatics, it is here illustrated how nicates reliability, relevance, and objectivity. As a rhetori- a CMS design affects the authenticity and reliability of cal mechanism, ethos can be used to convince an audi- user-generated information with rhetorical mechanisms. ence of credibility and generate a believable character of In the interviews, it was found that both discriminated a classification system by aligning it with existing values information and elements of user-generated information of the audience (Feinberg 2009a; 2012). As illustrated in already manifested in the database often suffered from the quotation below, some user-generated information is lack of any capability to document the provenance of in- rejected, because it does not confirm with institutional formation. There was no structured space for provenance credibility and the image of institutions as information (such as name of the contributor or a contributor’s rela- experts. This is a way to create ethos and to make a per- tion to the information provided); neither were there data suasive impression of knowledge authority. fields for contextual information (such as the date the commentary was made), in connection to those fields 14: A person that has fishing as a special interest and that professionals used to incorporate user-generated da- comments that “in these lakes [in the image] you’ll ta. However, system Beta had automatic capture of na- find good fishing!” That’s a clear example of some- mes of contributors and the date when the comment was thing we can’t incorporate. Having the museum say supplied. This, together with a clear distinction of user- there are plenty of fish in this lake. generated information, made a structural rhetorical statement that Beta was a system that took user-generated Rejecting irrelevant or ambiguous information to be as- information more seriously than other systems did. similated with metadata was a method to convince the Unlike Beta, systems Alfa, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon audience of believability of the CMS and ultimately be- all relied on manual inclusion of provenance data. A lievability of the institution itself. Yet, this sets up a con- “provenance-field” could exist but then often as a general flict between controlled and brief information on the one field, relating to the whole post and not specific informa- hand, and extensive stories, inspirational facts, trivia, and tion elements of the post. Informants described how personal user memories on the other. As been noted ear- they often had to work around the problem by writing lier in this article, these latter types of comments make provenance data in, for example, the field “other infor- the collections “come alive” and become more interest- mation.” This caused an arbitrary registration of prove- ing. The conflict reflects the duality between a catalogue nance and different registration of quality and format, and an online exhibition, a result of the digitization and depending on the professional who registered the infor- internet publication of the catalogue: mation. Informant 13 remarked that this is a consequence of the professionals’ limited time for registrations 15: In the beginning, the collection management sys- and that provenance registration is made only in excep- tem was a catalogue for us, that a visitor could tional cases. Hypothetically, a separate data field dedicated search, too. But now, it’s more like, I don’t know, an- to provenance in connection to all information elements other way for the visitor to access the museum, and of a post would communicate a message of provenance then it’s something else totally. Then there has to be as something more than an exceptional notation left for much more contextual information, many more in- special occasions, transforming it into an incorporated teresting and fun things in order for you to stay on part of the system. the website, compared to when it was just a cata- Besides provenance, contextual information about the logue. situation where user-generated information was created, and for what purpose, was insufficiently documented. To conclude, this duality complicated the question of Even in cases where provenance was noted, evidence often how to communicate ethos, in the sense of convincing an was missing that could have distinguished pieces of infor- audience. Users not only have to be convinced about in- mation submitted with crowdsourcing methods (and how formation credibility but also, as informant fifteen says, these methods shaped the piece of information contrib- convinced about the entertaining aspects of information uted) from information already stored in the CMS. So was in order to stay on the site. name and information about the registering professional. 524 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms

Documenting the professional’s part in registration, selec- trolled. In other words, no degree of reliability is needed, tion, or appraisal is recommended (Cook 2007) for trans- because all information is supposed to be true. Even parency in the decision of forming and incorporating data though this kind of argumentation is a classical Aristote- in a collection. Interviewees could themselves recognise lian fallacy, and although it is not an intended message of such documentation as a relevant idea, at the same time as the system design, authorial voice is defined as the im- one of them remarked that, in that case, they should con- pression of an external spectator (Feinberg 2011). sequently log all changes and information updates made to As mentioned, the rhetorical effect of no levels of reli- the catalogue by professionals, not only updates of user- ability is that some information is excluded from being in- generated information (informant eight). To some extent corporated by professionals. This can diminish some of that may be true, but one difference between information the effects of the collaborative information work offered contributed by professionals or by external users is that by crowdsourcing methods. Informant seven, one of the without documentation of provenance and context, in- interviewees working with Alfa, tells a story of how dubi- formation will be assumed to be of professional origin, ous or erroneous information provided by users, such as added by a person that is in daily contact with the collec- falsely naming a portrayed person, have provoked other tions and well aware of requirements of information qual- users to correct the information. That would hardly have ity and controlled facts. A supposed “institutional trust” happened if the erroneous information had not been pub- thereby risks spilling over on all information in the CMS, lished in the first place. By allowing CMSs to communicate unless it is comprehensively registered. Furthermore, in an controlled ambiguity, systems become more transparent organization that increasingly works with user-contributed and expands the space of user-participation. Having data, information is probably changed and updated more shown how system rhetoric impacts the selection and de- often compared to an organization that does not especially scription of user-generated information, we will now dis- invite users to partake. Consequently, crowdsourcing en- cuss access to and preservation of this data. tails an increasing need for opportunities to document information provenance as much detail as possible to assure 5.3 Preservation and searchability information reliability. Detailed provenance documentation implies, among This article has exposed how user-generated information many things, documentation of “levels of reliability.” is discriminated against throughout different rhetorical That (Duranti 2002, 26) “Reliability is a question of de- mechanisms. In the end, this rejection has consequences gree” is a statement especially valid for user-created infor how user-generated data can be accessed and used in formation. Drop-down menus, suggesting different reli- the future. ability levels, do exist in system Alfa, but they were not available for use in all of the data fields, something that System Storage place for Search functionality the interviewees said limited their opportunities to satis- non-included in- of non-included infor- factorily register information. For example, information formation mation in the field “date” could be marked with the reliability- Alfa Web server Online search labels “assumptive,” “assured,” “ascribed,” “unsure,” or Beta All comments in- All content searched si- cluded in CMS multaneously. No separate “according to false tradition,” thus providing the possibil- search of comments. ity of controlled ambiguity. According to the profession- Gamma Paper Manual. Contributions are als, such labels were also needed when registering other stored chronologically. types of information, such as the location of the image Delta Web server and Online search or file inter- motive. However, because the reliability of levels-menu separate register nal search was field-specific, it could not be connected to the “loca- file tion” field, neither to any other data field in need of nu- Epsilon Paper Manual. Contributions are stored chronologically. anced reliability. In Alfa, this caused a work-around solu- Zeta Separate register Separate file search tion where the degree of reliability of user-generated in- file (Excel docu- formation about location was written in the field for gen- ment) eral notes. In other systems without any formal levels of information reliability, user-generated information that Table 4. Preservation and searchability in systems. could not be guaranteed to be fully accurate is more often repelled by professionals. 5.3.1 Storage and preservation In the absence of levels of reliability, the authorial voice of the CMSs studied express a view of system content With some user-generated information being discrimi- as unnegotiably true, trustworthy, and institutionally con- nated against, it follows that user-generated information Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 525 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms is being remitted to be stored outside the CMS, whether suddenly disappearing without backup when they up- for logical, ethical, or authorial arguments. In only one of graded the collection website. Delta users told about their the case systems (Beta) is user-generated information di- fear of losing comments that were now stored only on rectly included in the CMS. Storage and search function- the website, due to a coming web and CMS upgrade. ality of the systems are declared in Table 4. Migration possibilities for crowdsourced information In Alfa, comments preserved on the webpage ap- are closely connected to how the information is struc- peared to be stored within the system. This assumption tured. In Beta, the commentary field is directly connected was prompted by a mirroring of comments in the com- to the CMS, and all professionals needed to do was to mentary field to another database field in the CMS. This approve comments in order for them to be stored. This design apparently confused professionals working with meant that the contributions were incorporated in the Alfa; even though their answers about preservation of image collection system and thus easily migrated together user-generated information were uncertain, it was clear with other image metadata. However, Beta is an excep- that several professionals had the impression that all tion, and in all other systems, professionals left many comments were preserved in the CMS. However, accord- comments unattended, so the information never entered ing to the system developer, the comments are stored the collection system at all. Information stored outside a only on the image collection website, not in the system it- CMS is more vulnerable, because it is not submitted to self. In a hypothetical migration to another CMS, com- the same routines of preservation (like backup and mi- ments would be separated from other information in the gration) as information inside a CMS. A system that is in- CMS and stored only if the website is preserved. tegrated with the main collection database is also funda- When professionals who thought comments auto- mental for reliability (Duranti 2002, 27). Taken together, matically were preserved were informed about the situa- rhetorical mechanisms of a CMS affect storage and pres- tion, they were surprised and troubled. They had based ervation possibilities of user-generated information by their current administrative practice on the belief that the discriminating information to become included in the sy- CMS stored the comment. They had manually included stem. some corrective or additional comments anyway, but, for example, discriminated information had been left without 5.3.2 Searchability action. By displaying user comments in the midst of information that was preserved within Alfa, the system Besides having an impact on preservation, discriminated provided a false logical argument and the impression of information is also a source of difficulties in the search- commentary inclusion (Feinberg 2010). This rhetoric en- ability of user-generated information preserved outside forces a deceiving message of system omnipotence and of the collection database. control of user contributions that is strong enough even Information only available via the commentary field to convince people working closely with the system. Even online (systems Alfa, Epsilon) is not available for a thor- though there is no actual intent on the part of those who ough search of all comments at the same time. There is designed the system to create this misconception, the us- no functionality allowing a search within the commentary ers’ belief is enough to prove a convincing message field. Using the web browser functionality for searching (Feinberg 2011). within the webpage only works for one image object at a Another solution for preservation of discriminated in- time, and then only finds the comments related to that formation was to print the comment on paper and store specific object. The users of system Zeta receive com- it at the office (practiced at institutions G and J). Others ments on email and then add them to an Excel docu- stored comments outside of the collection system in Ex- ment, which later is edited and exported as metadata for cel documents (Zeta). Besides these storage methods, all the images when there is no time to publish them. Delta institutions had parallel storage of incoming comments users collect comments in a separate register. Comments in their mailbox, where either the original comment or a could thus be separately searched, all at once, in both Ze- notification mail about new comments was sent. ta and Delta. Information preserved on paper (systems Even though parallel systems may work for some time, Gamma and Epsilon) could be sorted either in chrono- it is not a sufficient permanent solution to preserve user- logical order or by order of the object number of their generated information. Saving information only on the corresponding image object. Thus, to find a comment, website or in the mailbox, instead of integrated in the one had to know the date it was created or the object it collection database increases the risk of ultimate infor- was created about. That limited the possibilities of an- mation loss. In an upgrade of the website, the informa- swering questions like, for instance, all comments with tion can easily be lost. Some of the Alfa users had wit- the word “car” (a popular topic among contributors) or nessed comments that had been accumulated for years all comments made by a certain user. 526 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms

Additionally, not only discriminated information is dif- is loss of user-generated information and the multitude of ficult to search but also user-generated information in- experiences and perspectives that users contribute to the cluded in the CMS can be hard to find, compared to pro- collections. fessionally created information. The reason for this is dis- As earlier noted, no information system is without bias. cussed in section 5.2, namely the lack of linkage of user- Although this article has dealt with user comments made in generated information to user provenance, thus tossing it regard to image collections, the results are also applicable into a textual haystack of free-text information that can- to other types of collections that are enriched with free- not answer questions such as what user contributed what text annotations. No matter what the collection type, kind of information. transparency of the moderation process is always required Finally, storing crowdsourced information only at the when external participation is solicited, and it may prevent website, in a mail inbox or on paper also entailed the risk user contributions from being rejected as a result of biased of losing the connection between comment and collec- knowledge structures that communicates a sceptical ap- tion object. Despite the metadata being preserved in one proach to user contributions. Incoherency between the in- of those media or digital environments, the data was se- vitation to participate and the appreciation of the contribu- parated from the image object in the collection database. tion will confuse a potential participant and make crowd- Even though there still might be an object reference sourcing of user annotations less probable to fulfil its aim. number in the data, referring to the image, these solu- Currently, users can easily get the wrong impression of tions made it complicated to go from the image to a cor- how their contributions will be received. When collecting responding comment. Institution ten sorted the printed free-text comments with crowdsourcing, institutions are comments chronologically, but the informant remarked it recommended to be more transparent about what kind of would have been much more practical to have them sor- information they are looking for. Following the advice of ted by image reference number. Anyhow, a broken con- Lauruhn and Groth, institutions need to adjust the design nection between image and contribution means an im- of their CMS to adapt them for user participation. A holis- portant automatic mechanism of preservation is lost. tic and coherent call for user participation, based on institutional resources and internal prioritization and organiza- 6.0 Conclusion tion of knowledge, would therefore be recommended for every heritage institution, that wishes to work with user This article has shown that rhetorical mechanisms, as de- comments. fined by Feinberg, impact user-generated information in- In investigating many of the misgivings about selection, corporated in CMSs through selection, description, ar- reliability, and provenance discussed in research in the last rangement, and access. Through adaptation of genre and few years, this article has focused more on the mediating rhetorical arguments based on logic, ethos, and authorial role of the CMS than on the mediating role of cultural voice, system structure causes resource discrimination, loss heritage professionals themselves. It thus complements of reliability, and decreased access and possibility of pres- studies about archivists’ authority and worldview in shap- ervation for user-generated information. The conclusion to ing cultural heritage collections (Light and Hyry 2002; be drawn from the presented observations is that the sys- MacNeil 2005; Yakel 2011), but it also negotiates and shifts tem design creates isolation of crowdsourced metadata and the focus away from the impact of individuals’ mediation hampers inclusion. This is due to the lack of allocated to the power of organizational systems over institutional space for user-generated information and a want of struc- collections and heritage. This does not mean that archive tural data elements needed for reliability and searchability. and museum employees have no responsibility for the Without dedicated data fields and structure for the memo- message of their institutions. Rather, this article demon- ries, peripheral and associative content and opinions that strates that organizational systems play a more active part users provide, much data is rejected from incorporation in than was previously realized and should be the subject of institutional heritage collections. Information authenticity, further research in the fields of crowdsourcing and knowl- reliability, and searchability were documented by chance in edge organization. some systems, which left it up to the motivation and daily Finally, one might dispute if the free-text format mood of the moderating professional whether data con- should be a recommended method for heritage institu- nected to reliability was added at all or left out because of tions at all? Compared to more organized methods like stress or inattention. Consequently, this poor structure of transcription or themed inquiries, free-text information reliability data degrades the value of user-contributed in- demands considerable attention and effort from adminis- formation. Being deprived of authenticity, crowdsourced trators, not all of which can be solved by good design information cannot become part of the collections on the and adjustments of information systems. However, de- same basis as other information. The ultimate consequence spite some disadvantages, free-text comments are also a Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 527 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms crowdsourcing method that indeed is on the terms of us- Farley, Laura. 2014. “The Participatory Finding Aid and ers. No matter what ideas, experiences, opinions, or con- the Archivist: How User Annotation Are Changing tent a user feels are worth adding to archives and collec- Everyone’s Role.” In Archival Issues: Journal of the Mid- tions, they can be added through textual comments, west Archives Conference 35:79-98. which makes the method just as user-inclusive as many Feinberg, Melanie. 2007. “From Hidden Bias to Respon- heritage institutions aspire to be. sible Bias: An Approach to Information Systems To further study how institutions and users can work Based on Haraway’s Situated Knowledges.” Information together to make more multifaceted and inclusive cultural Research 12, no. 4. Special supplement: Proceedings of heritage collections is an important task for coming re- the Sixth International Conference on Conceptions of search. Especially interesting topics are how professionals Library and Information Science Featuring the Future. perceive the design of classification systems and collec- http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis07. tions management systems but also how users perceive html communicative messages of institutional information sys- Feinberg, Melanie. 2009a. “Ethos and the Construction tems. of a Believable Character for Information Systems.” In iConference 2009 Papers: iSociety: Research, Education, En- References gagement. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/15237. Feinberg, Melanie. 2009b. “Information System Design Andersen, Jack. 2015. “Re-Describing Knowledge Or- for Communication: The Use of Genre as a Design ganization.” In Genre Theory in Information Studies, ed. Element.” Proceedings of the Association for Information Sci- Jack Andersen. Studies in Information. Bingley, UK: ence and Technology 46:1-18. doi:10.1002/meet.2009.14 Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 13-42. 50460232 Anderson, Scott R., and Robert B. Allen. 2009. “Envi- Feinberg, Melanie. 2010. “Two Kinds of Evidence: How sioning the Archival Commons.” The American Archivist Information Systems Form Rhetorical Arguments.” 72:383-400. Journal of Documentation 66:491-512. doi:10.1108/00220 Blouin, Francis X. 1999. “Archivists, Mediation, and Con- 411011052920 structs of Social Memory.” Archival Issues 24:101-12. Feinberg, Melanie. 2011. “How Information Systems Brabham, Daren C. 2012. “Crowdsourcing: A Model for Communicate as Documents: The Concept of Au- Leveraging Online Communities.” In The Participatory thorial Voice” Journal of Documentation 67: 1015–37. Cultures Handbook, ed. Aaron Delwiche and Jennifer doi:10.1108/00220411111183573 Jacobs Henderson. New York: Routledge, 120-9. Feinberg, Melanie. 2012. “Synthetic Ethos: The Believ- Cook, Terry. 2001. “Fashionable Nonsense or Profes- ability of Collections at the Intersection of Classifica- sional Rebirth: Postmodernism and the Practice of tion and Curation.” The Information Society 28:329-39. Archives.” Archivaria 51:14-35. Feinberg, Melanie. 2015. “Genres without Writers: In- Cook, Terry. 2007. “Remembering the Future: Appraisal formation Systems and Distributed Authorship.” In of Records and the Role of Archives in Constructing Genre Theory in Information Studies, ed. Jack Andersen. Social Memory.” In Archives, Documentation, and Institu- Studies in Information. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group tions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar, ed. Publishing Limited, 43–66. Francis X. Blouin and William G. Rosenberg. Ann Ar- Foscarini, Fiorella. 2012. “Diplomatics and Genre Theory bor: University of Michigan Press, 169-81. as Complementary Approaches.” Archival Science 12:389- Devitt, Amy J. 2009. “Re-Fusing Form in Genre Study.” 409. In Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre, ed. Gorzalski, Matt. 2013. “Examining User-Created De- Janet Giltrow and Dieter Stein. Pragmatics & Beyond scription in the Archival Profession.” Journal of Archi- 188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Com- val Organization 11:1-22. doi:10.1080/15332748.2013. pany, 27–48. 866858 Drisko, James W. and Tina Maschi. 2016. Content Analysis. Gregory, Jenny. 2015. "Connecting with the Past through Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods. Ox- Social Media: The “Beautiful Buildings and Cool ford: Oxford University Press. Places Perth Has Lost” Facebook Group.” International Duranti, Luciana. 2002. “The Reliability and Authenticity Journal of Heritage Studies 21: 22–45. doi:10.1080/13 of Electronic Records.” In Preservation of the Integrity of 527258.2014.884015 Electronic Records, with Terry Eastwood and Heather Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. “Three MacNeil. The Archivist’s Library 2. Dordrecht: Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualita- Springer. tive Health Research 15:1277-88. 528 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 I.-M. Jansson. Organization of User-generated Information in Image Collections and the Impact of Rhetorical Mechanisms

Huvila, Isto. 2015. "The Unbearable Lightness of Partici- Phillips, Lori Byrd. 2014. “The Role of Open Authority pating? Revisiting the Discourses of Participation in in a Collaborative Web.” In Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Archival Literature.” Journal of Documentation 71:358-86. Heritage, ed. Mia Ridge. Digital Research in the Arts doi:10.1108/JD-01-2014-0012 and Humanities. Farnham: Ashgate, 247-68. Krause, Magia, and Elizabeth Yakel. 2007. “Interaction in Ridge, Mia. 2013. “From Tagging to Theorizing: Deepen- Virtual Archives: The Polar Bear Expedition Digital ing Engagement with Cultural Heritage through Collections Next Generation Finding Aid.” The Ameri- Crowdsourcing.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56:435-50. can Archivist 70:282-314. Rowley, Jennifer, and John Farrow. 2000. Organizing Lauruhn, Michael, and Paul Groth. 2016. “Sources of Knowledge: An Introduction to Managing Access to Informa- Change for Modern Knowledge Organization Sys- tion, 3rd ed. Aldershot: Gower. tems.” Knowledge Organization 43:622-29. Sherratt, Tim. 2011. “Bringing Life to Records: Mapping Liew, Chern Li. 2014. “Participatory Cultural Heritage: A Our Anzacs at the National Archives of Australia.” In Tale of Two Institutions’ Use of Social Media.” D-Lib A Different Kind of Web: New Connections between Archives Magazine 20, no. 3/4. doi:10.1045/march2014-liew and Our Users, ed. Kate Theimer. Chicago: Society of Light, Michelle, and Tom Hyry. 2002. “Colophons and American Archivists, 128-38. Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid.” Simon, Nina. 2010. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, The American Archivist 65:216-30. CA.: Museum 2.0. MacNeil, Heather. 2005. “Picking Our Text: Archival De- Van Hooland, Seth. 2006. “From Spectator to Annotator: scription, Authenticity, and the Archivist as Editor.” Possibilities Offered by User-Generated Metadata for The American Archivist 68:264-78. Digital Cultural Heritage Collections.” Paper presented MacNeil, Heather. 2012. “What Finding Aids Do: Archival at CILIP Cataloguing and Indexing Group Annual Description as Rhetorical Genre in Traditional and Conference—Immaculate Catalogues: Taxonomy, Web-Based Environments.” Archival Science 12:485-500. Metadata and Resource Discovery in the 21st Century, Oomen, Johan, and Lora Aroyo. 2011. “Crowdsourcing in Proceedings of The University of East Anglia 13-15 the Cultural Heritage Domain: Opportunities and Chal- September 2006. http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~sv lenges.” In C&T11, Proceedings of the 5th International Con- hoolan/Usergeneratedmetadata.pdf. ference on Communities and Technologies, 138–149. New Yakel, Elizabeth. 2011. “Balancing Archival Authority York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2103354.2103373 with Encouraging Authentic Voices to Engage with Owens, Trevor. 2014. “Making Crowdsourcing Compati- Records.” In A Different Kind of Web: New Connections ble with the Missions and Values of Cultural Heritage between Archives and Our Users, ed. Kate Theimer. Chi- Organisations.” In Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage, cago: Society of American Archivists, 75-101. ed. Mia Ridge. Digital Research in the Arts and Hu- Zinkham, Helena, and Michelle Springer. 2011. “Taking manities. Farnham: Ashgate, 269-80. Photographs to the People: The Flickr Commons Pro- Peccatte, Patrick. 2011. “Liberating Archival Images: The ject and the Library of Congress.” In A Different Kind PhotosNormandie Project on Flickr,” trans. Lynne M. of Web. New Connections between Archives and Our Users, Thomas. In A Different Kind of Web. New Connections be- ed. Kate Theimer. Chicago: Society of American Ar- tween Archives and Our Users, ed. Kate Theimer. Chi- chivists. cago: Society of American Archivists.

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 529 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections Adrian Van Allen Musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac, 222 Rue de l'Université, 75007 Paris, France,

Adrian Van Allen is a sociocultural anthropologist who studies museums as technologies for organizing relationships between people, places, materials, and interests. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris. She holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of California, Berke- ley, and MFAs in photography and interactive media from the California College of the Arts, San Francisco. She is an associate researcher in the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C., and at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, California.

Van Allen, Adrian. 2017. “Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections.” Knowledge Organization 44(7): 529-544. 96 references.

Abstract: Examining the material practices of museum genomics, my ethnographic research focuses on the Global Genome Initiative at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C., a project that seeks to preserve vanishing biodiversity for an uncertain future by cryo-preserving half of the families of life in the next six years. Through stuffing a bird skin, taking genetic samples, and sub-sampling tissues for DNA extraction I examine a return to encyclopedic collecting with biotechnological tools, exploring how biotechnology is redefining and preserving “life itself ” (Foucault 1970; Kowal and Radin 2015). This article examines one instance of how museum collections are made, standardized, and shared at the Smithsonian. Contrasting perspectives from ethnographic work in the Division of Birds and the Biorepository, I examine the friction and flow of biodiversity as specimens are transformed into data through material-semiotic practices. I analyze how these data and specimens then un- dergo multiple re-classifications as categories for new types of museum objects—such as genetic samples—are negotiated. Cryo- collections are “made to matter” (Barad 2003) as ontological embodiments through their preservation, multiple uses, and standardization across disciplines. Through attending to the (bio)materials themselves, I argue the practices currently structuring a shared ecological future become legible.

Received: 28 June 2017; Revised: 23 September 2017; Accepted: 30 October 2017

Keywords: natural history collections, specimens, museum, tissue

1.0 Introduction: organizing archives of life in the history museums have also shifted to echo this perspec- Anthropocene tive of preserving for the future, moving from diorama- based exhibits as “windows on nature” to emphasizing In the face of increasing extinction rates, with an esti- biodiversity, networks of all living things, and the genome mated 50% of all species potentially heading towards ex- as a “library of life’s code” (Encyclopedia of Life 2014) tinction by mid-century (Barrow 2009; IUCN 2017), the that can be gathered and preserved in their collections. ethical imperative to preserve biodiversity before it van- As life is increasingly understood as a network of liv- ishes has taken on multiple forms. While nature conser- ing things, systems, and processes—not just as biodiverse vation efforts have traditionally focused on stabilizing but also as biocomplex (Biodiversity Information Stan- dwindling populations of endangered species and their dards 2015; Hanner, Corthals, and DeSalle 2009; Graham habitats, citing the interdependence of ecosystems, pro- et al. 2004)—natural history collections have also been jects have emerged in the last few decades that focus on transformed into networks of increasing complexity, with preserving vanishing biodiversity through genetic collect- vouchers (the reference specimen), tissues and data dis- ing for an uncertain future, such as the Smithsonian’s persed across museum departments as well as across the Global Genome Initiative (https://ggi.si.edu/), part of a globe at different museums, research centers, zoos, bo- coalition of genomic collecting projects at the National tanical gardens and biorepositories. Each of these institu- Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Natural tion’s collections of specimens, tissue samples, and data 530 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections are woven into knowledge organization structures unique The conceptualization of the collection as a resource that to their specific histories (Bowker 2000; Knorr-Cetina can provide knowledge about the natural world is based 1999; Lampland and Star 2009; Turner and Greene 2014). on a desire to know the natural world in particular ways, Within these contexts, communities of scientists (Droege and to re-inscribe those ways of knowing through the et al. 2014; Ibekwe-Sanjuan and Bowker 2017; Leonelli practices of creating specimens and their associated data 2013; Page et al. 2015) are collaborating to standardize structures. Through collecting, processing and circulating data practices across museums to render them discover- specimens, their parts, and their data, museums remake able and computable for biodiversity big data projects. the natural world, binding the collections to disciplinary The larger cultural shift towards reducing life to the pasts while forecasting future uses. biological (Franklin and Lock 2003; Landecker 2007; Radin 2013; Rose 2007; Sunder Rajan 2006) forms the 2.0 Folding time: standardizing practices at the condition of possibility for genomic collecting projects Smithsonian that concentrate the dwindling diversity of life into these museum-based assemblages of vouchers, tissue samples, Focusing on negotiations at the Smithsonian National and data. By attending to how biodiversity is being stan- Museum of Natural History between 2014-2016, this ar- dardized in the museum, I focus on the material practices ticle examines the material practices for creating stan- and disciplinary biases that inform making and maintain- dardized specimens. Through ethnographic engagement ing collections. I argue that these processes are redefining with different “communities of practice” (Lave and Wen- how life itself is being categorized and archived with im- ger 1991) in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natu- plications for collective ecological futures that will be de- ral History’s Division of Birds and Biorepository, I learn fined through biodiversity data. how a bird’s body can come apart in multiple ways— The “rediscovery” of natural history collections by disarticulated into a skin, tissue samples, feathers, bones, conservation biologists as sites for gaining new types of and sub-sampled tissues for DNA extraction. data—data types that were unthinkable when the collec- An analytical chain binds together these different parts tions were originally made 150, or even fifty, years ago— of a specimen as it is divided into parts and distributed is rapidly shifting the value of collections in the face of across spaces in the museum: from a whole specimen (a these new demands. Valued now as sources of potential stuffed bird skin in the Division of Birds), to associated insight into historic climate change, population bottle- pieces (tissue frozen in the Biorepository), to the differ- necks, and extinction events, natural history collections ent kinds of data derived from these pieces (collection have become “windows into the past” that can potentially data, accession data, and now genomic data). With the in- provide solutions for our own species’ imagined future tegration of genetics into this analytical chain, the rela- needs (Smithsonian Institute for Biodiversity Genomics tionship between “original and parts” is being fundamen- https://biogenomics.si.edu/). Natural history collections tally reconsidered, as debates over whether a tissue sam- are also, perhaps primarily, cultural artifacts of our spe- ple or DNA extract can serve the same function, for ex- cies’ multiple and on-going redefinitions of what consti- ample, as a bird study skin, call into question fundamental tutes the “natural world”—as defined in the Global concepts about the nature of collecting and preserving li- North. As the material world of Anthropocenic “nature” fe and how the ontological relationship between these becomes a site of contesting interests and values, it is also parts and pieces should be organized (de Almeida Cam- the material “culture” of “nature” that is called into ques- pos and Gomes 2017). Is the goal to preserve genomes tion, as embodied in the practices for collecting and pre- or individual representatives of a species? What kinds of serving natural history collections—be they bird skins data does each object condense or discard? Further, what stuffed with cotton and arranged in drawers, or rows of capacities or limitations are built into the biomaterials frozen tissue samples stacked in liquid nitrogen tanks. themselves and the ways they are made and remade in the “Museum collections, and the species they represent, process of crafting specimens and their associated data provide windows into the past, inform about the present, structures? and help predict the future of natural habitats and hu- Following this thread, I examine making specimens in man-altered environments. They are the common lan- two distinct spaces within the Smithsonian. In the work- guage of the biological sciences” (Kress 2014, 3010). rooms of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural However, I would argue that these storehouses of infor- History Division of Birds, I learned to prepare a bird stu- mation have been configured in specific ways, based on dy skin, take tissue samples, analyzing the folding of time the specific cultural histories that formed them, which in between new and old techniques. Exploring the bird col- turn have shaped the kinds of information they can pro- lections with specimen preparators and curators, I gath- duce, or more precisely, “be conceived of producing.” ered a layered perspective of the emerging uses for natu- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 531 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections ral history collections. I then follow my bird tissue sample shape these forms of life? Or, shifting to a larger context, to the Smithsonian’s Biorepository, learning the process how do museum practices shape our own species’ rela- of removing tubes from the liquid nitrogen tanks to sub- tionship to the rest of the global assemblage of non- sampling the frozen tissue for later DNA extraction. human species? Among the abstracted bits of preserved biodiversity, de- Environmental destruction as well as its conservation veloping biotechnological techniques moved hand in are symptoms of the complex power relations entangled hand with the ethical imperative to preserving “life on in the making of natural order—of “nature” as a re- ice” for an uncertain future. While these processes are en- source in multiple registers. These include economic in- tangled with their disciplinary pasts, both practices and terests, biomedical research, national security, agriculture, policy-level decisions in the Division of Birds and the and as a resource for understanding nature itself as small Biorepository are being reconfigured by the changing ma- genomic parts of it are sorted, valued, collected, and terial practices of genomics. That is, ways of making mo- stored for future analysis and replication. I claim that lecular specimens influence ways of thinking about their these actions become understandable only if one consid- potential utility and value for multiple imagined futures. ers them in view of the entangled processes of produc- This is accomplished by folding time in traditional working scientific knowledge through the crafting of both flows, extending existing ways of knowing and making morphological (such as bird skins in a cabinet) and mo- (Harris 2007; Pickstone 2001) by incorporating new lecular (DNA frozen in liquid nitrogen) specimens. Part techniques and technologies into proven specimen prepa- of crafting specimens is crafting the data with which they ration practices. “Collections care,” according to Carol are inextricably entwined. Databases are also artifacts, Butler (Smithsonian Institution 2017), the Assistant Di- part of the web of knowledge production within the mu- rector for Collections at the Smithsonian National Mu- seum (Leonelli 2012b; Mohns and Geismar 2010), forms seum of Natural History, “is a hopeful investment in the of archives (Derrida 1996), that bind up the different future.” Or, as the director of a genomics project at the kinds of biomatter in chains of relation—voucher Smithsonian often said (Van Allen 2016, 324), “Museums specimen to tissue sample to extracted DNA to genetic are in the forever business.” data. As specimens’ biologies are unbound into differently As scholarship in both the biological sciences (Pyke valued parts and pieces, spread across the spaces of the and Ehrlich 2010; Winker 2004), history of science (Das- museum—from frozen tissue samples to bird skins in ton 2000; Strasser 2010) and in science studies (Fujimura cabinets to globally dispersed data—it is important to 1996; Kohlstedt 2005) have shown, many scientists con- remember that specimens remain sites of contested clas- tinue to use collections to discover, describe, and docu- sificatory meanings, objects of shifting value, and ment plants and animals with traditional methods, such as (dis)embodiments of hand-crafted “natural orders” (Das- the bird skins, pinned insects, and pressed plants I lear- ton 2004) that are being used to mark time in the An- ned to make during my fieldwork in the various scientific thropocene. Further, a specimen’s capacity to carry the cultures of birds, entomology, or botany at the Smith- heavy burden as an archive of life, ready to be tapped for sonian National Museum of Natural History. However, an uncertain future, is inextricably bound up in the mate- the application of new technologies to study specimens is rial-semiotic practices of its making. expanding, becoming integrated into the traditional practices, or in some cases disrupting them, as I learned 3.0 Biodiversity inventories as data collections through sub-sampling tissues and sorting data in the Smithsonian’s Biorepository. Much of the current scien- Over 50% of individual wild animal species are estimated tific understanding of several recently extinct species– to have gone extinct since the 1970s (Cardinale et al. including the Tasmanian tiger or Thylacine (Thylacinus cy- 2012; WWF 2016), which for scientists’ intent on collect- nocephalus), the Caribbean monk seal (Neomonachus tropi- ing biodiversity “underscores the vital inherent value of calis) and the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), to museum collections today, tomorrow, and into the fu- name but a few–have directly resulted from genomic in- ture” (Kress 2014, 3010). In the context of massive and formation extracted from museum collections (Miller et continuing losses in biodiversity, museums are being real. 2009; Rocha et al. 2014; Schipper et al. 2008). From evaluated as a key component in configuring our under- this perspective, museums are being recast as unparal- standing, and preservation, of life itself. However, this leled, and largely untapped, resources for creating tissue raises several questions. What forms of life are being collections of extinct species, part of large-scale genomic conserved or preserved in the museum? Further, how do studies of animals and plants (Casas‐Marce et al. 2010; the evolving museum practices of mining and extending Horváth et al. 2005; Rohland and Hofreiter 2007; Nach- the collections with new specimens and genetic samples man 2013). 532 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

Framed as yet another source now available for big da- geneticists (Kress 2014, 3010), suggests “drawers of bird ta science, natural history collections, specimens and as- skins, empty shells, and dried plants … However, current sociated data have been accumulating for hundreds of collections also include living specimens, spirit-preserved years. The amount of “untapped biodiversity resources” samples, deep-frozen tissues, and DNA.” These different compressed into museum collections, botanical gardens, domains—of public exhibition or private research—each and university collections is not precisely known, how- define the value or use of a specimen according to the ever estimates (Bi et al. 2013; Hykin et al. 2015; Janecka et needs at hand. Many of these needs require large data sets al. 2015) are as high as three billion specimens. “A press- derived from the collections: a thousand primates from ing challenge is to continue to build scientific collections over a 100 year period were used to determine the emer- for future needs,” writes former Smithsonian Secretary gence of the HIV virus (Suarez and Tsutsui 2004). Further, for Science John Kress (2014, 3010). it is the pairing of this collected and collated “irreplaceable “Our predecessors in [the Division of] Birds collected biodiversity” and it’s associated metadata that combine to these specimens, they had a very specific idea of what define its (potential) value as it moves across domains. they were going to be used for,” a curator in the Division of Birds told me as we went through several locked doors 4.0 Making materials matter, part I: how to build a into the type specimen collection, on our way to look at a bird Hudsonian godwit (Limosa haemastica, USNM A8074) collected and prepared by Charles Darwin in March 1833. An attention to the specific qualities of the materials in “Now we use them for things they never could have ima- play—the ways they are either pliant or resistant to trans- gined.” When I ask her what future uses she can imagine formation—gives insight into the different disciplinary for the collections, she pauses (Van Allen 2016, 217): “We histories that shape these collections, as well as their ima- can’t know, of course, what direction technology will go gined future uses. For instance, a small chunk of muscle … But we can prepare things in different ways—like tissue cut from a bird or a reptile slides easily into a 2 mL pickling the specimen [preserving in alcohol] so the entire cryotube with the help of forceps, whereas a large butter- organism stays intact, making sure we don’t lose anything. fly has to be crumpled into the tube, body folded, with Or lose less anyway. We’re doing that with some birds the wings occasionally removed beforehand and mounted now, taking tissue samples and then pickling, then doing on a sliver of cardstock. Much of the technology for bio- microCT scans … I got some amazingly detailed scans of banking originated within the human biomedical science the structures inside a beak recently, from a pickled bird community, which is reflected in the way vertebrates … For the future, we just have to be very detailed in the (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish—anything with a back- data, make sure we keep it all connected, record every- bone and significant muscle groups to sample) fit into the thing … You never know what might end up being rele- workflows, whereas the rest of the planet’s biodiversity vant.” has to be compressed and folded (sometimes quite liter- Predicted future needs compel museums to continue ally) into the standardized spaces. The move towards collecting and preserving for as-yet-unknown uses. As the standardizing genomic samples and data from the differ- “common language of the biological sciences” (Kress ent disciplines within the museum—in an effort to make 2014, 3010), collections not only speak for the past, but them legible across disciplines and institutions and meet must be maintained and added to with new biodiversity the goals of the Smithsonian’s Global Genome Initiative surveys to speak for the future as well. Although most mu- (GGI)—has deep implications for the disciplines in ques- seum specimens were not originally collected for the pur- tion. Each Department and Division has its own history poses for which they are now used, new technologies will of collecting and an existing set of standards that values “continue to reveal new information previously unantici- particular parts of an organism, distinct ways to preserve pated in scientific specimens” (Hykin et al. 2015, it based on those evaluations, and specific kinds of data e0141579). According to many at the Smithsonian (Rocha relationships that are deemed vital (Baker 1998; Graham et al. 2014) and beyond (Droege et al. 2014; see also the et al. 2004; Marty and Jones 2012). Genomic collecting Global Genome Biodiversity Network [http://www. protocols, such as the Global Genome Initiative’s, call ggbn.org/ggbn_portal/]) the collections need to be added many of these practices into question and are in the pro- to—“extended” with genomic samples—to maintain their cess of reshaping how, what, and why biodiversity is bio- value and “keep in time” with the time series already banked across disciplines. marked out by the existing collections. The toe pad from a As I learned to make specimens first-hand, this bird skin collected in 1910 can be sequenced and com- brought into focus various continuities and ruptures in pared with one collected last year, or one living in a zoo. the different disciplinary histories of material practices in An outmoded view of collections, according to museum the museum. One example of this folding of time oc- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 533 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections curred in the Vertebrate Zoology Preparation Lab at the (2012, 310), “complicates the effort to render flesh as da- Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s Di- ta.” The very materials of tissues are in a state of becom- vision of Birds, where in January 2014 I learned to pre- ing—becoming ever more microbial, epistemic, and valu- pare a bird study skin, following procedures that were able in different ways (Leonelli 2012a; Star 2010). almost identical to those from an 1856 manual written by My bird’s body and its parts, I suggest, function as the second Secretary of the Smithsonian, the ornitholo- boundary objects (Star and Griesemer 1989; Star 2010) gist Fullerton Spencer Baird. Semi-frozen bird on the ta- between practices, knowledges, and disciplines at the mu- ble in front of me, I measured the distance up from the seum. The complicated translations needed to make shift- cloaca a thumb-width, and then made a long incision up ing scientific objects coherent across boundaries under- across the belly to the throat using short, delicate strokes score how “objects of scientific inquiry inhabit multiple so as not to cut through the intestines beneath. After social worlds, since all science requires intersectional much work peeling the skin from the body and then work … The fact that the objects originate in, and con- measuring internal organs I catapulted from the nine- tinue to inhabit, different worlds reflects the fundamental teenth century to the twenty-first century, taking tissue tension of science: how can findings which incorporate samples from the heart, liver, and muscle. After pushing radically different meanings become coherent?” (Star and the red globs into a 2 mL plastic tube, I carefully labeled Griesemer 1989, 392). As a type of many-to-many map- each one and put them in the lab’s freezer. Returning to ping, the study skin, its tissues, and parasite-ridden car- my bird skin to stuff it with cotton wool, I used the same cass all work to “produce difference” between these now- process from Baird’s 1856 protocol, even using the same discrete pieces as they are each sorted and classified in kind of upholstery thread he recommended. The heart new contexts—from frozen bird tissue in the Bioreposi- of the matter, in this particular instance, may be an actual tory, to a bird skin in a drawer in the Division of Birds, to heart. As I traced the path of sampled heart tissue frozen a mite extracted from a feather for the Parasite Collec- in a cryovial, its circulation to the lab and then the biore- tion. Yet they are all rendered (semi)legible across these pository, I saw what different materials and concepts are boundaries by the thin threads of (increasingly standard- variously broken apart, brought together and how they ized) data (Wieczorek et al. 2012; see also the Biodiversity change as they move across borders. The same biomate- Information Standards Taxonomic Working Group rial from a bird accumulated different meaning and value http://www.tdwg.org). This production of difference in as they moved across domains and became “legible” to material practice happens on the local level, yet particu- different audiences—the discarded internal organs from larly in the return to encyclopedic collecting of the natu- the Division of Birds becoming a precious fieldsite for ral world with new genomic tools, I see an assembling of invertebrate zoologists to collect parasites, or the toepad the global, and its complex connections, in a very specific of a nineteenth century bird study skin being sampled by and local frame. “Capitalism, science, and politics all de- conservation biologists. Donna Haraway’s concept of a pend on global connections … Yet this is a particular “ventriloquist for nature” (1997, 24) helps to illuminate kind of universality: It can only be charged and enacted how genetic samples in the biorepository function to ne- in the sticky materiality of practical encounters” (Tsing gotiate value within larger cultural and scientific networks 2005, 3). This “stickiness” in the materiality of my practi- “speaking” for their species, genus, or family. The knowl- cal encounter helps to articulate how these “frictions” edge structures underlying these emerging audiences for come into being in the museum context, and indeed the collections also, in turn, shape the collections themselves literal stickiness of the practical encounters I engaged in as they expand with new types of objects such as tissue were the stickiness of blood, fat and feathers and the samples and DNA extracts, and are reorganized in an at- ways in which they were categorized as either valuable or tempt to contain new and ever-emerging categories. as biowaste. The standardization of specimens, tissues, and data might suggest that they speak for an atemporal natural 5.0 Making materials matter, part II: how to use order. However, it is important to remain attentive to the feathers and bones historically rich natural orders revealed by an alternative reading of (genomic) collecting (Leonelli 2012b; Leonelli More than 640,000 bird specimens are housed at the and Ankeny 2012). The different disciplinary histories be- Smithsonian’s various facilities—the third largest bird col- tween birds and fishes, botany and invertebrate zoology, lection in the world (Smithsonian National Museum of for example, contribute to the emergent value(s) of Natural History, Division of Birds http://vertebrates. “museomics” and its specimens as scientific objects. “The si.edu/birds/). In the Smithsonian National Museum of growing recognition of the microbial richness of even Natural History’s Division of Birds long corridors lined the most humble bit of tissue,” writes Joanna Radin with white metal cases stretch out into a labyrinth, row 534 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections after row, stacked three cases high. The drawers within variable but so are the techniques of those who craft it. the cabinets are little more than shallow wooden trays, Practices are changing not only in the preparation labs in with bird skins, nests, eggs and wings neatly arranged in the museum, but also in the amount of equipment re- rows, packed as densely as possible. I asked curators, col- quired when collecting genetic samples in the field: lection managers, and specimen preparators how they November 2014—a preparator tells me about trying to saw the uses of collections change, and to show me dif- carry liquid nitrogen dewers through the forest, how the ferent preparation methods that related to those histories. time to prep a study skin in the field had quadrupled with Where these narratives intersected and diverged provided all the tissue sampling that now needed doing and the a view into the epistemological spaces within a discipli- immense amount of labor required once back at the mu- nary “culture” (such as the Divison of Birds compared to seum to keep all the proliferating parts and pieces cor- the Department of Mammals or the Division of Inverte- rectly connected in the collection databases. These narra- brate Zoology) where subtly different practices, and their tives are echoed in each path I trace through the collec- associated value systems, were in the process of changing. tion with a different ornithologist, collection manager, or These included how changes in the materials used for specimen preparator. The collections have become valu- specimen preparation influenced their later use to able in unexpected ways for new kinds of research, with changes in collecting methods in the field. new categories of researchers from parasitologists to epi- February 2016—I’m helping pull out a drawer that demiologists requesting access to the collections: spans the width of the cabinet. An ostrich skin shot by July 2015—“they’re even getting DNA out these nowa- former President Theodore Roosevelt on his 1909 Afri- days,” one of the staff from the Feather Identification Lab can safari takes up an entire drawer, legs folded back over tells me as we look at a drawer full of eggs. “Pipette a little the body and the Nairobi newspaper originally used to ethanol in there, swirl it around to pick up some of the al- stuff the head still legible through the eyes (Figure 1). bumin still on the inside of the shell and sequence that …. Whatever form biodiversity takes, even the 9 foot height So amazing what uses people are coming up with for col- of an adult male ostrich, is compressed and folded into lections.” Resources of a specimen are finite, and decisions the standardized space of the collection drawer. Practices about what constitutes proper use are negotiated for every of standardizing specimens take many forms. However, request to take a piece of a specimen. these practices can be obscured by the spectacle of the February 2015—opening a cabinet, a preparator organism itself—the oddity of a huge bird with ornate shows me some of the first specimens that had been plumage folded away like a winter coat takes precedence sampled for genetic projects, their collection of toe tags over the fact that it fits into the same sized drawer as the accreting with each sampling event. “We try to keep one tiny hummingbirds several corridors over. side intact, for future morphological work,” he tells me, I’ve asked the preparator I’m with to show me all the “So you have one foot, one leg, one wing to work with. different preparation types in the collection, from the There are some specimens of extinct specimens where standard round study skin to flat skins, skeletons, “pick- there aren’t any toe pads left. And that’s it for that bird.” les” (alcohol preserved specimens). There are many more The actual slicing isn’t the hard part, I’m told, it is getting kinds of preparation and subtleties between them than I permission to do so. However, some parts of specimens ever imagined. We talk as we move between the cabinets, were collected unintentionally and provide new resources opening drawers and handing birds’ skins, nests, dried in unexpected ways: wings, and cleaned bones back and forth. In a drawer of March 2015—“[The Division of Birds] has saved thighbones, a huge bone the size of a baguette takes up feathers from every skeleton prep for at least the last ten the left side of the drawer. Another ostrich, I’m told. In years,” another preparator tells me. In the process they the lower right-hand corner of the same drawer I notice a have accumulated a feather library that has, it turns out, tiny rectangular acrylic box. I pick it up and see a minia- has been used as a resource not just for ornithologists. ture version of a thighbone, no bigger than the end of a Visiting scholars have found their way into the collection, toothpick, its catalog number neatly labeled in Lilliputian such as a parasitologist hunting for mites. A parasitologist script down its side. A hummingbird femur, so small it went through the feathers, “holding each plastic bag up had to be enclosed in a pillbox so it wouldn’t get lost in to the light and see if there were any little black dots, the fray. Looking through the drawers of study skins, I which meant there were mites ... She went through the ask him if he can tell who prepped the skin just by look- whole collections, got a lot of specimens.” The Division ing at it. He takes me to a drawer of what look like per- of Birds was happy to give up the mites (through a de- fectly identical birds and says he knows instantly when he structive sampling request)—they were after all not what sees some preparators work—they have a recognizable they had intended to collect, but it proved a valuable re- “style” that can be “read” across the drawers. Nature is source for another scientist. Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 535 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

Figure 1. An ostrich collected by Theodore Roosevelt during a 1909 African safari. Note the newspaper still visible through the eye. (Smithsonian National Museum of National History, Division of Birds, March 2015). Photo by author.

536 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

More uses of the collection, in effect, validate the exis- Below me two people sit at a lab bench surrounded by tence (and expense) of the collections and its staff and boxes of latex gloves, coffee mugs filled with water and help ensure its future. This orientation to the future shif- bleach, a pile of scalpels, small squares of tin foil and pated across multiple scales, articulating multiple types of per towels (Figure 2). Between them sits a tub of liquid time in the museum, including the future of the Division nitrogen with a tray of small plastic tubes. Each tube of Birds and its ability to meet the expectations placed on holds a tissue sample. On my left, a young man plucks a it by curators, researchers, and the administration. It also tube out of the tray, picks up a barcode scanner, scans included negotiating the incorporation of new types of the tube and checks it against a spreadsheet. He notes the objects, such as tissue collections and their associated da- number in a cell on his spreadsheet to confirm that it is ta, into the maintenance of their collections and data- indeed the correct piece of snake tissue from Myanmar, bases, both preserved for perpetuity. then hands the tube to the young woman on his right, who double checks the barcode and then carefully un- 6.0 Making materials matter, part III: how to build screws the top of the tube. Holding a pair of tweezers, a biorepository she tries to remove the tissue, but it’s frozen solidly inside and won’t budge. She looks up uncertainly. “Hold it in March 2015—I’m standing on the top of a ladder hold- your hand for a few seconds, but not too long—you ing a camera. To my left is a room of super-cold freezers don’t want it to degrade. We need these things to be kept and in front of me stretch rows of stainless steel tanks cold.” The pair at the bench look up at the older scien- large enough I could climb inside of them. This is the tists standing right behind them who are overseeing the Smithsonian Biorepository, capable of holding over 4 procedure. million specimens, though at the moment only two of the The younger pair are being taught how to sub-sample tanks are filled with liquid nitrogen and samples (Figure tissues, a collaboration between the Global Genome Ini- 2). The rest of the tanks await samples from future col- tiative (GGI) and the Consortium for the Barcode of lecting expeditions, which hinge on the Global Genome Life (CBOL), another genetic collecting project at the Initiative (GGI) securing funding and Smithsonian scien- Smithsonian focused on DNA barcodes. The older scientists securing permits for sites worldwide where desirable tist continues, “Figure out a workflow that will allow you categories of biodiversity are clustered. to do it fast and accurately. You only need a tiny, tiny bit. Using liquid nitrogen requires certain safety require- Most people chop off way too much. Something half the ments—it can be lethal if the liquid becomes gas, “sub- size of a grain of rice will give you more DNA than limating” into an odorless, colorless cloud that replaces you’ll ever need. Save some for later—this may be all the- the oxygen in an enclosed space, that renders you uncon- re is.” scious and quietly suffocates you. These constraints re- The precious resource of the cryovial is gripped in the quired that the Biorepository be built out in a specific young woman’s hand and she manages to extract the section of the Smithsonian’s Museum Support Center lump of grayish-brown tissue and carefully slice a tiny (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland. Other collections with par- piece off. It clings to the end of the scalpel. She pauses, ticular requirements are concentrated together in this part and looking up at the pair behind her asks “So, is it more of the building complex. The National Cancer Institute important to get the sub-sample I just cut into a new tube also needed space for their frozen collections, particularly or get the original sample back into the cold? Seems like to house their series of frozen cats with cancerous cells. you could lose track of what’s what kind of easily.” She’s Next door in a sealed cleanroom, the nation’s collection instructed to put the original sample back into its correct of meteorites is kept in their own vacuum-sealed glass- tube and get it back into the holding tray of liquid nitro- fronted chambers. Down the hall, silver nitrate film and gen as quickly as possible. It’s at this moment that the negatives are kept in acid-free boxes in a cold, low- sample is at its most vulnerable. When the tissue lump is oxygen room to minimize the risk of their spontaneous separated from its labeled tube, and from its assigned combustion. In the midst of this constellation of won- place in the rack of tubes, it has the most likelihood of ders just beyond the walls—of tissue tubes, “cancer kit- ending up losing its connection to the data. If this hap- tens,” meteorites and nitrate film—I focus my camera pens, it will become, as one collection manager called it, down towards the lab-coated figures below me, as their “very expensive compost.” Though the sub-sampled tis- gloved hands organize the workspace in front of them. I sue is valuable, the original sample is far more valuable, am here as both anthropologist and photographer, do- because it represents all possible future uses. cumenting the process of sub-sampling tissue in the Bio- Encapsulated within the cryovial, I suggest, is a set of repository. The photos will become part of a training condensed materials, values, and interests. These include manual for the Global Genome Initiative. the accumulated efforts of museums and their collectors Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 537 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

Figure 2. Anatomy of a Biorepository: 1. liquid nitrogen dispensing hose; 2. drip mat; 3a. dewer, inner tank; 3b. dewer, outer transport shell; 4-6 dewers ready for filling; 7-11. the liquid nitrogen tanks holding frozen specimens; 12. empty racks ready to fill up with specimens and store in the tanks. (Smithsonian Biorepository, December 2014). Photo and illustration by author.

538 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections to gain lawful access to the specimen in the first place, a ing up a standard tube, he pointed out the nearly invisible negotiation between nations and their institutional infra- alphanumeric sequence scratched into the clear plastic. “I structures. Further parts of the process include obtaining did that with a thumbtack in the field,” he told me, “sit- funding to go collect the specimen and transport it back ting in a makeshift hut. Specimens and tubes piling up, to the museum, moving the parts and pieces through you have to get them done when you can. I couldn’t find transportation networks of chance and happenstance— my roll of biorepository stickers—or sometimes you run the imponderabilia of everyday life (Malinowski 2002) out if you collect a lot, we’re still figuring that out, as it’s such as customs officials with their own ontologies, ex- different between different Departments and Divisions— port/import permits with changing definitions, and the so it’s better to do this than nothing. And of course the schedules of planes, trains, and FedEx schedules from stickers can fall off in the [liquid nitrogen] dewer, so this remote locations. Once arrived, the tissue tube is sorted, is a backup. You always want a backup for field data. Al- labeled, catalogued and indexed into the various systems ways.” He was referring to the on-going problem with a for tracking data across the museum, not all of which very literal version of the “sticky materiality of practical “speak” to each other in the ways staff would wish. After encounter” (Tsing 2005, 3), or in this case the very trou- this accumulated time, labor, effort and funding are in- blesome lack of stickiness between biorepository barcode vested in this tiny tube, it is then made “discoverable” for labels and the plastic cryovials when placed in liquid ni- research to scientific communities the world over. At so- trogen to ship back to the museum. me future point the sample is found and requested, and The friction in question here is the friction of the cry- the process of demonstrating a viable and compelling ovials rubbing together during shipment and causing the need to sub-sample the specimen begins. frozen glue to come unstuck, resulting in several entire All of these interests and actions are bound up, for ex- collecting expeditions returning home with shipments of ample, in a tiny lump of liver, heart or muscle tissue, a unlabeled, blank vials mixed with free-floating labels. Se- clipping from a tail, toe or fin, or the leg of an insect. Such veral staff in the biorepository described the response tiny pieces, no longer even distinguishable as part of the from scientists upon learning that their many hours of organism they came from, are deeply invested with these meticulous field collecting (not to mention the funds to values and interests. Keeping these abstracted pieces of get to their fieldsite or the effort to get precious im- potentially “genomic nature” meaningfully attached to the port/export permits), had been essentially erased, as appropriate data is key to maintaining their value status. “really not good.” As one scientist told me, “I collected One cannot tell just from looking at a molecular specimen over forty species, fourteen families over the course of what it is, unlike a morphological specimen whose purpose two weeks, collecting at night, carrying that heavy dewer was to offer up data through visual measurement and everywhere, and finally getting it back through all the pa- analysis, such as the bird study skin I crafted in the Verte- perwork for this —now it’s just gone.” He gestured to the brate Zoology Prep Lab. Though new uses for old collec- dewer full of his specimens in tubes, now free-floating in tions of morphological specimens are ever-emerging, their the nitrogen separated from their labels. The Bioreposi- ethos is one of visually representing their species, a mo- tory has come up with a functional solution, at least for ment in the life of the organism, its specific place and time, the time being, of individually wrapping every vial in tin captured and preserved as a referent—a beetle pinned with foil before it goes into the dewer. its legs in perfect symmetry, a bird skin with the feathers This slows down collecting considerably, much to the neatly arranged, an alcohol-preserved snake coiled to fit dismay of those who go do field collecting. “I used to into a jar. The molecular specimen is always abstracted, de- spend my time collecting,” one collection manager told tached, separated and reduced; its value is signaled by the me, “then at some point I realized I spent five times as layered frames of the cryovial, tube rack, and freezer or much time doing all the genetic samples and recording all liquid nitrogen tank. Without these, the bit of tissue is the data for each tube and all the other stuff you have to categorized as waste or byproduct. Indeed, the demo tissue do with that [the genetic samples], and it made collecting tubes used to show visitors how the Biorepository system a lot less fun … It used to be the best part of the job, works are standard 2 mL cryovials with biorepository la- and then it just got to be tedious. Who wants that?” Once bels, however they are filled with chicken liver scraps from back at the Biorepository, the vials are unwrapped, sorted the local supermarket. into racks, scanned into the database, and stored. At so- I feel a tap on my foot. Looking down I see one of the me point in the (near or distant) future, someone finds supervising scientists gesturing to the rack of tubes. “Did the data about the sample, and a destructive sampling re- you get a shot of the scratched-on numbers?” I hadn’t, so quest is made. Once it finds its way through the review I clambered down from my perch and together we loo- panel of curators from the department or division it be- ked through the tube rack for the right specimen. Hold- longs to, it is retrieved from the freezer or nitrogen tank Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 539 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections and carefully extracted on the table in front me. How labor required to create and maintain these categories of many species have crossed that table, a frozen menagerie valuable “latent life” (Radin 2013). My approach engages on parade? the material culture of museum genomics behind-the- Packing away my camera, I spend the next few hours scenes, a place usually invisible and inaccessible to the scanning tissue tubes, double-checking spreadsheets for public. Through exploring first-hand the making and re- specimen, field and Biorepository numbers and ferrying making of genetic and traditional collections and their styrofoam coolers full of small cardboard boxes of tubes data, I ask what is being made, how it is being made back and forth to the lab’s freezer. We are making sure meaningful, by whom, and for what purposes? everything goes back into place. Based on the strict regu- Attending to the material practices involved in making lations governing the movement and circulation of plant specimens, genetic samples and data provides a view into and animal parts around the world, knowing what you the process “from below” (Harding 2008), and I have ali- have in your collection of tissue tubes is crucial. Pausing gned my ethnographic perspective with the collection briefly as I slot trays of tubes back into the lab freezer, I managers, specimen preparators and lab technicians who note the array of places these samples hail from: spiders produce and maintain the collections. My experiences in from Costa Rica, fish from Timor, mammals from Brazil, the work rooms of the museum—stuffing birds and sub- snakes and lizards from Myanmar, the list goes on. The sampling tissues—provides insight into the specific kinds boxes in this freezer represent only what is currently be- of value, imagined future uses, and shifting epistemolo- ing used in projects, or legacy collections still waiting to gies of ordering (genetic) nature in the museum. What be integrated back into the main collections, the genetic parts of specimens should be preserved? What counts as portion of which is now (slowly) being centralized in the “genome-quality,” and what kinds of labor are involved Smithsonian Biorepository. in creating and maintaining that standard? Finally, what The global assemblage of wild nature in this one lab are the implications of these shifting practices for our freezer is but one of many at the museum—a mere frac- shared ecological futures? tion of the “latent life” (Radin 2013) distributed into Importantly for thinking through a material-semiotic hundreds of thousands of tiny plastic vials. These freez- approach to museum genomics, I follow Chris Gosden, ers full of trays of samples labeled with color tape and Frances Larson, and Alison Petch (2007) in their exami- Sharpie-scrawled text strike me as a contemporary form nation of “how objects collect people,” that is, how “mu- of cabinets of (genetic) curiosities, reassembling the seum objects to some degree conceal the mass of rela- world in molecular miniature. These tissue collections tions that lie behind them” (Geismar 2009, 1). This work provide a source for imagined future uses, the possibili- brings to the foreground the web of relations within and ties for “mining” the collections expanding hand-in-hand between objects—providing a framework for exploring with advances in biotechnology and the imaginations of genomic collections as circulating assemblages of materi- new groups of “users.” The “zoe” of “bare life” has als, people, places, and interests. By contrasting different been intricately transformed—through snipping a piece perspectives gleaned from ethnographic work in two of a bird toepad or snake liver, through negotiating the workrooms at the Smithsonian, the National Museum of threads of data to connect those pieces to a voucher Natural History’s Vertebrate Zoology specimen prepara- specimen, through debating whether the tissue “itself ” tion lab on one hand and the Biorepository lab on the can be a voucher. Each vial now contains a small portion other, I have examined the oscillations and frictions that of bios, “qualified life” ready for multiple encounters in constitute biodiversity biobanking at the Smithsonian. its afterlife. Examining how “matter comes to matter” (Barad 2003), I have explored the intimate and fluid connections between 7.0 Crafting specimens: a view from below the minutiae of crafting biological organisms, their tissue samples, their DNA, and embedded within them the vi- At the intersection of scholarship on the museum (Al- sion for shared human and non-human futures. Genetic berti 2011; Findlen 1994; Thomas 1991) and the life sci- biobanks—and the power relations embedded in the ences (Franklin 2007; Haraway 1997; Knorr-Cetina 1981; conceptual frameworks and practices that drive them— Rabinow and Rose 2006), the emergence of genetic col- have implications that reach far beyond the museum, into lecting within the museum has only begun to be ad- research fields as diverse as agriculture, pharmaceuticals, dressed. While previous scholarship has provided valu- medicine, energy production, national security and poten- able perspectives on the shifting value of genetic collec- tially de-extinctioning species (Church and Regis 2012; tions (Ellis 2008; Hayden 2003; Parry 2004), I suggest Franklin and Lock 2003; Ong and Collier 2005; Rader that an integrated approach must consider the biomaterial 2004). Analysis of the relationship between the classifica- itself, and further, the types of physical and conceptual tion of nature and the instrumental uses to which it is put 540 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections has emphasized the co-production of classificatory sys- where “one had to adopt his definition of sexual charac- tems with broader political, economic, social and ethical ters, or the data produced by the observation of speci- frameworks. It is through attending to the (bio)materials mens would not be comparable to those of other ob- themselves, I suggest, that the production processes and servers” (Strasser 2012b, 86). Curators of contemporary future limitations of making and organizing scientific biodiversity biobanks and their databases face even larger knowledge become legible. challenges, as the objects in question continue to push the boundaries of what “kinds” of things exist in the 8.0 Conclusion: standardizing specimens and world, and the proper way to organize them. These data- the afterlives of collections bases contain not only a wealth of experimental data, but also links to mutant organisms held in genetic stock cen- An orienting concern within data-driven sciences has ters, cell lines, DNA extracts and clones, as well as links been—and continues to be—the production, negotiation, to voucher specimens (Leonelli et al. 2011; Soulé and and maintenance of standards (Bowker and Star 1999; Wilcox 1980). These physical objects are also part of to- Lampland and Star 2009). To be able to make comparisons day’s data (Strasser 2012a), which is no less diverse than between “like” things, they must be produced in the same the data of natural history collections. manner and refer to the same property in all the samples The tension between making specimens and their or objects within a category. This friction—between the parts legible across boundaries via standardized collecting standardization introduced by integrating genomics into protocols and standardized naming systems for data centuries-old collecting practices in different disciples— (“ontologies”), versus the desires of different divisions was nowhere more apparent than in the negotiations on and departments (botany, entomology, or the Division of the lab benches as specimens were being prepared for Birds, for example) to maintain continuity with their dis- GGI-funded projects. It is precisely in these moments ciplinary histories is a central struggle in contemporary where I saw how time “folded” to accommodate these museum genomics. This is a struggle for what is pre- new practices and materials, where concepts of what was served, and therefore deemed valuable, and how it is pre- being preserved, and why it was being preserved, were be- served or discarded. The left-over carcass from the bird I ing rewritten, reworded and collectively constructed into a prepared, for instance, became “biowaste” after I took a narrative of purpose by the preparators, collection manag- tissue sample. That cryovial of frozen tissue, a tiny frac- ers and lab technicians making the specimens. Taxonomic tion of the bird’s original biomass, then became a pre- systems in the natural sciences derive from very specific cious resource to be divvied out in minute pieces. sets of morphological characteristics, which in turn define The process of producing a genome-quality tissue strategies for collecting and preservation techniques. sample, I suggest, is also the process of condensing the While museums are being reconsidered by new “us- value of the specimen into the space of the cryovial. ers” (including conservation biologists and geneticists) as Each discipline within the museum was ingrained with a valuable sites for mining genetic samples, this is but one view of what constitutes a proper natural order, and of their many uses according to the recent turn in revalu- these in turn determined what was preserved for poster- ing collections (Bell 2013; Bennett and Joyce 2010; Harri- ity and, therefore, available for future use. The implica- son et al. 2013). Human impacts have caused widespread tions of these daily decisions about what to discard or extinctions which are already being studied through the valorize during the specimen preparation process—that historical records enmeshed in scientific collections, char- is, how disassembled specimens are made to be valuable ting the dwindling ranges of species, their decline in through those decisions—determine what kinds of uses numbers and finally as the last site where they exist—as can and will be made of these inherently “vital resources” their last numbers die in zoos they become preserved in the future. Materials are made to matter, and each of specimens and collection data. These historical records the objects I have chosen to examine in this article— can “reveal former patterns of geographic distributions from a disassembled a bird body, to its tissues, to the ar- and population abundances of species that today are ray of preparation types in the bird collections, to the threatened or extinct” (Rohland et al. 2010, 677). The va- emerging types of frozen life in the Biorepository— luation of these last remains of species can have very dif- offers a distinct view into the distinct disciplinary histo- ferent priorities depending on context, and the ways in ries they carry with them and are now being challenged which they were prepared. by the integration of standardized cross-disciplinary ge- These sets of practices—collecting, preserving, cate- netic collecting practices. On the one hand it is impor- gorizing— have evolved historically as different charac- tant—at a time when genomic collecting is still relatively teristics became valuable at different times. The stan- new and its future uncertain—to document the co- dardization of ontologies reaches back to Carl Linneaus, emergence of the value(s) of genomic samples and their Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 541 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections biological specimens with the hopes and expectations of Baird, Spencer Fullerton. 1856. “Directions for Collect- how nature can and should be known. On the other ing, Preserving, and Transporting Specimens of Natu- hand, as Rheinberger (1997) and Knorr-Cetina (1999) ral History.” In Tenth annual report of the Board of Regents remind us, scientific-epistemic objects are best character- of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. ized by their state of continual (re)emergence. Nicholson, 235-53. Examining how museum nature is crafted—pulled Baker, R. J. et al. 1998. Bioinformatics, Museums and Society: apart, reassembled, pinned, pressed, stuffed, pickled or Integrating Biological Data for Knowledge-Based Decisions. frozen—provides insight into how one view of the natu- Occasional Papers 187. Lubbock, TX: Museum of ral world is created and maintained, driven by an ethical Texas Tech University. imperative to collect and preserve dwindling biodiversity Barad, Karen. 2003. “Posthumanist Performativity: To- for an unknown future. Embedded within that worldview ward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to is a perspective on our own species’ role in a shared hu- Matter.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society man and multispecies ecological future, providing either 28:801-31. potential salvation (through genomics) or continuing de- Barrow, Mark V., Jr. 2009. Nature’s Ghosts: Confronting Ex- struction. The museum as a sociocultural apparatus cre- tinction from the Age of Jefferson to the Age of Ecology. Chi- ates a natural order of things, naturalizing power rela- cago: University of Chicago Press. tions, and replicates these relations in its research plat- Bell, Joshua A. 2013. “The Sorcery of Sweetness: Inter- forms, collection strategies, and data organization (Grie- secting Agencies and Materialities of the 1928 USDA semer and Shavit 2011; Turner 2016). These reconfigura- Sugarcane Expedition to New Guinea.” In Reassembling tions of natural order are not happening in a uniform the Collection: Ethnographic Museums and Indigenous Agency, top-down mode but in small on-going negotiations at the ed. Rodney Harrison, Sarah Byrne, and Anne Clarke. borders of disciplines and domains—for example, what School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Se- counts as “genome quality tissue” for vertebrates such as ries. Santa Fe: School of Advanced Research, 117-42. bison and birds may not hold true for insects or for Bennett, Tony, and Patrick Joyce. 2010. Material Powers: plants (GGI 2013). Each discipline has its own version of Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn. Culture, “nature” and “natural order” that is legible in the particu- Economy and the Social. London: Routledge. lar ways it crafts specimens, samples, data, and produces Bi, Ke, Tyler Linderoth, Dan Vanderpool, Jeffrey M. standards to make these objects legible across disciplinary Good, Rasmus Nielsen, and Craig Moritz. 2013. borders. Through analyzing these different modes of “Unlocking the Vault: Next-Generation Museum Popu- crafting nature and crafting standards in the museum, I lation Genomics.” Molecular Ecology 22:6018-32 doi: suggest natural history collections are at a pivotal mo- 10.1111/mec.12516 ment of transformation, where the introduction of ge- Bowker, Geoffrey. 2000. “Biodiversity Datadiversity.” So- nomics is redefining what life is, how it is preserved, and cial Studies of Science 30:643-83. how it should—and could—be used. Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting The instrumental uses to which a classified and stan- Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Inside Tech- dardized “nature” can be put has emphasized the co- nology. Cambridge: MIT University Press. production of classificatory systems within socio- Cardinale, Bradley J., J. Emmett Duffy, Andrew Gonzalez, economic and ethical frameworks. I reiterate that it is David U. Hooper, Charles Perrings, Patrick Venail, through attending to the (bio)materials themselves that the Anita Narwani, et al. 2012. “Biodiversity Loss and Its choices which structure emerging definitions of life and Impact on Humanity.” Nature 486:59-67. the conditions of possibility for a shared ecological future Casas‐Marce, Mireia, Eloy Revilla, and José A. Godoy. become legible. As different visions of life are archived in 2010. “Searching for DNA in Museum Specimens: A museums—in the form of stuffed bird skins, their feath- Comparison of Sources in a Mammal Species.” Molecu- ers, cleaned bones, recorded bird songs, frozen tissue sam- lar Ecology Resources 10:502-7. ples, or genomic data—we must remember that visions for Church, George M, and Ed Regis. 2012. Regenesis: How a collective future are also being archived, bound up with Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves. New each of these specimens and their afterlives. York: Basic Books. Daston, Lorraine. 2000. “The Coming into Being of Scien- References tific Objects.” In Biographies of Scientific Objects, ed. Lorraine Daston. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Alberti, Samuel J. M. M., ed. 2011. The Afterlives of Ani- 1-14. nals: A Museum Menagerie. Charlottesville: University of Daston, Lorraine. 2004. “Type Specimens and Scientific Virginia Press. Memory.” Critical Inquiry 31:153-82. 542 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

De Almeida Campos, Maria Luiza, and Hagar Espanha George Amato. New Directions in Biodiversity Conser- Gomes. 2017. “Ontology: Several Theories on the vation. New York: Columbia University Press, 115-23. Representation of Knowledge Domains.” Knowledge Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest₋Witness@Second₋Millennium Organization 44:178-86. .FemaleMan ©Meets₋OncoMouse™: Feminism and Tech- Derrida, Jacques, trans. Eric Prenowitz. 1996. Archive Fe- noscience. New York: Routledge. ver: A Freudian Impression. Religion and Postmodernism. Harding, Sandra. 2008. Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Post- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. colonialities, and Modernities. Next Wave. Durham: Duke Droege, Gabriele, Jonathan Coddington, Katharine Barker, University Press. Jonas J. Astrin, Paul Bartels, Carol Butler, David Cantrill, Harris, Mark, ed. 2007. Ways of Knowing: Anthropological and Felix Forest, et al. 2014. “The Global Genome Bio- Approaches to Crafting Experience and Knowledge. Method- diversity Network (GGBN) Data Portal.” Nucleic Acids ology and History in Anthropology 18. New York: Research 42, D1:D607-12. doi:10.1093/nar/gkt928 Berghahn Books. Ellis, Rebecca. 2008. “Rethinking the Value of Biological Harrison, Rodney, Sarah Byrne, and Anne Clarke, eds. Specimens: Laboratories, Museums and the Barcoding 2013. Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums of Life Initiative.” Museum and Society 6:172-91. and Indigenous Agency. School for Advanced Research Findlen, Paula. 1994. Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe: School for Ad- and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Studies on the vanced Research Press. History of Society and Culture 20. Berkeley: Univer- Hayden, Cori. 2003. When Nature Goes Public: The Making sity of California Press. and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico. In-formation Foucault, Michel. 1970. The Order of Things: An Archaeology Series. Princeton: Princeton University Press. of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage. Horváth, Márton, Begoña Martínez-Cruz, Juan J. Negro, Franklin, Sarah. 2007. Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Ge- Lajos Kalmár and José A. Godoy. 2005. “An Over- nealogy. Durham: Duke University Press. looked DNA Source for Non-Invasive Genetic Analy- Franklin, Sarah and Margaret Lock, eds. 2003. Remaking sis in Birds.” Journal of Avian Biology 36:84-88. Life & Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences. Hykin, Sarah M., Ke Bi, and Jimmy A. McGuire. 2015. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Se- “Fixing Formalin: A Method to Recover Genomic- ries. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Scale DNA Sequence Data from Formalin-Fixed Mu- Fujimura, Joan H. 1996. Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of seum Specimens Using High-Throughput Sequenc- the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge: Harvard ing.” PLOS ONE 10, no. 10:e0141579. doi:10.1371/ University Press. journal.pone.0141579 Geismar, Haidy. 2009. “The Relational Museum.” Blog Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Fidelia, and Geoffrey Bowker. 2017. post in Material World: A Global Hub for Thinking about “Implications of Big Data for Knowledge Organiza- Things. http://www.materialworldblog.com/2009/01/ tion.” Knowledge Organization 44:187-98. the-relational-museum/ International Union for Conservation of Nature and Na- Gosden, Chris, Frances Larson, and Alison Petch. 2007. tural Resources (IUCN). 2017. “IUCN Red List of Knowing Things: Exploring the Collections at the Pitt Rivers Threatened Species.” http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Museum, 1884-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janecka, Anna, Agnieszka Adamczyk, and Anna Gasińska. Graham, Catherine H., Simon Ferrier, Falk Huettman, 2015. “Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Craig Moritz, and A. Townsend Peterson. 2004. “New Kits for DNA Extraction from Formalin-Fixed Paraf- Developments in Museum-Based Informatics and Ap- fin-Embedded Tissues.” Analytical Biochemistry 476:8-10. plications in Biodiversity Analysis.” In Trends in Ecology Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sci- and Evolution, 19:497-503. ences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- Griesemer, James, and Ayelet Shavit. 2011. “Transforming sity Press. Objects into Data: How Minute Technicalities of Re- Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: cording ‘Species Location’ Entrench a Basic Challenge An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of for Biodiversity.” In Science in the Context of Application, Science. New York: Pergamon Press. ed. Martin Carrier and Alfred Nordmann. Boston Stud- Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory. 2005. “Thoughts in Things: ies in the Philosophy of Science 274. Dordrecht: Modernity, History, and North American Museums.” Springer Netherlands, 169-93. Isis 96:586-601. Hanner, Robert, Angélique Corthals, and Rob DeSalle. Kowal, Emma, and Joanna Radin. 2015. “Indigenous Bi- 2009. “Biodiversity, Conservation, and Genetic Re- ospecimen Collections and the Cryopolitics of Frozen sources in Modern Museum and Herbarium Collec- Life.” Journal of Sociology 51:63-80. tions.” In Conservation Genetics in the Age of Genomics, ed. Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 543 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

Kress, John. 2014. “Valuing Collections.” Science 346, no. Page, Lawrence M., Bruce J. MacFadden, Jose A. Fortes, 6215:1310. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4115 Pamela S. Soltis and Greg Riccardi. 2015. “Digitization Lampland, Martha, and Susan Leigh Star, eds. 2009. Stan- of Biodiversity Collections Reveals Biggest Data on dards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Biodiversity.” BioScience 65:841-42. Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life. Ithaca: Cornell Parry, Bronwyn. 2004. Trading the Genome: Investigating the University Press. Commodification of Bio-Information. New York: Columbia Landecker, Hannah. 2007. Culturing Life: How Cells Became University Press. Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pickstone, John V. 2001. Ways of Knowing: A New History Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991.“Legitimate Pe- of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago: University ripheral Participation in Communities of Practice.” In of Chicago Press. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Learn- Pyke, Graham H., and Paul R. Ehrlich. 2010. “Biological ing in doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Collections and Ecological/Environmental Research: 89-118. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355 A Review, Some Observations and a Look to the Fu- Leonelli, Sabina. 2012a. “Introduction: Making Sense of ture.” Biological Reviews 85:247-66. Data-Driven Research in the Biological and Biomedi- Rabinow, Paul, and Nikolas Rose. 2006. “Biopower To- cal Sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science day.” BioSocieties 1:195-211. Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Rader, Karen A. 2004. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals Biomedical Sciences 43:1-3. for American Biomedical Research in America. Princeton: Leonelli, Sabina. 2012b. “When Humans Are the Excep- Princeton University Press. tion: Cross-Species Databases at the Interface of Bio- Radin, Joanna. 2012. “Life on Ice: Frozen Blood and Bio- logical and Clinical Research.” Social Studies of Science logical Variation in a Genomic Age, 1950-2010.” PhD 42:214-36. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Leonelli, Sabina. 2013. “Why the Current Insistence on Radin, Joanna. 2013. “Latent Life: Concepts and Prac- Open Access to Scientific Data? Big Data, Knowledge tices of Human Tissue Preservation in the Interna- Production, and the Political Economy of Contempo- tional Biological Program.” Social Studies of Science rary Biology.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 33:6- 43:484-508. 11. Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epis- Leonelli, Sabina, and Rachel A. Ankeny. 2012. “Re-Think- temic Things: Synthesising Proteins in the Test Tube. Writing ing Organisms: The Impact of Databases on Model Science. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Organism Biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Rocha, L. A., A. Aleixo, G. Allen, F. Almeda, C. C. Bald- Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological win, M. V. L. Barclay, J. M. Bates, et al. 2014. “Specimen and Biomedical Sciences 43:29-36. Collection: An Essential Tool.” Science 344 (6186):814- Leonelli, Sabina, Alexander D. Diehl, Karen R. Christie, 15. Midori A. Harris, and Jane Lomax. 2011. “How the Rohland, Nadin, and Michael Hofreiter. 2007. “Ancient Gene Ontology Evolves.” BMC Bioinformatics 12:325. DNA Extraction from Bones and Teeth.” Nature Proto- Marty, Paul F., and Katherine Burton Jones, eds. 2012. cols 2:1756-62. Museum Informatics: People, Information, and Technology in Rohland, Nadin, Heike Siedel, and Michael Hofreiter. Museums. Routledge Studies in Library and Informa- 2010. “A Rapid Column‐based Ancient DNA Extrac- tion Science 2. New York: Routledge. tion Method for Increased Sample Throughput.” Mo- Miller, Webb, Daniela I. Drautz, Jan E. Janecka, Arthur M. lecular Ecology Resources 10:677-83. Lesk, Aakrosh Ratan, Lynn P. Tomsho, Mike Packard, et Rose, Nikolas S. 2009. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, al. 2009. “The Mitochondrial Genome Sequence of the Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Infor- Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacinus Cynocephalus).” Genome mation Series. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Research 19:213-20. Schipper, Jan, Janice S. Chanson, Federica Chiozza, Neil A. Mohns, W. and H. Geismar. 2011 “Social Relationships Cox, Michael Hoffmann, Vineet Katariya, John Lam- and Digital Relationships: Rethinking the Database at oreux, Ana S. L. Rodrigues, Simon N. Stuart, and Helen the Vanuatu Cultural Centre.” Journal of the Royal An- J. Temple. 2008. “The Status of the World’s Land and thropological Institute 17, no. S1:S133-55. Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge.” Nachman, Michael. 2013. “Genomics and Museum Spe- Science 322, no. 5899:225-30. cimens.” Molecular Ecology:5966-8. Smithsonian Institution. 2017. “Collecting Natural His- Ong, Aihwa, and Stephen J. Collier, eds. 2005. Global As- tory.” In Q?rius website. https://qrius.si.edu/explore- semblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological science/jump/collecting-natural-history Problems. Malden. MA: Blackwell Pub. 544 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Van Allen. Bird Skin to Biorepository: Making Materials Matter in the Afterlives of Natural History Collections

Soulé, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox, eds. 1980. Conservation Bi- Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography ology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sunderland: of Global Connection. Princeton: Princeton University MA: Sinauer Associates. Press. Star, Susan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Turner, Hannah. 2016. “Critical Histories of Museum Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Tech- Catalogues.” Museum Anthropology 39:102-10. doi:10.11 nology & Human Values 35:601-17. 11/muan.12118 Star, Susan Leigh and James Griesemer. 1989. “Institu- Turner, Hannah, and Candace Greene. 2014. “Producing tional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Anthropology Through Museum Collections: Conver- Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of sations in Critical Cataloguing.” Paper presented Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science at American Anthropological Association 113th Annual 19:387-420. Meeting December 3-7, 2014, Washington, DC. Strasser, Bruno J. 2010. “Collecting, Comparing, and https://aaa.confex.com/aaa/2014/webprogram/ Computing Sequences: The Making of Margaret O. Session12071.html Dayhoff ’s Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, Van Allen, Adrian. 2016. “Crafting Nature: An Ethnogra- 1954–1965.” Journal of the History of Biology 43:623-60. phy of Natural History Collecting in an Age of Ge- Strasser, Bruno J. 2012a. “Collecting Nature: Practices, nomics.” PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley. Styles, and Narratives.” Osiris 27:303-40. Wieczorek, John, David Bloom, Robert Guralnick, Stan Strasser, Bruno J. 2012b. “Data-Driven Sciences: From Blum, Markus Döring, Renato Giovanni, Tim Robert- Wonder Cabinets to Electronic Databases.” Studies in son, and David Vieglais. 2012. “Darwin Core: An History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History Evolving Community-Developed Biodiversity Data and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43:85-87. Standard.” PLoS ONE 7, no. 1:e29715. doi:10.1371/ Suarez, Andrew V. and Neil D. Tsutsui. 2004. “The Value journal.pone.0029715 of Museum Collections for Research and Society.” Winker, Kevin. 2004. “Natural History Museums in a BioScience 54:66-68. Postbiodiversity Era.” BioScience 54:455–59. Sunder Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital: The Constitution of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 2016. “Living Pla- Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. net Report.” http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ Thomas, Nicholas. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Mate- all_publications/lpr_2016/. rial Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 545 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

Logic-Based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases† Andrea Thomer*, Yi-Yun Cheng**, Jodi Schneider**, Michael Twidale**, Bertram Ludäscher** *University of Michigan, School of Information, 105 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, **University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Information Sciences, 501 E. Daniel St Champaign, IL 61820, <[yiyunyc2, jodi, twidale, ludaesch]@illinois.edu>

Andrea Thomer is an assistant professor of digital curation. She earned her doctorate at the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Ur- bana‐Champaign in 2017. She conducts research in the areas of digital curation, natural history museum informatics, information organization, and information system usability. She is particularly interested in the long-term usability of digital collections and their infrastructures. Prior to her work in information science, she was an excavator at the La Brea Tar Pits, a rich fossil site in Los Angeles. She continues to draw on her experience in paleontology, evolutionary biology, and museums.

Yi-Yun Cheng is a PhD student at the School of Information Sciences of the Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. She received her M.A. degree from the De- partment of Library and Information Science at National Taiwan University in 2015. Her previous work is related to the semantic web and ontology mapping; now she is working on taxonomy alignment projects. Her main research interest is the interoperability among ontologies, taxonomies, or other types of knowledge organization systems.

Jodi Schneider is an assistant professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She studies scholarly communication and social media through the lens of arguments, evidence, and persuasion. She is developing linked data (ontologies, metadata, semantic web) approaches to manage scientific evidence. Schneider holds degrees in informatics (PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway), library and information science (MS, University of Illinois), mathematics (MA, University of Texas-Austin), and liberal arts (BA, Great Books, St. John's College). She worked in academic libraries and bookstores for six years.

Michael Twidale is a professor at the School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. His research interests include computer supported cooperative work, computer supported collaborative learning, and human computer interaction. Current projects include studies of informal social learning of technology, metrics for open access, sociotechnical systems design, collaborative information retrieval, computational metacognition, agile research methods, and long term scientific database management. His approach involves the use of interdisciplinary techniques to develop high speed, low cost methods to better understand the difficulties people have with existing computer applications and so to design more effective systems.

Bertram Ludäscher is a professor at the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, directs the Cen- ter for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship, is a faculty affiliate with the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) and the Department of Computer Science. His research interests range from scientific data and workflow management, to knowledge representation and reasoning. He received his M.S. in computer science from the University of Karlsruhe (now: KIT), and his PhD from the University of Freiburg, both in Germany.

Andrea Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, Jodi Schneider, Michael Twidale and Bertram Ludäscher. 2017. “Logic-based Schema Alignment for Na- tural History Museum Databases. Knowledge Organization 44, no. 7: 545-558. 48 references.

Abstract: In natural history museums, knowledge organization systems have gradually been migrated from paper-based catalog ledgers to electronic databases; these databases in turn must be migrated from one platform or software version to another. These migrations are by 546 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases no means straightforward, particularly when one data schema must be mapped to another—or, when a database has been used in other- than-its-intended manner. There are few tools or methods available to support the necessary work of comparing divergent data schemas. Here we present a proof-of-concept in which we compare two versions of a subset of the Specify 6 data model using Euler/X, a logic- based reasoning tool. Specify 6 is a popular natural history museum database system whose data model has undergone several changes over its lifespan. We use Euler/X to produce visualizations (called “possible worlds”) of the different ways that two versions of this data model might be mapped to one another. This proof-of-concept lays groundwork for further approaches that could aid data curators in database migration and maintenance work. It also contributes to research on the unique challenges to knowledge organization within natural history museums, and on the applicability of logic-based approaches to database schema migration or crosswalking.

Received: 28 June 2017; Revised 26 September 2017; Accepted: 27 September 2017

Keywords: database schema, database migration, Euler/X, possible worlds

† Thanks to Tim Cole & Jerome McDonough for helpful discussions about metadata crosswalks, and to the DALS research group at the University of Michigan School of Information for feedback on this manuscript. This work was supported in part by NSF DBI- 1643002.

1.0 Introduction to “co-opt” fields within “off-the-shelf ” databases for other-than-their-intended purpose, thereby effectively al- In natural history museums (NHMs), collections data of- tering the prescribed data model to suit their local needs. ten have longer lifespans than the knowledge organiza- The effects of such changes to a schema, or of aber- tion systems (KOSs) used to make them accessible. Con- rant use of a schema, are subtle and often not immedi- sequently, migration from one KOS to another is periodi- ately apparent. Whereas “physical” migrations from one cally necessary. When NHM KOSs were strictly made of organizational scheme to another (such as changes to a paper, ink, and the arrangement of shelves and draw- shelving system or cataloging style) can be seen by the ers—all relatively stable information storage formats— naked eye, the impact of migration from one database KOS migration happened perhaps once in a generation. schema to another typically requires logical analysis to be However, following the move to primarily electronic col- truly understood. Few tools exist for this work. Further lections databases beginning in the 1970s, NHMs now research is needed to support the task of database migra- must migrate their entire catalogs as often as hardware tion, particularly for memory institution staff such as col- and software updates dictate: every few years, rather than lections managers and curators who are certainly experts every few decades. Modern NHM KOS management in their fields but not necessarily experts in database de- consequently entails the frequent assessment, curation velopment. Additionally, further research is needed to and migration of sometimes-complex relational database support the development of tools that might help cura- schema. tors understand the subtle impact of idiosyncratic, aber- Migrating and managing data schemas over time is by rant, or otherwise unconventional database use and data- no means straightforward; further, migrating data from base migration. one schema to another can result in unexpected informa- In this paper, we address the intertwined issues of tion loss or alteration. For instance, if a NHM record is comparing an old and new version of the “same” schema, published from an idiosyncratic local schema to a public and understanding the impact of aberrant use of a field database such as the Global Biodiversity Information Fa- within a schema (such as the “co-opting” behavior de- cility (GBIF), the record may need to be crosswalked in a scribed above) on database migration. We explore the util- way that could risk altering its elements’ meaning (see ity of a taxonomy alignment tool, Euler/X, in revealing Thomer et al. 2012 for a brief discussion of this issue alignments and possible conflicts between two museum specific to NHMs; see also St Pierre and LaPlante 1998 data schemas. Euler/X is a logic-based tool that employs a for a general overview of issues related to crosswalking). particular formalism called Region Connection Calculus Similarly, migrating legacy databases to newer, “off-the- (RCC-5) to compare and reconcile two or more taxono- shelf ” systems that come with predetermined schema, i.e. mies. RCC-5 calculates the five possible relationships be- NHM-specific databases such as Specify (http://www. tween nodes of a taxonomy: congruence (c1=c2), inclu- sustain.specifysoftware.org/), Arctos (https://arctos.data sion (c1>c2), inverse inclusion (c1Joseph Grinnell was a field biologist and the original director of the Berkeley Mu- seum of Vertebrate Zoology (circa 1908). He developed a 548 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases method of field notetaking that dictates everything from to use a field she doesn’t otherwise need (perhaps, “ra- what kind of ink to use (“The India ink and paper of diocarbon date”). Co-opting fields can solve database mi- permanent quality will mean that our notes will be acces- gration problems in the short term, but can have diffi- sible 200 years from now” (Grinnell 1958, 8)) to how and cult-to-predict consequences when the schema is changed where one should record the date, time and place on each by developers in the normal course of database updates. page. Grinnell taught this method to his colleagues and In particular, when the underlying database structure, or students at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, and it schema, changes in one of these “off-the-shelf ” data- eventually became broadly adopted by field biologists and bases, any such local customizations will break. Thus, naturalists in other regions as well. A Grinnellean field there are intertwined issues of aberrant database use and notebook’s structured “catalog” section, with prescribed schema evolution at play in these KOSs over time. fields and formats for the date, location, catalog number, species, sex, breeding status, and morphological meas- 2.2 Schema evolution and crosswalks urements of a specimen might be viewed as an ancestor of the modern NHM database (Perrine and Patton 2011). The need to understand how KOSs adapt to changes in Despite the structure offered by recommendations such knowledge, particularly over time, has been identified as as Grinnell’s, however, there is still often necessary varia- an important question for research in knowledge organi- tion in different researchers’ cataloging methods. Differ- zation (Gnoli 2008; Lauruhn and Groth 2016; ; Scharn- ent institutions and domains of study have different horst et al. 2016; Tennis 2012 and 2016). The problem of needs of their data and must shape their practices ac- schema evolution is not new, and is not unique to NHMs cordingly (Bowker 2000). (see Roddick 1992; see also Gao and Zaniolo 2012b; These institutional- and domain-based idiosyncrasies Brahmia et al. 2015a and b; Galante et al. 2005; Gao and were not necessarily problematic when NHMs first began Zaniolo 2012a). Schemas can evolve for a variety of rea- creating databases for “local” access in the 1960s; how- sons, including but not limited to: ever, in the 1980s, the move toward community-based data publishing infrastructures motivated the develop- – Changes in the purposes of data collection and associ- ment of shared data standards. At this time, NHMs be- ated scientific priorities, gan federating and aggregating their collections online – Changing, often more systematic, work practices that through platforms such as the Mammal Networked In- require greater precision or different data acquisition formation System, HerpNet, FishNet, and VertNet technologies; (Callery 1999). Organizations such as the Taxonomic Da- – Evolving disciplinary, national, and international stan- tabase Working Group and the Association of Systemat- dards; ics Collections formed to develop data models and stan- – A desire to work towards a greater harmonization and dards such as the Darwin Core and Access to Biodiversity ultimately integration with other similar datasets for Collections Data standards and the ASC Information greater interoperability; and Model for Biological Collections (ASC 1993; Wieczorek – Changes in the software and hardware used for KO. et al. 2012; Berendsohn et al. 1999). Eventually, many museums began migrating their collections databases to In the NHM context, schema evolution can involve: community-developed “off-the-shelf ” systems such as Specify and Arctos, which were designed to natively sup- – Changes in data collection and documentation prac- port data publishing. tices: what is collected, how it is recorded, and the These “off-the-shelf ” databases all come with prede- level of detail; termined data schemas, relieving NHM collections staff – Changes in how the data is represented; of the need to create their own databases from scratch. – The addition of new fields to record additional infor- However, this relief comes at a cost: legacy databases mation; must be migrated or crosswalked to a new standardized – Splitting fields, to record data in a more structured schema. Alternately, collections staff must find ways of manner; creating unconventional workarounds to fit idiosyncratic – Aggregating fields; legacy data into standardized formats. One such work- – Deleting fields; and around is to “co-opt” fields within the database for other- – Moving fields into different tables. than-their-intended purpose (discussed in Brenskelle 2015). For instance, if a collection manager needs to re- Over time there may be a trend towards collecting more cord, say, the wingspan of a bird specimen, but there is data and in a more systematic way with greater use of not a predetermined field for wingspan, she might choose controlled vocabularies and more fine-grained structure Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 549 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases through the creation of database subfields. Keeping track The complexity of crosswalk development should not of these changes is challenging but important. Creating a be underestimated. As Zeng and Chan (2006) note: crosswalk between different generations of schemas facilitates migration, and can also reveal unintended or un- The reality is that crosswalks constructed based on anticipated ambiguities between the old and new sche- the real data conversion might be very different mas. from those based on metadata specifications. Addi- tional instructions and detailed explanations need 2.3 Prior work on database migration and to be provided for different situations. Unfortu- crosswalking. nately, most crosswalks are focused only on mappings based on metadata specifications, not on real The challenges of crosswalking data standards or models data conversion results. (that is, creating a specification to map one standard to another) have received considerable attention from the li- Lack of organizational memory can complicate cross- brary and information science community. Consistent, walking projects. Khoo and Hall (2010) describe chal- harmonized metadata aggregated from multiple sources lenges in crosswalking two digital libraries to the Dublin is often needed to support information retrieval in in- Core standard. In their work, they found multiple legacy formation systems such as union catalogs or data aggre- databases that had not previously been migrated to the gators; harmonization may start by mapping between dif- main library catalogs. Customized metadata fields were ferent metadata standards. Creating and maintaining used but documentation for them was not available; this metadata crosswalks is challenging but can reduce the led to extensive discussions before ruling some data ir- cost of creating metadata while enabling interoperability relevant to users. Many idiosyncrasies in the catalog data, (St. Pierre and LaPlant 1998). especially local usage and changes in metadata practices A range of crosswalking resources are used in practice. over time, were not found until after the project was un- Hand-curated crosswalks by single institutions have been derway. Such idiosyncrasies may include elaborating exist- shared in tabular formats (for instance, those created by ing categories, creating new subcategories, and adding the Getty Research Institute (Harping 2014)). Comput- higher order categories (Trigg, Blomberg, and Suchman able crosswalks and tools built on crosswalks also exist. 2002). For example the RDF ontology developed by the JISC Euler/X cannot automate these complexities away, but Vocabulary Mapping Framework can be queried for the we believe that it can be useful in highlighting the cause closest match between terms; it takes a hub and spoke and exact nature of certain complexities. For example, the approach, mapping each vocabulary to an extensible and multiplicities of possible worlds (i.e., the different solutions semantically-rich central “hub” data model (JISC 2009). to a schema alignment problem) that Euler/X highlights OCLC maintains a crosswalk web service that can trans- can expose inherent ambiguities in the given problem. late from one metadata record standard, structure, and Conversely, if no possible world exists, this means that not encoding to another (“Metadata Schema Transformation all input articulations A can be simultaneously satisfied. In Services” 2014). Translations between XML-based meta- other words, there are logical conflicts (contradictions) in data formats are sometimes implemented using XSLT A, even though different name spaces (here: terminologies stylesheets (e.g., “Conversions: Metadata Object Descrip- in form of input taxonomies/schemas T1 and T2) are used. tion Schema: MODS” 2017). Often, these are exactly the same problems that will arise in Regardless of the approach, preserving meaning is a multiple contradictory interpretations around data entry key challenge of metadata crosswalking and database mi- and data analysis and in subsequent data migrations and in- gration. Ambiguous or implicit semantics can cause prob- tegrations. Making these ambiguities or contradictions visi- lems when moving data from one schema to another. ble may make them easier to address. Correct treatment of a resource often depends on knowledge that is incompletely or imprecisely represented. For 2.4 Prior work on Euler/X and its application to example, sometimes a record conflates multiple items— knowledge organization e.g., an image, the file that encodes it, the metadata description, and the software that stores the metadata de- In KOSs, taxonomies are hierarchies that group objects scription in a way that presents no problem to humans that have similar traits together (Hodge 2000). Euler/X but which computers cannot interpret. Likewise (Dubin (https://github.com/EulerProject/) was originally de- et al. 2009, 599), “crucial contextual data may exist only signed for “taxonomy” alignment—where all concepts in as natural language annotations or as unstructured infor- the taxonomies are connected via the hierarchical “is-a” re- mation in the content of metadata fields.” lationships (Thau and Ludäscher 2007; Thau, Bowers, and 550 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

Ludäscher 2008). It is an open source tool that uses region mies (Franz, Pier, et al. 2016; Franz, Chen, et al. 2016). connection calculus (RCC-5) as a reasoning tool to com- More recently, the use of Euler/X for other, non- pare and reconcile different taxonomies. We note that biological taxonomies has been explored with promising other mathematical approaches have been used to align results (Cheng et al. 2017). The application of Euler/X taxonomies and to monitor taxonomy evolution (e.g., Roth to KOSs and schema may be relevant to database migra- and Bourgine 2006; Jung 2006). Roth and Bourgine employ tion because of the many ways in which database sche- an approach based on Galois lattices to describe evolving, mas resemble or can be modeled as hierarchical struc- overlapping taxonomies. Similarly, the use cases driving the tures. original development of Euler/X have been evolving, overlapping biological taxonomies (e.g., Franz, Chen, et al. 3.0 Dataset: subsets of Specify schemas 1.0 & 2.3 2016). In the latter approach, a domain expert asserts explicit RCC-5 articulation relationships (congruence, inclu- We used Euler/X to compare two versions of the Specify sion, overlaps, etc.) to model changes between taxonomies. database schema. As noted above, Specify is a popular bio- Though we do not address this here, in future work we logical collections management database. It was originally plan to explore whether (and if so, how) approaches based developed in the 1980s by the University of Kansas Biodi- on Galois lattices and related approaches such as FCA versity Institute (KUBI), and has been maintained by (formal concept analysis), i.e., extensional approaches that KUBI through a series of National Science Foundation make use of classes and properties to infer concept hierar- grants, with the goal of transitioning to a non-profit com- chies, can be combined with intensional approaches such munity-driven funding model in the near future (“Specify as Euler/X that explicitly assert hierarchy and other con- in Transition” 2017). Over 500 museum collections use cept relations. Specify software (http://www.sustain.specifysoftware.org/ As briefly mentioned above, Euler/X can solve taxon- about/); these collections are from a range of disciplines, omy alignment problems of the form T1 + T2 + A ↝T3, though the majority are biological collections (e.g., collec- i.e., where given taxonomies T1, T2 are linked via input ar- tions of animal specimens, as opposed to geological or pa- ticulations A, to produce a combined or merged solution leontological specimens). T3. The articulations A might be generated by a human ex- Specify is one of several “off-the-shelf ” relational da- pert or from another tool, e.g., for schema matching tabase systems designed for use with NHM collections. (Shvaiko and Euzenat 2005) or ontology matching Each of these systems have unique database schema (e.g., (Euzenat and Shvaiko 2013). Sometimes the logical con- Arctos has a different database structure than Specify). straints resulting from T1 + T2 + A are not satisfiable, so Though schema changes may occur in many of these sys- no solution (referred to as a “possible world,” or PW) for tems, we chose to study Specify’s schema changes for this T3 exists. In other cases, the input constraints may be un- paper, because they have been consistently documented derspecified and the ambiguity inherent in the particular on their website since at least 2008, and have conse- input T1 + T2 + A allows multiple solutions for T3, i.e., quently been archived by the Internet Archive (see “Spec- multiple possible worlds. In biological taxonomies, there is ify 6 Schema” 2009). Consequently, it is an excellent case a propensity toward synthesis—finding a single tree, i.e., a study of NHM database schema migration. single PW that reflects the ground truth. This is difficult or Specify’s original schema (version 1.0) included one often impossible, if only a single vocabulary is to be used. hundred thirty-eight tables (“Specify 6 Schema” 2009); In contrast, in Euler/X, different given vocabularies (i.e., the most current version (version 2.3) includes one hun- input taxonomies T1 and T2) can often be reconciled into a dred sixty-five tables (“Specify DB Schema 2.3” 2016). In single combined vocabulary T3 that preserves and interre- general, tables have been added to either improve the da- lates its constituent vocabularies T1 and T2. Occasionally, tabase’s performance and structure or to respond to there are logical inconsistencies (no PWs) or ambiguities (≥ changing user needs (“Documentation” 2017). In some 2 PWs) in the input articulations A, in which case Euler/X cases, fields have been moved from one table to another. can help debug the former or explore and refine the latter. The steps we took to map and compare these two sche- Usually, the main goal is to find a unique or a small number mas are described below. of PWs where there is no ambiguity or where it is possible to resolve the ambiguities. In either case, by finding all 4.0 Method: mapping schemas and generating pairwise relationships between different taxonomies or “possible worlds” with Euler/X schemas (modeled as taxonomies), Euler/X supports the reconciliation of different taxonomic perspectives. To compare versions of Specify Schemas with Euler/X, Euler/X has been successfully applied to the problem we first selected a subset of the Specify schemas to com- of aligning and reconciling multiple biological taxono- pare. We then mapped known relationships between at- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 551 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

Figure 1. Visualization of input articulations between Specify Schema Version 1 (T1, left) and Specify Schema Version 2.3 (T2, right). We mapped equivalences between nodes with the same name, but left the relationship between T1.Text1 and T2.BioStrat blank, because their relationship was unclear. tributes in the two versions of the subset Schema. We 1.0 as T1 (for Taxonomy 1) and Version 2.3 as T2 (for then ran our analysis. Each of these steps is described in Taxonomy 2). further detail below. 4.2 Mapping attributes using the RCC-5 relations 4.1 Selecting a subset of the schemas After selecting a subset of tables and fields to compare, The underlying constraint problems solvable by Euler/X we reviewed the attributes of each table and aligned at- are computationally hard. Satisfiability of RCC-5 reasoning tributes that shared the same name. For example, in the problems is NP-complete, which in practice can mean ex- T1.PaleoContext table, there is an attribute named “Bot- ponentially growing runtimes for some reasoning prob- tom Distance.” This attribute also appears on the lems. Though Euler/X continues to evolve and improve- T2.CollectionObject Table; we have mapped them as ments are being made (e.g., by reduction to different, pos- equivalent given that they share the same, unique attribute sibly simpler underlying reasoning problems, the current name, and given our knowledge of how the Specify prototype can run into performance issues, in particular schema evolved over time (acquired both through Spec- for novice users and/or on large input problems. Conse- ify’s documentation and through on-going collaborations quently, we had to select a fairly small subset of the Specify with the NHM community). schema for our initial experiments. Through research con- The PaleoContext table in schemas T1 and T2 each ducted in another ongoing project studying database evolu- include one attribute that did not appear in the other; T1 tion within NHMs, we learned that, over time, Specify de- includes a field called “Text1,” and T2 includes a field velopers have had to change the way in which contextual called “BioStrat.” While it is possible that the Specify de- geological data is stored. Specifically, they have changed velopers simply renamed T1.Text1 as “BioStrat,” we did their approach to documenting stratigraphy in response to not assume these fields to be equivalent. Instead, we rely feedback from the paleontological community (Specify on Euler/X to show us the ways that these fields “might” Software Project Staff 2009). In comparing Specify be mapped to one another through the generation of Schema Versions 1.0 and 2.3 we found that several attrib- “possible worlds.” utes had been moved from the “PaleoContext” table to These mappings (also referred to as articulations) were “CollectionObject” table. We consequently selected these input into a text file along with T1 and T2, which were two tables for comparison in Euler/X. We further selected then used as an input for Euler/X (See Appendix 1 or a core subset of fields within each table for comparison https://github.com/akthom/EulerX-MuseumKO). No- (see https://github.com/akthom/EulerX-MuseumKO for des that are in green are from T1, and nodes that are yel- the full contents of each table as well as the subsets we low are from T2. Both T1 and T2 have fourteen nodes. used for this study). We refer to Specify Schema Version The black arrows denote an “is-a or part-of ” relationship between child and parent nodes within each taxonomy; 552 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases the purple dotted lines between T1 and T2 are the articu- inferred relationship of T2.CollectionObject table being lations, with “equal” signs, showing the equality relation- totally “included in” Version 1 of the schema. Versions 1 ship between the concepts. In our case, we have ten pur- and 2.3 of the Specify Schema, then, are overlapping but ple dotted lines, which means that our input file has ten different. articulations that we assert to hold. In the third “possible world” (Figure 4), T1.Text1 is mapped as being “included in” T2.BioStrat. Therefore, 5.0 Results: using Euler/X to generate “possible T1.Text1 represents a subset of T2.BioStrat. At the table worlds” level, this “possible world” is similar to that in “possible world” 2 (Figure 3). However, at the schema level, Euler/X Euler/X generated a total of five “possible worlds” from infers that Schema 1 is a subset of Version 2. In other our input—that is, five alternative ways that T1 (Version words, Version 2.3 “includes” everything in Version 1, and 1) and T2 (Version 2.3) of the Specify Schema can be re- thereby is an expansion of Version 1. conciled into a single “taxonomy,” i.e., a combined In the fourth “possible world” (Figure 5), at the attrib- knowledge organization comprising both schemas. We ute level T1.Text1 is mapped as “including” T2.BioStrat. present and discuss each of these “possible worlds” be- T2.BioStrat therefore represents a subset of T1.Text1. At low (Figures 2 to 6), and discuss the dynamics between the table level, this “possible world” is similar to “possible the attributes T1 and T2 at the attribute, table, and the world” 1 (Figure 2), in that T1.CollectionObject is included schema levels. in T2.CollectionObject, and T1.PaleoContext includes Grey boxes show where the two concepts in the two T2.PaleoContext. However, at the schema level it is quite taxonomies are “congruent”—Euler/X deduced that they different from “possible world” 1, and the opposite of are exactly the same. Black arrows again showing “hierar- “possible world” 3 (Figure 4). In “possible world” 4, every- chical” (i.e., “is-a” or “part-of ”) relationships within the thing in Version 2.3 “is included in” Version 1; Version 2.3 merged taxonomy. Solid red lines are “Euler/X-inferred” thereby represents an edited or refined schema compared hierarchical relationships between concepts; red dotted to Version 1. lines are the “Euler/X-inferred overlapping” relationships. Finally, in the fifth “possible world” (Figure 6), at the at- In this first “possible world” (Figure 2), at the attribute tribute level, T1.Text 1 is mapped as “overlapping” with level T1.Text1 is mapped as “directly equivalent” to T2.BioStrat. The two attributes share some members but T2.BioStrat; the attributes are mapped as the same regard- not in a subset or superset relation. At the table level, it is less of their different names. also similar to our previous “possible worlds,” in that At the table level, T1.CollectionObject is mapped as T1.CollectionObject “is included in” T2.CollectionObject, “being included in” T2.CollectionObject, suggesting that however, the relationship between the PaleoContext tables T2.CollectionObject has more attributes and is therefore is overlapping. At the schema level in “possible world” 5, broader than T1.Collection Object. Conversely, T1.Paleo the two versions of the schema overlap as in “possible Context is mapped as “including” the T2.PaleoContext ta- world” 2 (Figure 3) but to a greater degree. ble in this world, meaning that T2.PaleoContext is actually narrower than T1.PaleoContext. We can also see the 6.0 Discussion “Euler/X-inferred overlaps” (the red dotted lines) between T1.PaleoContext and T2.CollectionObject, meaning that 6.1 Euler/X as a tool for KOS migration some of the attributes that used to be in T1.PaleoContext have been moved to T2.CollectionObject. Euler/X allows us to infer and then visualize all the pos- At the schema level, this “possible world” marked Ver- sible relationships between two ambiguously related at- sions 1 and 2 as equivalent; though names have changed, tributes in two versions of a database schema. The five the fundamental structure of the schema has not. “possible worlds” generated by Euler/X additionally In the second “possible world” (Figure 3), at the attrib- show how this ambiguity propagates upward to the ute level, T1.Text1 is mapped as “disjoint” from schema overall; the ways in which the attributes are map- T2.BioStrat; that is, they are two distinct entities that nei- ped together change the ways in which the schemas over- ther include one another nor overlap. At the table level, all can be mapped together. Although some of the rela- T1.CollectionObject is still narrower than T2.Collection tions between the concepts in each schema are still un- Object; however, the PaleoContext tables in T1 and T2 derspecified, Euler/X presents the five possible ways in “overlap” with each other, meaning that they share some which they could be reconciled and, thereby, could be of the attributes, and it is unclear which is broader or nar- migrated. rower. At the schema level, the two versions also have an In the opening of this paper, we described the two is- “overlapping” relationship. This overlap results from the sues in NHM database migration that we aimed to ad- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 553 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

Possible world” 1. world” Possible 2. world” Possible “Possible world” 3. world” “Possible “ “ Figure 4. Figure 2. Figure 3. 554 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

Possible world” 4. world” Possible “Possible world” 5. world” “Possible “ Figure 6. Figure 5. Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 555 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases dress in this work: the need to compare old and new ver- predetermined schema yet must sometimes be used in sions of the “same” schema; and, the need to show how idiosyncratic ways by their users. As briefly reviewed aberrant use of a data model, such as the co-opting of a above, Specify users have at times had to co-opt database field for other-than-its-intended purpose, might impact a attributes for local needs; as relationships between tables database migration process. The example presented were changed, or database attributes renamed or moved above is an example of the first issue: the need to com- from one table to another, the databases effectively broke pare old and new versions of the same schema. Specify and lost some of their functionality until the mappings Version 1 (T1) includes a field called “Text1” whereas could be repaired. We believe that Euler/X’s logic-based Specify Version 2.3 (T2) does not, and instead includes a approach could be a useful way of visualizing and disen- field called “Biostrat.” The five “possible worlds” gener- tangling these ambiguous or aberrant mappings. Euler/X ated by Euler/X show the five possible ways that these could potentially even be prospectively used to show the two fields could be related—however, which one of these ambiguities that may arise from changes to or changes in five worlds is “correct” would need to be further deter- the use of a schema prior to the implementation of those mined by the Specify developers or the Specify user. changes.

Does their instance of Specify use T1.Text1 to store in- 6.2 Supporting a plurality of KOS schemas formation about BioStratigraphy? If so, the first “possible world” (Figure 2) in which the two attributes are Despite both developers’ and users’ best intentions, data- mapped as equivalent would be correct. Does their in- bases are often not used as their developers intend. Addi- stance of Specify use T1.Text1 to store information tionally, the breadth of legacy data structures and prac- about Biostratigraphy for some records but not in others? tices in natural history means that NHM collections data Then the fifth “possible world,” in which the attributes will likely always necessitate a range of different data are mapped as overlapping would be correct. Though structures, and therefore different database systems. Ho- Euler/X’s current incarnation leaves these interpretations wever, the need to share data globally, as well as the need to the user, we can imagine Euler/X being incorporated to take the burden of database design off of data cura- into a database management system as a sort of “wizard” tors and collections managers means that there will still through which the user could be coached through these be a need for centralized systems and standardized data questions during a migration process. models. Thus, individual users will likely either have to Addressing the issue of data schema versioning allows continue adapting databases to local and legacy data us to obliquely address the issue of aberrant data model structures and needs through aberrant use of data attrib- use. When a user co-opts a field, they effectively alter the utes—or new kinds of KOSs that support a plurality of semantics of the data model and thereby create a new in- KOS schemas—potentially even within a single KOS— stance or version of the data model. The same method will need to be developed. employed above to compare two “official” versions of a We believe that the approach taken here may represent data model could be employed to compare an instance of a step toward supporting a plurality of KOS schemas and a data model as designed by a software developer, versus support of usage of a schema in multiple ways. In gener- as deployed by an end-user. Thus, Euler/X can be used ating “possible worlds,” Euler/X does not dictate which to not only show the relationship between the two differ- one should be used; rather it makes the ramifications of ent data schemas, but also changes in the “use” of two different data model uses and mappings visible. Examina- schemas. In this example, we mapped two attributes with tion of these “worlds” prior to database migration may different names as being ambiguously related, and all at- prevent aberrant schema use from “breaking” a system. tributes with the same name as equivalent. However, if Further, the process of mapping two schemas together we were aware that, say, a data manager had used for analysis in Euler/X may help make normally tacit data T1.Text2 to store two kinds of data, we could rerun this practices more explicit. analysis modeling T1.Text2 and T2.Text2 as being am- We expect that co-opting database fields or otherwise biguously related as well. Thus, Euler/X can be used to using a data model in an aberrant way is a common and help make the ramifications of aberrant or idiosyncratic necessary compromise between using a well-maintained, use of data standards more explicit by showing all the standardized KOS and catering to idiosyncratic local possible logical relationships between a schema-as- needs; we further expect that this behavior is neither lim- originally-designed and a schema-as-it-is-used. ited to Specify nor NHMs. In the past, we have observed To this latter point, we believe that this approach may that database fields are often used in ways that might be particularly useful for planning and/or guiding the mi- make their designers cringe, particularly over time: attrib- gration of a KOS such as Specify, which is built on a utes are lumped together or split apart in response to 556 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases changing needs; exceptions are made to cataloging rules Specify schemas or potentially to look at crosswalks be- and controlled vocabularies for special cases; in-house tween two different NHM databases such as Arctos and data practices need to be accounted for in unpredictable Specify. We believe that Euler/X could be a useful tool ways; and data practices evolve over time—often faster for making tacit data practices more explicit prior to a and more unpredictably than a software platform can ac- migration. We plan to further explore how Euler/X can count for or respond to. We have further found that such be used to make tacit, in-house data practices more ex- appropriations may inform future schema evolution plicit prior to a migration, or even use Euler/X to pro- (Twidale and Jones 2005) or lead to the database “learn- spectively model how non-standard uses of a database ing” from its users and thereby changing shape in unex- might effect migrations down the road. pected ways (Thomer and Twidale 2014). We argue that there is a clear need to plan (and design) for this behavior References from the start, rather than only at the point of migration. We imagine that tools rooted in the same logic-based rea- ASC (Association of Systematics Collections, Committee soning as Euler/X could be integrated into KOSs and al- on Computerization and Networking). 1993. “An In- low users to create extremely thorough maps of their formation Model for Biological Collections: Report of particular uses of a database over time. The logic-based the Biological Collections Data Standards Workshop.” approach is particularly powerful, because it could poten- http://cool.conservation-us.org/lex/datamodl.html tially be used to automate certain kinds of migrations. Berendsohn, Walter G., Anastasios Anagnostopoulos, Gregor Hagedorn, Jasmin Jakupovic, Pier Luigi Nimis, 7.0 Conclusion and future work Benito Valdés, Anton Güntsch, Richard J. Pankhurst, and Richard J. White. 1999. “A Comprehensive Refer- Here we have shown how Euler/X, a logic-based taxon- ence Model for Biological Collections and Surveys.” omy alignment tool, can be used to visualize the different Taxon 48:511-62. doi:10.2307/1224564 ways database schemas can be brought into alignment. Berents, Penny, Michelle Hamer, and Vishwas Chavan. We demonstrated this approach using a subset of two 2010. “Towards Demand Driven Publishing: Ap- versions of the Specify database schema. We found that proaches to the Prioritisation of Digitisation of Natu- this approach may be helpful in KOS migration, particu- ral History Collections Data.” Biodiversity Informatics 7, larly when the relationship between the old schema and no. 2. doi:10.17161/bi.v7i2.3990 the new is ambiguous, or in cases where attributes in the Bowker, Geoffrey C. 2000. “Biodiversity Datadiversity.” old schema have been co-opted or otherwise used in Social Studies of Science 30: 643–83. doi:10.1177/030631 other-than-standard ways to meet local needs. The 200030005001 Euler/X approach can help make the consequences of Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting these changes clear prior to a migration. Things out: Classification and Its Consequences. Inside Tech- In our future work, we plan to continue exploring how nology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Euler/X can be used to compare different kinds of tax- Brahmia, Zouhaier, Fabio Grandi, Barbara Oliboni and onomies. Euler/X was originally designed for the com- Rafik Bouaziz. 2015a. “Schema Versioning.” Encyclope- parison of biological taxonomies, which can be described dia of Information Science and Technology, ed. Mehdi Khos- as a kind of containment hierarchy—that is, “is-a” rela- row-Pour, 7651-61. 3rd. ed. IGI Global. https://www. tions. Database schemas, however, are often better mod- igi-global.com/chapter/schema-versioning/112468. eled as “part-of ” hierarchies (see Varzi 2006; Keet and Brahmia, Zouhaier, Fabio Grandi, Barbara Oliboni and Artale 2008). In the study presented in this paper, we Rafik Bouaziz. 2015b. “Schema Evolution.” In Encyclo- have blurred this conceptually important distinction. In- pedia of Information Science and Technology, 3rd ed, ed. Mehdi deed, the underlying RCC calculus relations can be inter- Khosrow-Pour. Hershey, PA: Information Science Ref- preted as either is-a or part-of relationships and yield erence, 7641-50. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch753 consistent results in both cases. Nevertheless, it is also Brenskelle, Laura Marie. 2015. “The Use of Modern Digi- clear that careful modeling of these hierarchical relation- tal Technology to Store and Serve Biodiversity Data for ships is required to obtain meaningful inference results. Research and Educational Purposes.” Master’s thesis, In future work, we will study additional examples and al- University of Texas. doi:10.15781/T21C2X ternative modeling approaches to identify new opportuni- Callery, BG. 1999. “Common Names: Cooperative Ac- ties but also challenges and limitations in reasoning about cess to Databased Natural History Information.” In schemas using RCC-based approaches. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the History and Heri- Within the NHM KOS domain, we will expand this tage of Science Information Systems, ed. Mary Ellen Bow- study to look at crosswalks between further subsets of den, Trudi Bellardo Hahn and Robert V. Williams. Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 557 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

ASIS monograph series. Medford, NJ: Information Gnoli, Claudio. 2008. “Ten Long-Term Research Ques- Today, Inc. for the American Society for Information tions in Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organiza- Science and the Chemical Heritage Foundation, 84-93. tion 35:137-49. http://www.chemheritage.org/explore/ASIS_docume Grinnell, Hilda W. 1958. Annie Montague Alexander. Berke- nts/ASIS98_main.htm ley, CA: Grinnell Naturalists Society. Cheng, Yi-Yun, Nico Franz, Jodi Schneider, Shizhuo Yu, Harping, Patricia. 2014. “Introduction to Metadata: Cross- Thomas Rodenhausen, and Bertram Ludäscher. 2017. walk,” revised 9 June 2009 by Patricia Harpring; ed. “Agreeing to Disagree: Reconciling Conflicting Taxo- Murtha Baca, Patricia Harpring, Jon Ward, and Antonio nomic Views Using a Logic-Based Approach.” In Pro- Beecroft. Compiled by Murtha Baca, Sherman Clarke, ceedings of the 8th Annual SIS&T Meeting, Washington, Jan Eklund, Anne J. Gilliland, Patricia Harpring, Mary S. D.C., 27 October-1 November, 2017. https://www.ideals. Woodley, and Elizabeth O'Keefe. J. Paul Getty Trust. illinois.edu/handle/2142/97907 http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic “Documentation.” 2017. At Specify Software Project website. _publications/intrometadata/crosswalks.html http://specifyx.specifysoftware.org/documentation/ JISC. 2009. “Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF): An Dubin, David, Joe Futrelle, Joel Plutchak, and Janet Eke. Introduction v1.0.” http://www.doi.org/VMF/docu 2009. “Preserving Meaning, Not Just Objects: Seman- ments/VocabularyMappingFrameworkIntroduction tics and Digital Preservation.” Library Trends 57, no. V1.0(091212).pdf 3:595-610. Jung, Jason J. 2006. “Taxonomy Alignment for Interop- Euzenat, Jérôme, and Pavel Shvaiko. 2013. Ontology Match- erability Between Heterogeneous Digital Libraries.” In ing. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38721-0 Digital Libraries: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities, Franz, Nico M., Mingmin Chen, Parisa Kianmajd, Shizhuo ed. Shigeo Sugimoto, Jane Hunter, Andreas, Rauber Yu, Shawn Bowers, Alan S. Weakley, and Bertram Atsuyuki, and Morishima, 274–82. Lecture Notes in Ludäscher. 2016. “Names Are Not Good Enough: Rea- Computer Science 4312. [New York, N.Y.?]: Springer soning over Taxonomic Change in the Andropogon doi:10.1007/11931584_30 Complex1.” Semantic Web 7: 645-67. doi:10.3233/SW- Keet, C. Maria, and Alessandro Artale. 2008. “Represent- 160220 ing and Reasoning over a Taxonomy of Part–whole Franz, Nico M., Naomi M. Pier, Deeann M. Reeder, Relations.” Applied Ontology 3: 91–110. Mingmin Chen, Shizhuo Yu, Parisa Kianmajd, Shawn Khoo, Michael, and Catherine Hall. 2010. “Merging Bowers, and Bertram Ludäscher. 2016. “Two Influen- Metadata: A Sociotechnical Study of Crosswalking and tial Primate Classifications Logically Aligned.” System- Interoperability.” In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint atic Biology 65:561-82. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syw023 Conference on Digital Libraries. New York: ACM, 361-4. Galante, Renata de Matos, Clesio Saraiva dos Santos, Nina doi:10.1145/1816123.1816180 Edelweiss, and Álvaro Freitas Moreira. 2005. “Temporal Lauruhn, Michael and Paul Groth. 2016. “Sources of and Versioning Model for Schema Evolution in Object- Change for Modern Knowledge Organiza$on Sys- Oriented Databases.” Data & Knowledge Engineering tems.” Knowledge Organization 43:622-29. 53:99-128. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2004.07.001 “Metadata Schema Transformation Services.” 2014. At Gao, Shi, and Carlo Zaniolo. 2012a. “Provenance Man- OCLC Research website. http://www.oclc.org/research/ agement in Databases Under Schema Evolution.” Paper themes/data-science/schematrans.html presented at TaPP'12: 4th USENIX Workshop on the Perrine, John D., and James L. Patton. 2011. “Letters to Theory and Practice of Provenance. https://www. the Future.” In Field Notes on Science & Nature, ed. Mi- usenix.org/system/files/conference/tapp12/tapp12- chael R. Canfield. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univer- final20.pdf sity Press, 211-50. Gao, Shi, and Carlo Zaniolo. 2012b. “Supporting Database Roddick, John F. 1992. “Schema Evolution in Database Provenance Under Schema Evolution.” In Advances in Systems: An Annotated Bibliography.” SIGMOD Re- conceptual modeling: ER 2012 workshops: CMS, ECDM- cord 21, no. 4:35-40. doi:10.1145/141818.141826 NoCoDA, MoDIC, MORE-BI, RIGiM, SeCoGIS, WISM, Roth, Camille, and Paul Bourgine. 2006. “Lattice-Based Florence, Italy, October 15-18, 2012, proceedings ed. Silvana Dynamic and Overlapping Taxonomies: The Case of Castano, Panos Vassiliadis, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, and Epistemic Communities.” Scientometrics 69:429-47. doi: Mong Li Lee,. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10.1007/s11192-006-0161-6 7518. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 67-77. doi:10.1007/978-3- Scharnhorst, Andrea, Richard P. Smiraglia, Christophe 642-33999-8_9 Guéret and Alkim Almila Akdag Salah. 2016. “Knowl- edge Maps of the UDC: Uses and Use Cases.” Knowl- edge Organization 43:641-54. 558 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 A. Thomer, Yi-Yun Cheng, J. Schneider, M. Twidale, B. Ludäscher. Logic-based Schema Alignment for Natural History Museum Databases

Shvaiko, Pavel, and Jéróme Euzenat. 2005. “A Survey of Supported Cooperative Work 12–16 September 1999, Copen- Schema-Based Matching Approaches.” In Journal on hagen, Denmark, ed. Suanne Bødker, Morten Kyng, and Data Semantics IV, ed. Stefano Spaccapietra. Lecture Kjeld Schmidt. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publish- Notes in Computer Science 3730. Berlin: Springer, ers, 331-50. doi:10.1007/0-306-47316-X_18 146-71. doi:10.1007/11603412_5 Twidale, Michael B., and M. Cameron Jones. 2005. “‘Let “Specify 6 Schema.” 2009. https://web.archive.org/web/ Them Use Emacs’: The Interaction of Simplicity and 20090204133612/http://specify6.specifysoftware.org: Appropriation.” International Reports on Socio-Informatics 80/SpecifySchema.html 2, no. 2:78-84. “Specify DB Schema 2.3.” 2016. Updated 3 November Varzi, Achille C. 2006. “A Note on the Transitivity of 2016. http://www.specify6.specifysoftware.org/schema. Parthood.” Applied Ontology 1:141-46. html Wieczorek, John, David Bloom, Robert Guralnick, Stan “Specify in Transition.” 2017. At Specify website. http:// Blum, Markus Döring, Renato Giovanni, Tim Robert- www.sustain.specifysoftware.org/transition/ son, and David Vieglais. 2012. “Darwin Core: An Specify Software Project Staff. 2009. “Specify 6’s Ap- Evolving Community-Developed Biodiversity Data proach to Stratigraphy: The Specify 6 Paleontological Standard,” ed. Indra Neil Sarkar. PLoS ONE 7 (1): Data Model, 31 March 2009, version 2.0.” https:// e29715. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029715 web.archive.org/web/20131207174733/http://specify Zeng, Marcia Lei, and Lois Mai Chan. 2006. “Metadata software.org/content/specify-6s-approach-stratigraphy. Interoperability and Standardization: A Study of St. Pierre, Margaret, and William P. LaPlant. 1998. “Issues Methodology Part II; Achieving Interoperability at the in Crosswalking Content Metadata Standards.” Wash- Record and Repository Levels.” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. ington, D.C.: NISO. http://www.niso.org/publications/ 6. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/zeng/06zeng. white_papers/crosswalk/ html Tennis, Joseph T. 2012. “The Strange Case of Eugenics: A Subject’s Ontogeny in a Long-lived Classification Appendix 1 Euler/X Input File Scheme and the Question of Collocative Integrity.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and taxonomy T1 SpecifyT1 Technology 63:1350-59. doi:10.1002/asi.22686 (Schema1 PaleoContext CollectionObject) Tennis, Joseph T. 2016. “Methodological Challenges in (PaleoContext BottomDistance CollectionMemberID Di- Scheme Versioning and Subject Ontogeny Research.” rection DistanceUnits PositionState Text1 Text2 Top- Knowledge Organization 43:573-80. Distance) Thau, David, Shawn Bowers, and Bertram Ludäscher. (CollectionObject AttributeID Number1 Number2) 2008. “Merging Taxonomies under RCC-5 Algebraic Articulations.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International taxonomy T2 SpecifyT2 Workshop on Ontologies and Information Systems for the Se- (Schema2 PaleoContext CollectionObject) mantic Web. New York: ACM, 47–54. doi:10.1145/145 (PaleoContext BioStrat Text2) 8484.1458492 (CollectionObject AttributeID BottomDistance Collec- Thau, David, and Bertram Ludäscher. 2007. “Reasoning tionMemberID Direction DistanceUnits PositionState about Taxonomies in First-Order Logic.” Ecological In- TopDistance Number1 Number2) formatics 2:195-209. doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2007.07.005 Thomer, Andrea K., Karen S. Baker, Simone Sacchi, and articulations T1 T2 David Dubin. 2012. “Completeness, Coverage & [T1.BottomDistance equals T2.BottomDistance] Equivalence in Scientific Data Records.” Proceedings of [T1.Text2 equals T2.Text2] the American Society for Information Science and Technology, [T1.CollectionMemberID equals 49:1-4. doi:10.1002/meet.14504901331 T2.CollectionMemberID] Thomer, Andrea K., and Michael B Twidale. 2014. “How [T1.Direction equals T2.Direction] Databases Learn.” iConference 2014 Proceedings, ed. Maxi [T1.DistanceUnits equals T2.DistanceUnits] Kindling and Elke Greifeneder, 827-33. doi:10.9776/ [T1.Number1 equals T2.Number1] 14409 [T1.Number2 equals T2.Number2] Trigg, Randall H., Jeanette Blomberg, and Lucy Suchman. [T1.AttributeID equals T2.AttributeID] 2002. “Moving Document Collections Online: The [T1.PositionState equals T2.PositionState] Evolution of a Shared Repository.” In ECSCW '99: [T1.TopDistance equals T2.TopDistance] Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Computer

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 559 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe: A Case Study for the Standardized Description of Museum Objects Júlia Magdolna Katona Hungarian University of Fine Arts - High School of Visual Arts, Budapest, Schola Graphidis Art Collection, Török Pál u. 1. Budapest H-1093, Hungary,

Júlia Katona is an art historian, curator and researcher. She is currently working as the head of collection of the Schola Graphidis Art Collection, Budapest. She studied art history at the Eötvös Loránd University (Buda- pest), where she defended her PhD thesis in the field of history and theory of ornament. Her fields of interests span research in ornamental art, pattern books, rare book collections, history of architecture and art education in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries, and museum studies including museum informatics and integrated collection management systems. In 2016–2017 she participated in the program Chercheurs invités of the Institut Nationale d’histoire de l’art (NHA), Paris.

Katona, Júlia Magdolna. 2017. “The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe: A Case Study for the Standardized Description of Museum Objects.” Knowledge Organization 44 (7): 559-577. 30 references.

Abstract: The study focuses on ornamental prints (as components of pattern books) published and circulated all over Europe during the second half of the nineteenth century and in the first decades of the twentieth century. This special object type forms a particular segment not only in the history of ornamental prints and decorative arts in general but also in the history of architecture, applied arts, art education and archaeology. Enriched descriptions of these prints therefore have the potential to be of great benefit to scientific research in all the disciplines mentioned. The primary aim of this study is to survey and elaborate the standardized description of ornamental prints, considering them as visual works and describing them as museum objects. The paper attempts to answer questions posed from the multi-layered approach to scientific research, namely how to record ornamental prints that belong to a special object type, consisting of mixed visual and textual contents; and how to group the information in order to obtain the richest possible sets of data. The conceptual model of the standardized description will be elucidated with numerous examples, embedded in the broader art historical context.

Received: 5 July 2017; Revised: 15 September 2017; Accepted: 7 October 2017

Keywords: ornamental prints, cultural context, historical context, object description

1.0 Purpose of the study plines mentioned. Regarding the expected outputs of the detailed study of these prints, the primary aim of this The present study focuses on ornamental prints (as com- study is to survey and elaborate the standardized descrip- ponents of pattern books) published and circulated all tion of ornamental prints, considering them as visual over Europe during the second half of the nineteenth works and describing them as museum objects. century and in the first decades of the twentieth century. The paper presented here attempts to answer ques- This special object type forms a particular segment not tions posed from the multi-layered approach to scientific only in the history of ornamental prints and decorative research, namely how to record ornamental prints that arts in general but also in the history of architecture, ap- belong to a special object type, consisting of mixed visual plied arts, art education and archaeology. Enriched de- and textual contents and how to group the information in scriptions of these prints, therefore, have the potential to order to obtain the richest possible sets of data. The aim be of great benefit to scientific research in all the disci- of the paper, therefore, is to show how all the informa- 560 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe tion hidden in the pattern books might be revealed and books circulated in Europe in this period. I recognized the kind of data that might be gleaned from an enriched that the historical motif compilations which played an in- description of ornamental prints. The conceptual model termediary role between the historical styles and the era of the standardized description will be elucidated with of the “industrial” arts are not simply compilations of numerous examples, embedded in the broader art histori- motifs but also contain a large amount of information re- cal context. lating to the histories of architecture, applied arts, design, and art education, and even to the series of the archaeo- 2.0 Research antecedents logical discoveries in their own century. A multi-layered aspect of historicism and art nouveau was gradually re- The corpus of pattern books and ornamental prints from vealed. the period in question has long been at the forefront of I expanded the horizon when I started my collection my art historical research. I have dealt with it from a dual work at the Schola Graphidis Art Collection in 2014, in a viewpoint: that of an art historian-researcher and that of special education-related collection, which conserves all a collection curator. The very first idea of elaborating the museum objects associated with the very first Hun- guidelines for the standardized description of ornamental garian national art education institution, the Schola prints arose during an attempt to achieve the advanced Graphidis Budensis (founded in 1778) and its successors and enriched description of museum objects, in the up until World War II. The school was one of the main framework of the AthenaPlus project in 2015 (http:// centres of industrial education in Budapest during the era athenaplus.eu/). During the experiment, led by Regine of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as the Budapest Met- Stein (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg Deutsches Do- ropolitan Industrial Drawing School (between 1886 and kumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte - Bildarchiv 1945); it collected a remarkable set of pattern books used Foto Marburg) and Nikolaus Simou (National Technical for educational purposes in everyday training practice. University of Athens), some project partners provided The study of the surviving ornamental prints, estimated 100 high-quality, enriched metadata records based on the to number around 15,000 individual pieces, turned my at- LIDO (Lightweight Information Describing Objects) de- tention from pure art historical research to the collection scription of objects, using the Getty Vocabularies (http:// side of these books and prints. www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/). As a result Combining the two interests, research and collection of the experiment, we, as museum experts, were forced curating, I carried out further research on this subject in to rethink the depth of object descriptions and the need the framework of the invited researcher program of the to use standardized, controlled vocabularies in everyday INHA in 2016 and 2017, and I have started to elaborate collection practice. On behalf of the Schola Graphidis the typology of pattern books in this period and the stan- Art Collection, three different object types were selected dardized description of ornamental prints, preparing as case studies: 1) drawings from the eighteenth and nine- them for art historical research. During my research work teenth centuries as unique objects; 2) historical photo- in Paris, I had the opportunity to study, among others, the graphs from the first half of the twentieth century; and, pattern book collection of the Collection Jacques Doucet in 3) nineteenth-century ornamental prints. At this point, I the Library of the INHA and the outstanding ornamental started to deal with this material from the viewpoint of a prints collection of the Bibliothèque Forney. Below, focusing collection curator and recognized the potential of en- exclusively on the second topic, I publish the conceptual riched description for art historical research in the case framework for the standardized description of ornamen- of the examined special object type (Katona 2015). The tal prints from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. basic ideas were presented at the General Conference of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) in Milan 3.0 Cultural and historical context of ornamental in July of 2016 in the framework of the events organised prints by the Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) (Katona 2016). All this was preceded by the study and research The era, broadly covering approximately eighty years be- from 2008 to 2010 of a rare corpus of pattern books that tween 1850 and 1930, encompasses the evolution of the has survived intact from the nineteenth-twentieth centu- “industrial” arts, when every endeavour pointed in one di- ries and is currently conserved in the Library of the rection, towards the amelioration of taste and the im- Hungarian University of Fine Arts in Budapest. The re- provement of the aesthetic appearance of industrial prod- sults were summarized and presented in the illustrated ucts, all in the service of industrial development. The cul- and annotated bibliography of the research project (Ka- tural context of the “industrial” arts consisted of four tona és György 2010). During this work, I had the chance main elements: 1) the applied arts museums founded in the to conduct a deeper overview of the corpus of pattern second half of the nineteenth century and modelled after Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 561 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe the South Kensington Museum in London (1857); 2) the them comparatively in their historical contexts. He exam- education system of the applied arts schools attached to ined ornaments from Antiquity to the Renaissance, with a the museums (1864. K. K. Österreichisches Museum für special emphasis on Islamic ornaments, in nineteen histori- Kunst und Industrie, Wien; 1867. K. K. Kunstgewer- cal chapters, illustrated with 112 chromolithograph plates. beschule, Wien; 1868. Deutsches Gewerbe-Museum, Ber- The ornamental motif sets of the different historical styles lin; 1869. Bayerisches Gewerbemuseum, Nürnberg; 1872. were accompanied by ten plates showing representations Magyar Királyi Iparművészeti Múzeum [Hungarian Royal of natural forms such as leaves, flowers, branches, etc. Museum of Applied Arts], Budapest; 1880. O. M. K. With The Grammar of Ornament, Jones created a new Iparművészeti Iskola [Hungarian Royal School of Applied publication type that led to a Europe-wide series of “com- Arts], Budapest; 1874. Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, parative motif compilations” (a term implemented by the Hamburg; 1876. Königliches Kunstgewerbe-Museum, author of the article, although already used in preparatory Dresden; 1885. Uměleckoprůmyslové museum [Museum drafts but published for the first time here). His followers of Decorative Arts], Prague; 1905. Musée des arts déco- soon appeared on the continent, first in France and then in ratifs, Paris); 3) the new phenomenon of the world and in- Germany. In Paris, a French draughtsman, illustrator and ternational exhibitions (1851. Great Exhibition of the lithographer, Auguste Racinet (1825-1893), published the Works of Industry of All Nations, London; 1855. Exposi- second most influential comparative motif compilation, tion Universelle des produits de l’Agriculture, de l’Industrie under the title L’Ornement polychrome, in two series in 1869- et des Beaux-Arts, Paris; 1862. International Exhibition, 1873 and 1885-1887. Later the German architect and London; 1867. Exposition universelle [d’art et d’industrie], building restorer Heinrich Dolmetsch (1846-1908) com- Paris; 1873. Weltausstellung, Wien; 1878. Exposition Uni- piled the authoritative German version of comparative verselle, Paris; 1888. Exposició Universal de Barcelona / motif compilations by all styles and periods and published Exposición Universal de Barcelona; 1889. Exposition uni- his book under the title Der Ornamentenschatz in 1887. The verselle de 1889, Paris; 1897. Exposition Internationale de tradition of publishing this special publication type contin- Bruxelles, Bruxelles; 1900. L’Exposition de Paris 1900, ued into the first decades of the twentieth century, al- Paris); and, 4) the societies and associations which sup- though the reproduction technique of chromolithography ported progress in art and industry (1754. Society for the was replaced by offset printing, and the original purpose Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce; defined as serving the development of industry was re- 1845. Société de l’art industriel; 1864. L’Union centrale des placed by serving the study of art history and archaeology beaux-arts appliqués à l’industrie; 1882. L’Union centrale (Speltz 1914; Bossert 1924) (Figure 1). des arts décoratifs (UCAD); 1877(?) Verein für Deutsches The recontextualizing practice of historicism made it Kunstgewerbe, Berlin; 1884. Kunstgewerbe-Verein, Wien; possible to compare the motif sets of different styles, but 1885. Országos Magyar Iparművészeti Társulat [Hungarian the classification went even further and was extended to National Society of Applied Arts]; 1887. Arts and Crafts particular domains of the applied arts and architecture, Exhibition Society). which led to an overview of the evolution of particular The publishing of historical pattern books and motif styles or techniques of the applied arts. During the second compilations was closely linked to the institutional system half of the nineteenth century, therefore, many motif of applied arts museums, applied arts and industrial compilations appeared, which classified ornamental motifs schools, the world and international exhibitions and the according to their particular styles and periods (e.g., “classi- societies and associations involved in the development of cal” styles, medieval styles, Islamic styles, etc.), according to the industry. The first comprehensive and, at the same the domains of the decorative arts (e.g., textile arts, ceram- time, the best-known and most influential collection of ics, etc.), according to the arts associated with architecture motifs, The Grammar of Ornament, appeared in 1856 (Jones), (e.g., mural painting, ornamental sculpture, stained glass, in the context of the Great Exhibition in London in 1851. mosaics, etc.), and, finally, as a unique and exceptional Its author was the English architect and designer Owen category, according to form (Figure 2). Jones (1809-1874), the superintendent of the first world So far, two main features have determined the fate of exhibition. Although different motif compilations had al- these ornamental prints from the viewpoint of research: ready been published as early as the 1820s (Zahn 1828; their physical characteristics and the consequent fact that Gruner and Braun 1850; Bötticher 1834-1844), his work they belong to library collections. Series of ornamental was unique, because it expanded the scope to “all styles prints can be found in bound books or in separate folios, and periods,” i.e., to all known styles and periods in his stored in a portfolio as a folio edition. Due to their physi- time. Jones presented the ornamental motif sets of the his- cal characteristics, they are listed and inventoried as torical styles using a completely new approach; he sepa- books in libraries, especially in libraries that were once at- rated them from the objects bearing them and displayed tached to schools where the prints were used as teaching 562 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Figure 1. Comparative motif compilations by all periods.

Figure 2. Comparative motif compilations. Domain: textile art.

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 563 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe aids in daily training practice. The institutions shown in is visual rather than textual, is completely lost. Regarding Table 1 had the best-known pattern book collections (or visual content, the information is usually limited to a tally collections of ornamental prints). of the number of plates, ideally (generally) with their reproduction technique also included. Nevertheless, the New City Institution Bibliographic York Public Library has digitized, described and published reference online the series of ornamental prints in its Art and Archi- London National Art Library Science and Art tecture Collection as visual works and not only as supplemen- Department. 1883. tary illustrations of the textual contents in books, which Paris Bibliothèque de l’INHA Decrossas et means they have interpreted them as museum objects (Collection Jacques Fléjou. 2014. (prints) and not as library items (https://digitalcollections. Doucet) nypl.org/divisions/the-miriam-and-ira-d-wallach-division- Paris Bibliothèque Forney Clouzot et of-art-prints-and-photographs-art). On behalf of the Engerand. 1912. Clouzot et Ré- Schola Graphidis Art Collection, we have followed the mon. 1915. same policy relating to this special object type, publishing Berlin Kunstbibliothek Schneider- them on Europeana in the framework of the AthenaPlus Henn. 1997. project in 2015 (http://www.europeana.eu/portal/hu/ Brand und Evers. 2000. search?q=ornamental+print&qf%5B%5D=schola+graph Heidelberg Bibliothek der Universität idis). Below, the series of prints are considered as visual Wien Bibliothek und Kunstblät- works instead of textual contents, and are described as tersammlung der Museum museum objects instead of library items. Nevertheless, für Angewandte Kunst some groups of data will come from the “collection” Prague Uměleckoprůmyslové muzeum level, which can be identified with the book or portfolio itself as the collection or series of ornamental prints, Budapest Library of the Hungarian Katona és University of Fine Arts György. 2010. whereas others will come from the “item” level, which Budapest Schola Graphidis Art Col- means the individual prints themselves. As a result, the lection schema of description below is a mixed formation, con- (as part of the Hungarian sidering the sources of information which could derive University of Fine Arts - from different levels. This condition may result in certain High School of Visual Arts) difficulties during the inventory process, since informa- New York New York Public Library tion needs to be recorded which relates both uniquely to (The Miriam and Ira D. the print and to the book in general. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art and Architecture Col- 5.0 Three groups of information lection) To explore the greatest possible amount of information Table 1. Institutions with best-known pattern book collections. that might potentially be included in a series of ornamental prints, a three-element system of description has been 4.0 Ornamental prints: library items or museum devised. The three elements are considered as three objects? groups of information, concerning the different layers of contextualisation. The first group of information relates Owing to the two aforementioned circumstances, these to 1) the object (print) itself, the second concerns 2) the books and portfolios have been inventoried as library items, representation, and the third, putting the item in a which has led to a substantial loss of information. A typi- broader context, pertains to 3) the historical context of cal bibliographic notice contains information about the the object (as part of a series of prints) (Figure 3). highlighted author of the book but not about all the actors involved in the production process, whether invention or 5.1 Group 1: Object Data Group (the object) realization. A portfolio of ornamental prints was the end result of teamwork between the inventor (usually identified The Object Data Group contains information relating to as the primary author), the draughtsmen, the lithographers, the object itself, and consists of the following fields: crea- the staff of the printing house and so on. Similarly, if tor, title, date, inventory number, materials/technique, these series of prints are described as library items, their measurements, provenance, repository name, location, re- real content, which, as compilations of ornamental motifs, lated works (Table 2). 564 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Figure 3. The three-element conceptual model of the standardized description of ornamental prints.

Field name Getty Level Example vocabs Creator ULAN facet: Persons, Artists Jones, Owen (British architect and designer, 1809-1874) facet: Non-Artists Firmin-Didot, Ambroise (French publisher and collector, 1790-1876) facet: Corporate Bodies Title Date Materials/Technique AAT facet: Materials paper facet: Objects chromolithograph, lithograph, photolitho- / Visual and Verbal Communication graph / Visual Works / visual works / visual works by material and technique / photomechanical prints or / prints / prints by process or technique Measurements Inventory Number Repository Name Provenance Location TGN nation level Germany Part Of Related Works

Table 2. The use of Getty Vocabularies in the Object Data Group.

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 565 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

5.1.1 The creator field Schwabe (see the Materials/Technique field). This means that even within one pattern book, the author of the The creator field is one of the most crucial components book as a whole, the inventors of the plates, the design- in the Object Data Group. Its content comes from the ers, the lithographers, the printing houses and the pub- “collection” level. As mentioned above, the bibliographic lishing house, in short, all the actors involved in the pro- notice of the library database lists only the main author, duction process from invention to publishing, have to be who is identified as the highlighted person in the context examined one by one with regard to each plate. of the pattern book. This person is actually the inventor of the concept as a whole. His role is very important, 5.1.2 The title field since the act of compiling ornamental motifs that properly represent the chosen historical style was of immense The title information related to the object may come intellectual value in the nineteenth century. This skill was from both the “collection” and “item” levels, since it can associated with an outstanding proficiency and deep be identified with the inscription of the print, located knowledge in the domains of the history of art and ar- centrally at the top or bottom of the plate. If the infor- chaeology, as emphasized in the case of Auguste Racinet, mation is missing from the plate, it can be found in the in the introductory text of L’Ornement polychrome, written list of illustrations. The inscription defines the subject of by the Firmin-Didot brothers, the publishers of the book the representation itself, designating mainly the period, (Racinet 1869-1873, II). The best-known comparative the geographical location and the style of the displayed motif compilations were great enterprises of their kind. ornamental motifs. For The Grammar of Ornament, Owen Jones not only involved his contemporaries in writing the introductory es- 5.1.3 The date field says for some chapters but also invited some to contribute to the invention of the plates as well. The English The date information comes from the “collection” level painter and architect J. B. Waring (1823-1875) wrote es- and is identical to the date of publication of the pattern says for the chapters on Byzantine ornament and Elizabe- book itself. than ornament, the English archaeologist John Obadiah Westwood (1805-1893) wrote the explanatory text ac- 5.1.4 The materials/technique field companying the plates of Celtic ornament and the British architect Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt (1820-1877), Secretary The materials/technique field, similar to the creator field, of the Great Exhibition in 1851, left his own mark on is a more compound issue. Many of the comparative mo- this comprehensive historical work by writing remarkable tif compilations were made with the planographic print- essays for the chapters on Renaissance ornament and Ital- ing technique of chromolithography. Moreover, some ian ornament. The English sculptor and Egyptologist Jo- pattern book authors, in close collaboration with the seph Bonomi (1796-1878) and the British architect James printing houses, experimented with the process itself in William Wild (1814-1892) contributed to the invention their motif compilations (Zahn 1828; Jones 1856; Racinet and compilation of motifs for the chapter on Egyptian 1869-1873). The invention of chromolithography there- ornament, the British architect and lithographer Thomas fore indirectly influenced the design, the applied arts and Talbot Bury (1811-1877) drew the Stained Glass plate, the education of the period (Twyman 2013). Other mixed and the Scottish-born botanist and designer Christopher photomechanical printing processes, such as photolitho- Dresser (1834-1904) drew one of the plates in chapter graphy, were in use in parallel. In some cases, it is possi- twenty on natural forms. Jones also relied on the partici- ble to find plates executed with completely different pation of his pupils in executing drawings and preparing printing techniques within the same series of prints. As in them for publication. Moreover, he collaborated closely the case of Meurer’s Pflanzenformen, already mentioned with the English lithographer and architectural above, the collection of stylized plant forms designed and draughtsman Francis Bedford (1816-1894), later a famous drawn by Meurer and his students consists of three kinds photographer, who drew the plates onto stone with his of plates executed with different contemporary print- team of assistants (Jones 1856) (Figures 4 and 5). making techniques: photolithography, lithography and In some cases, more than one printing house would be heliotype. The three techniques required the collabora- involved in the printing process, as in the case of Moritz tion of three different printers: Friedrich Gröber of Meurer’s (1839-1916) 1895 Pflanzenformen, where the Leipzig, who printed the photolithographs, the photog- photolithographs were printed by Friedrich Gröber of rapher Albert Frisch (c. 1840-1918) of Berlin, known as Leipzig, the heliotypes were printed by Albert Frisch of the German pioneer of anthropological photography, Berlin and the lithographs were printed by Friedrich who executed the heliotypes, and Friedrich Schwabe, also 566 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Figure 4. The Object Data Group (example: Jones 1856).

Figure 5. The Object Data Group (example: Jones 1856).

Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 567 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe of Berlin, who made the lithographs. In this case, not industrial education in Hungary in the late nineteenth only the techniques of each plate but the contents of the century. He was in direct contact with the architect- creator field (see the Creator field) have to be recorded teacher of the Budapest Metropolitan Industrial Drawing separately. School, the institution whose library conserved this book. Although the seal of the Count’s Library can be seen 5.1.5 The measurements field only on the title page of the book, it is important to record this information, since it highlights the link between The measurements data come from the “item” level and the personalities and the institutions that played key roles relate to the print itself. They are not identical to the in industrial development and the related industrial edu- measurement data of the book or portfolio, which is cation in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. His name also naturally larger than the prints themselves. The Meas- has to be mentioned in the cultural and historical context urements field contains the height and the width of the of the object, in the Context Data Group. print in millimetres. The repository name refers to the collection of museum objects itself, to which the series of ornamental 5.1.6 The inventory number, the provenance, prints belongs. the repository name and the location fields The location field concerns the geographical place where the collection of museum objects can be found at This part of the Object Data Group refers to the collec- the national level. tion of museum objects and contains information at local level. Nevertheless, the provenance data might be inter- 5.1.7 The part of and the related works fields esting not only at local but also for exploring the cultural background of the pattern book itself. Recording the in- The part of field is a reference to the bibliographic notice ventory number field is a decision made by the collection of the whole series of ornamental prints to which the manager. It can be generated automatically from the da- print belongs. The related works field is an image field tabase; alternatively, a museum identification number can which contains the whole series of ornamental prints that be generated by concatenating the library catalogue entry the print belongs to. number with the number of the plate. The provenance information comes from the “collec- 5.2 Group 2: Representation Data Group tion” level, although in some cases it might also be rele- (the representation) vant in the historical-cultural context of the object. An example from the Schola Graphidis Art Collection con- The Representation Data Group contains information re- cerns the very first Hungarian pattern book, published in lated to the representation itself, with the following fields: 1879 under the trilingual title “A magyar házi ipar díszít- cultural context, description, subjects and related works ményei, 1879. - Ornamente der Hausindustrie Ungarns, (Table 3). 1879. - Ornements de l’industrie domestique de la Hon- In the case of pattern books and ornamental prints, grie, 1879.” It served as a representative documentation the term representation does not have a narrative con- of a collection composed of common art objects (ob- text, it is related exclusively to the ornamental motifs and jects of “Hausindustrie”), which represented Hungary at the broader cultural context of the original objects from the Vienna World Exhibition in 1873 (Pulszky és Fish- which the ornamental forms are derived. Although in cbach 1879). The author of the book was the museum some cases a single print may contain a dozen or more director and art historian Károly Pulszky (1853-1899), motifs, its representations may still be listed in a well- who selected and compiled the objects and motifs de- defined group. Since nineteenth-century classifications picted in the book and who also wrote the preface. His and groupings of ornamental motifs follow style-, nation- associate author was the inventor-creator of chromo- and geography-related principles in chronological order, lithographic prints, the German textile designer and the representations of a unique plate tend to belong to draughtsman Friedrich Fischbach (1839-1908). There only one style, period or nation (Figures 6 and 7). were numerous additional persons involved in the production of this compilation, who will be mentioned later 5.2.1 The cultural context field in the cultural-historical context. One of them, however, also deserves mentioning in the framework of the Object The content of the cultural context field for each print Data Group. This person is the previous owner and pre- comes from the “item” level and can be identified clearly. sumed donor of the copy, Count Jenő Zichy (1837-1906), This is the cultural context of the original object from who happens to have played an active role in reforming which the ornamental motifs were taken. It differs from 568 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Field name Getty Level Example vocabs Cultural Context AAT facet: Styles and Periods Egyptian (ancient), Pompeian Style Description Subjects AAT facet: Objects textile art, ceramic ware / visual works by material or technique facet: Physical Attributes acanthus, palmette, paisley / Design Elements / motifs facet: Physical Attributes borders, friezes / Design Elements / ornament areas facet: Physical Attributes allover patterns, foliation, meanders / Design Elements / patterns Related Works

Table 3. The use of Getty Vocabularies in the Representation Data Group. the thematic context of the Context Data Group, which resentation Data Group can be complemented with other relates to the cultural context of the pattern book as a diverse sorts of information: 1) information about the whole. Its content is identical to the title of the object, but domains of the applied arts (e.g., textile arts, ceramics, here a controlled vocabulary has to be used. The terms of etc.) and of the arts associated with architecture (mural the styles and periods facet in the Getty Art and Architec- painting, stained glass, mosaics, etc.) can be recorded ture Thesaurus can be listed in the case of comparative here; 2) the type of ornamental form (floral, geometric, motif compilations. It is also valid for other types of com- animal) can also be recorded here, since it specifies the pilations, however, as a different selection of textile motifs, characteristic of the form itself; and, 3) the third sub- ceramic tiles, mural painting, etc. The content of the Cul- group of information, however, which denotes the terms tural Context field may provide an overview of the differ- related to theoretical approaches, requires some explana- ent historical styles or periods as interpreted from the tion. Besides compiling and classifying the ornamental viewpoint of historicism in the nineteenth century. forms of historical styles and natural forms, nineteenth- century pattern books provided space for theoretical 5.2.2 The description field questions. Pattern books dealing with the formal analysis of ornamental motifs form a particular segment of the A description field has been pasted in the Representation entire corpus. Handbooks of ornamental composition Data Group, in the context of the representation. Its con- analysed ornamental and natural forms on the principles tent comes from the “item” level, cutting it off from the of plane geometry and listed the general principles of de- textual content of the pattern books. The authors of the sign in the service of creating of a new style. The analysis comparative pattern books wrote detailed introductions for concerned both form and colour. It was again Owen each chapter of the whole collection. They attached short Jones, writing in The Grammar of Ornament, who first descriptions for the plates, mentioning the resources of the summarized (Jones 1856, 4), in thirty-seven propositions, ornamental motifs displayed on the plates. The informa- the “General principles in the arrangement of form and tion given here clarifies the characteristics of the original colour, in architecture and the decorative arts.” The works, including their object type, which is not always ob- chromolithographic plates in The Grammar of Ornament viously identifiable from the ornamental prints. The de- can be interpreted as illustrations of the ascertainments scription specifies the original object from which the or- made by Jones about form and colour. If the coloured namental motif derived and the object type. These descrip- plates of a pattern book (or even of a textbook) were de- tions are the best clarifying texts for the representations, so signed in order to illustrate the principles of form and are ideal for forming the contents of the description field. colour manifested in the ornamental motifs, the related terms (polychromy, architectural polychromy, theory of 5.2.3 The subjects field colour, theory of form, design, principles of design) must be recorded in this field. The subjects field can be filled conveniently after reading the brief descriptions of the ornamental prints. The information given in the cultural context field of the Rep- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 569 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Figure 6. The Representation Data Group (example: Jones 1856).

Figure 7. The Representation Data Group (example: Jones 1867). 570 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Field name Getty Level Example vocabs Actor ULAN facet: Persons, Artists Cole, Henry (English administrator, designer, and museum director, 1808-1882) facet: Non-Artists Pulszky, Károly (Hungarian museum director and collector, 1853-1899) Institution ULAN facet: Corporate Bodies National Gallery (British art museum, London, founded 1824) Related Events Period facet: Styles and Periods Historicism, Art Nouveau Place TGN nation level Germany Thematic Context AAT facet: Activities architecture, decorative arts, industrial arts / Disciplines / visual arts facet: Activities art education / Disciplines / education facet: Objects chromolithography, lithography, photolithography / Visual and Verbal Communication / Visual Works / visual works / visual works by material and technique / photomechanical prints or / prints / prints by process or technique

Table 4. The use of Getty Vocabularies in the Context Data Group.

5.2.4 The related works field cation of the pattern book (e.g., participation in a world or international exhibition), so the printed publication can be The related works field is an image field which contains considered as the documentation of the event. The previ- all the other ornamental prints attributed to the same ously mentioned Hungarian pattern book, “A magyar házi content, belonging to the cultural context field in the ipar díszítményei, 1879. - Ornamente der Hausindustrie Representation Data Group. Ungarns, 1879. - Ornements de l’industrie domestique de la Hongrie, 1879.,” served as the representative documen- 5.3 Group 3: Context Data Group (the cultural tation of the collection of common art objects (objects of and historical context of the object) “Hausindustrie”) that represented Hungary at the Vienna World Exhibition in 1873 (Pulszky és Fischbach 1879). The Context Data Group contains information related to The conceptual inventors of the collection, Flóris Rómer the cultural and historical context of the series of objects (1815-1889) and János Xántus (1825-1894), keepers of the (the entire pattern book or portfolio itself) with the fol- Hungarian National Museum, played an indirect but very lowing fields: actor, institution, period, related events, important role in the creation of the series of chromo- thematic context. All the content fields come from the lithographic prints. Indexing their names is therefore of “collection” level (Table 4). added value, for it helps reveal the historical context of these objects. Their names are mentioned in the introduc- 5.3.1 The actor field tory text of the book. The content relates to the whole series of prints, which is the reason why making a recording The actor field contains all actors who played a catalytic in this data group is so important (Figure 8). role in the realization of the book or portfolio. They cannot be identified either with those who were involved in 5.3.2 The institution field the production process (persons who made the drawings or lithographs, companies who printed the plates), or those The institution field serves to record all institutions (mu- who were identified as authors. They were involved in the seums, schools, ministries, societies, etc.), which can be event (see the related event field) that prompted the publi- associated, in a broader context, with the pattern book Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 571 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Figure 8. The Context Data Group (example: Pulszky-Fischbach 1879).

and its prints. Staying with the example above, the Hun- publishes the educational institution where the author of garian National Museum has to be recorded here as the the work was employed at the time the book was de- conserving institution of the collection of common art signed, printed and published. This information may also objects. Similarly, the London National Gallery has to be be valuable, not only as additional biographical data, but linked as an entity in the institution field to the selection as information that could help to reconstruct the network of textile motifs compiled by the English architect Syd- of schools, which played an active role in publishing pat- ney Vacher (1854-1934), titled Fifteenth century Italian orna- tern books and catalysing industrial development during ment: Chiefly taken from brocades and stuffs found in pictures in this period. This justifies the inclusion in this field of the the National Gallery London, published in 1886 (Vacher names of schools as institutional entities. 1886) (Figure 2). Not only did museums publish specimens for practical use in architecture, applied arts, design 5.3.4 The related events field and education, but professors of educational institutions were commissioned, supported and encouraged by their The related events field serves to record events, mainly schools or the cultural ministries to compile particular exhibitions, connected to the printed publications. In the motif collections for training purposes. The example of a case of Jones’s The Grammar of Ornament, it is the Great lesser known textbook highlights the role of the institu- Exhibition of London in 1851, while in the case of the tion field. Two textbooks by the Moravian painter and Pulszky-Fischbach album, it is the Vienna World Exhibi- draughtsman Anton Andel (1844-?) in the series titled tion in 1873, although national exhibitions can also be Grundzüge der Ornamentalen Formenlehre were widely used in listed in this field. the domain of elementary drawing education in normal and industrial schools in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy 5.3.5 The period field during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Das Polychrome Flachornament contains almost fifty chromo- The period field refers to the period when the whole series lithographic plates with ornamental motifs from different of prints was created, putting the pattern books in their styles and periods, and it was published with the support broader cultural context. The terms “historicism” and “art of the K. K. Ministerium für Cultus und Unterricht in nouveau” as sub-terms of the styles and periods facet in Vienna in 1880 (Andel 1880). Nevertheless, the title page the Getty AAT can be used here. Alternatively, it would be of the volume not only contains this information but also possible to use “nineteenth century CE” and “twentieth 572 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe century CE” in the associated concepts facet in the Getty refer to the object, and, similarly to the CDWA, four are AAT. defined as authorities (personal and corporate name, geographic place, concept, subject). In contrast, the LIDO 5.3.6 The place field does not work with separate authority categories, furthermore its core unit, the descriptiveMetadata main category The place field refers to the broader geographical loca- has been divided only into 4 subcategories: objectClassifi- tion of the pattern book and can be defined at the coun- cation, objectIdentification, event, and objectRelation. try level. While the starting point of CDWA and CCO is the object, LIDO emphasizes the importance of the event, and it de- 5.3.7 The thematic context field fines the data of creation as elements linking to the event. Considering the grouping of information, the logic of The thematic context field of the Context Data Group the three mentioned descriptive standards is different concerns all the general fields to which the pattern books from that of the ornamental prints conceptual model, are linked in a broader context. The main categories are as which is based on the needs coming from the approaches follows: 1) subjects, with terms referring to architecture or of the research. Tables 5-9 below show clearly that the the applied arts; 2) educational purposes of the publica- elements which belong to the same data group of the or- tion, with terms here referring to the main category of namental prints conceptual model (object or representa- education (art, applied arts, architecture, drawing, industrial tion or context) can be connected only to different cate- and public education); and, 3) techniques of production, gories of the descriptive standards. with terms referring to the main category of planographic and photomechanical printing processes (e.g., lithography, 7.0 Possible outputs of the standardized description photolithography, chromolithography, offset lithography), of ornamental prints using the objects facet of the Getty AAT. The theoretical model and the structure of the standard- 6.0 An attempt for applying the ornamental prints ized description of ornamental prints have been outlined conceptual model to the data structures of above. If the whole concept were to be implemented in existing standards like CDWA, CCO and LIDO actual practice, the following outputs for art historical research could be expected. The basic idea to elaborate the conceptual model for the standardized description of ornamental prints originates 1) The network of schools of architecture, fine arts, ap- from the needs of art historical research. The enriched, plied arts and industry that were involved in industrial context-based description of this object type could serve development during the nineteenth-twentieth centuries many advantages for this upwarding research field. The in Europe could be reconstructed. The information is main characteristic of this model is to separate clearly the based on the content of the institution field in the information related to the object, the representation and Context Data Group. the context, grouping all the coherent information to- 2) The network of the principal actors of education in gether, creating three groups of information in order to architecture, applied arts, industry and general drawing publishing them online. Below, an attempt has been made could be outlined. The information is based on the to integrate the ornamental prints conceptual model into content of the creator field in the Object Data Group the data structure of existing descriptive standards like and of the actor field in the Context Data Group. Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA; 3) A cross-section of ornamental motif sets of historical Baca and Harpring 2016), Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO; styles and periods could be defined, as interpreted by VRA 2017) and LIDO (Lightweight Information Describ- authors in the era of historicism and art nouveau. The ing Objects). These descriptive standards expand their information is based on the cultural context field in scope to the broad range of cultural heritage objects, con- the Representation Data Group. sidering the different requirements of diverse object types. The network of the printing houses of the period who Their structure is different, therefore the logic of describ- were involved in the production of pattern books ing ornamental prints in the systems is different. The could also be reconstructed, providing valuable data CDWA consists of thirty-one main categories, of which for the history of printing techniques. The informa- twenty-seven refer to the object itself, and four are defined tion is based on the content of the creator field in the as authorities (person/corporate, place/location, generic Object Data Group. concept, subject). The CCO is working with much less 4) Similarly, the network of the publishing houses of the main categories, of which the nine “element” categories period who were involved in the production of pat- Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 573 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Measurements Measurements (6.2) Dimensions Type, (6.3) Dimensions Value, (6.4) Dimensions Unit (6.) Measurements (core) Extent, Value, Unit, Type Measurements / Physical Characteristics displayObjectMeasurem ents objectMeasurementsSet / objectMeasurementsWr ap / objectIdentificationWra p / descriptiveMetadata Related Works [links to the images of the same series of ornamental prints] [links to the images of the same series of ornamental prints] [links to the images of the same series of ornamental prints] Materials/Techniques (7.5) Materials / Techniques Name (7.) Materials and Techniques (core) Material, Technique Materials and Techniques / Physical Characteristics eventMaterialsTech eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata Part Of (27.1) Citations for Sources, (27.1.1) Page, (27.1.2) Work Cited or Illustrated, (27.1.3.1) Number Type (27.) Related Textual References Related Work relatedWorkSet relatedWorksWrap / objectRelationWrap / descriptiveMetadata

Date (4.2) Creation Date (core) (4.) Creation (core) Creation Date Creator Information eventDate eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata Location (29.2) Place Name (29.) Place / Location Authority Names Geography Place / Authorities repositoryLocation repositorySet repositoryWrap / objectIdentificationWra p / descriptiveMetadata Title (3.1) Title Text (core) (3.) Titles or Names (core) Title Object Naming titleSet titleWrap / objectIdentificationWra p / descriptiveMetadata Provenance (23.1) Provenance Description (23.) Ownership / Collecting History Former Locations Location and Geography eventSet eventWrap / descriptiveMetadata

The Object Data Group in the data structures of CDWA, CCO and LIDO The Object Data Group in the data structures of CDWA, CCO and LIDO

Creator’s Role (4.1.4) Creator Role (core) (4.) Creation (core) Role Creator / Information roleActor actorInRole / eventActor / eventSet eventWrap / descriptiveMetadata Repository Name (21.2) Repository / Geographic Location (core) (21.) Current location (core) Current Location Location and Geography repositoryName repositorySet / repositoryWrap / objectIdentificationWra p / descriptiveMetadata Table 5.* Table 6.* OBJECT DATA GROUP Creator (4.1) Creator Description (core) (4.) Creation (core) Creator (linked to the Personal and Corporate Name Authority) Creator Information eventActor eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata OBJECT DATA GROUP Inventory Number (21.2.3) Repository Numbers (core) (21.) Current Location (core) ID Current Location / Location and Geography workID repositorySet / repositoryWrap / objectIdentificationWra p / descriptiveMetadata Elements / Categories element broader categories element broader categories element broader categories Elements / Categories element broader categories element broader categories element broader categories Descriptive Standard CDWA CCO LIDO Descriptive Standard CDWA CCO LIDO 574 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

Place (29.2) Place Name (core), (29.) Place / Location Authority (core) Names Geography Place / Authorities partOfPlace subjectPlace / subjectSet / subjectWrap / objectRelationWrap / descriptiveMetadata Period (5.2) Styles / Periods Indexing Terms (5.) Styles / Periods Groups / Movements Culture (linked to the Concept Authority) Stylistic, Cultural and Chronologocal Information periodName eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata

Related Works [links to the visual resources of the representation] [links to the visual resources of the representation] [links to the visual resources of the representation] Related Events (17.1) Historical / Cultural Events (17.) Context Broader Context Subject Authority relatedEventSet eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata

Subjects (16.2) General Subject Term (core) (16.) Subject Matter (core) Subject Subject subjectSet subjectWrap / objectRelationWrap / descriptiveMetadata Institution (28.2) Person Name (core) (28.) Person / Corporate Body Authority (core) Names Personal and Corporate Name Authority eventActor eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata

The Context Data Group in the data structures of CDWA, CCO and LIDO Description (16.1) Subject Display (16.) Subject Matter (core) Description Description objectDescriptionSet objectDescriptionWrap / objectIdentificationWra p / desrciptiveMetadata Actor’s Role (28.10) Life Roles (core) (28.) Person / Corporate Body Authority (core) Role Creator / Information roleActor actorInRole / eventActor / eventSet eventWrap / descriptiveMetadata The Representation Data Group in the data structures of CDWA, CCO and LIDO Table 8.* Table 7.* REPRESENTATION DATA GROUP REPRESENTATION Cultural Context (16.3) Specific Subject Terms (16.) Subject Matter (core) Culture (linked to the Concept Authority) Stylistic, Cultural and Chronologocal Information culture eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata CONTEXT DATA GROUP Actor (28.2) Person Name (core) (28.) Person / Corporate Body Authority (core) Creator (linked to the Personal and Corporate Name Authority) Creator Information eventActor eventSet / eventWrap descriptiveMetadata Elements / Categories element broader categories element broader categories element broader categories Elements / Categories element broader categories element broader categories element broader categories Descriptive Standard CDWA CCO LIDO Descriptive Standard CDWA CCO LIDO Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 575 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

The Context Data Group in the data structures of CDWA, CCO and LIDO

Table 9.* *Where an object-related element is not applicable, authority appears instead CONTEXT DATA GROUP Thematic Context (2.1) Classification Term (core) (2.) Classification (core) Class (linked to an Authority Record for Class) Class objectClassificationWra p descriptiveMetadata Elements / Categories element broader categories element broader categories element broader categories

Descriptive Standard CDWA CCO LIDO 576 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

tern books could also be reconstructed, providing Decrossas, Michaël et Fléjou, Lucie. 2014. Ornements XVe- valuable data for the history of book publishing. The XIXe siècles. Chefs-d’œuvre de la Bibliothèque de l’INHA, information is based on the content of the creator collections Jacques-Doucet. Paris: Mare & Martin. field in the Object Data Group. Dolmetsch, Heinrich. 1887. Der Ormementenschatz ein Mus- terbuch stilvoller Ornamente aus allen Kunstepochen. Stuttgart: 7.0 Conclusion: from an object-based description Hoffmann. towards a context-based description Dupont-Auberville, M. 1877. L’ornement des tissus. Paris: Ducher et Cie. In the case study outlined above, the emphasis shifted Fischbach, Friedrich. 1874. Ornamente der Gewebe mit beson- from an object-based description of the prints toward a derer Benutzung der ehemaligen Bock’schen Stoffsammlung des context-based description, which prompted useful experi- K. K. österr. Museums für Kunst-Industrie in Wien. Hanau: ments in the domain of collection management. The en- G. M. Alberti. riched description and the deeper study of visual works Gruner, Lewis and Braun, Emil. 1850. Specimens of Orna- which belong to the same object type and represent the mental Art: Selected from the Best Models of the Classical Ep- same period could provide an unusual cross-section of an ochs. London: Thomas M’Lean. art historical period. It may lead to a more detailed, multi- Harpring, Patricia. 2010. Introduction to Controlled Vocabular- layered understanding of the era of historicism and art ies: Terminologies for Art, Architecture, and Other Cultural nouveau. In this context, the advanced description of ob- Works. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. jects goes far beyond everyday inventory practice, and can Jones, Owen. 1856. The Grammar of Ornament. London: be evaluated as art historical research itself and as part of Day & Son. the domain called “digital art history.” Jones, Owen. 1867. Examples of Chinese Ornament: Selected from Objects in the South Kensington Museum and other Col- References lections. London: S. & T. Gilbert. Katona, Júlia és György, Judit. 2010. Díszítmények és ideák Andel, Anton. 1880. Grundzüge der ornamentale Formenlehre. vonzásában. A Magyar Képzőművészeti Egyetem Könyvtárának Wien: Verlag von R. v. Waldheim. díszítőművészeti könyvritkasággyűjteménye. Budapest: Magyar Baca, Murtha and Patricia Harpring, eds. 2016. Categories Képzőművészeti Egyetem. for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), rev. Patricia Katona, Júlia. 2015. “Towards Complexity: Case Study to Harpring. J. Paul Getty Trust; College Art Association. the Experiment of ‘Visualization and Indexing of Mu- http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electroni seum Content’: The Context of the nineteenth-Century c_publications/cdwa/ Ornamental Prints.” Uncommon Culture 6:122-29. http:// Bossert, Theodor Helmuth. 1924. Das Ornamentwerk. Eine journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/UC/article/view/6211 Sammlung angewandter farbigen Ornamente und Dekorationen. Katona, Júlia. 2016. “Two Case Studies.” PowerPoint Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der weniger bekannten Kul- presentation at the International Council of Museums turen für den praktischen Gebrauch. Berlin: Wasmuth. conference, Milan, 3 July 2016. http://network.icom. Bötticher, Karl. 1834-1844. Ornamenten-Buch: Zum prac- museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/cidoc/ tischen Gebrauche fur Architecten, Decorations- und Stuben- ConferenceGuidelines/prints_casts_lido_getty_julia maler, Tapeten-Fabrikanten, Seiden-, Woll- und Damastweber _katona_end.pdf u.s.w. Berlin: Ernst & Korn. Lanzi, Elisa. 1998. Introduction to Vocabularies: Enhancing Brand, Joachim und Evers, Bernd. 2000. Ornamentale Vor- Access to Cultural Heritage Information. Los Angeles: lagenwerke des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Ein Bestandskatalog Getty Information Institute. der Kunstbibliothek. Berlin: SMPK, Staatlichen Museen Meurer, Moritz. 1895. Pflanzenformen. Vorbildliche Beispiele zur zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Einfuhrung̈ in das ornamentale Studium der Pflanze; zum Ge- Clouzot, Henri et Engerand, Louis. 1912. Catalogue général brauche fur̈ Kunstgewerbe- und Bauschulen, Technische de la bibliothèque Forney. Paris: Honoré Champion. Hochschulen und hoherë Unterrichtsanstalten sowie fur̈ Architek- Clouzot, Henri et Rémon, Georges. 1915. Catalogue général ten und Kunsthandwerker. Dresden: Verlag von Gerhard de la bibliothèque Forney. Paris: Edouard Champion. Kuhtmann.̈ Coburn, Erin, Richard Light, Gordon McKenna, Regine Pulszky, Károly and Friedrich Fischbach. 1879. A magyar Stein and Axel Vitzthum. 2010. Lightweight Information házi ipar díszítményei, 1879. - Ornamente der Hausindustrie Describing Objects. Version 1.0. ICOM-CIDOC. http:// Ungarns, 1879: Ornements de l’industrie domestique de la www.lido-schema.org/schema/v1.0/lido-v1.0-specific Hongrie, 1879. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Museum. ation.pdf Racinet, Albert. 1869-1873. L’Ornement polychrome: 100 planches en couleurs or et argent contenant environ 2000 motifs de Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 577 J. M. Katona. The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Ornamental Prints Published in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe

tous les styles art ancien et asiatique, Moyen Âge, Renaissance, Twyman, Michael. 2013. A History of Chromolithography: XVIIe et XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Firmin-Didot. Printed Colour for All. London: British Library; New Cas- Racinet, Albert. 1885-1887. L’Ornement polychrome: Deuxième tle, DE: Oak Knoll Press. série. Cent vingt planches en couleur or et argent. Art ancien et Vacher, Sydney. 1886. Fifteenth Century ITALIAN ornament: asiatique, Moyen Âge, Renaissance, XVIIe, XVIIIe et XIXe Chiefly taken from Brocades and Stuffs found in Pictures in the siècles. Paris: Firmin-Didot. National Gallery London. London: Bernard Quaritch. Schneider-Henn, Dietrich. 1997. Ornament und Dekoration. Visual Resources Association. 2017. “The CCO Com- Vorlagenwerke und Motivsammlungen des, 19. und 20. Jahr- mons: Cataloging Cultural Objects.” http://cco.vrafound hunderts. München, New York: Prestel Verlag. ation.org/index.php Science and Art Department. 1883. A List of Works on Or- Zahn, Wilhelm. 1828. Die schönsten Ornamente und merk- nament in the National Art Library: (Compiled for the Use of würdigsten Gemälde aus Pompeji, Herculanum und Stabiae. Students and Visitors]. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. Berlin: G. Reimer. Speltz, Alexander. 1914. Das farbige Ornament aller historischen Stile. Leipzig: Baumgärtner’s Buchhandlung.

578 Knowl. Org. 44(2017)No.7 Books Recently Published

Books Recently Published Compiled by J. Bradford Young

Bernard, H. Russell, Amber Wutich, Gery W. Ryan. 2017. O’Brien, Dan. 2017. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowl- Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches, 2nd ed. edge, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Los Angeles: SAGE. Pommerening, Tanja and Walter Bisang. 2017. Classifica- Chand, Salek. 2017. Library Indexing and Abstracting. New tion from Antiquity to Modern Times: Sources, Methods, and Delhi: Random Publications. Theories from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Berlin: Walter Gunjal, Bhojaraju, ed. 2017. Managing Knowledge and Schol- de Gruyter. arly Assets in Academic Libraries. Advances in Library Rokade, S. M. 2017. Knowledge Organization in Library and and Information Science Book Series. Hershey, PA: Information Science. Knowledge Organization in Library Information Science Reference. & Information Science. New Delhi: Crescent Publish- Hamill, Lois. 2017. Archival Arrangement and Description: ing Corporation. Analog to Digital. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Spy Pond Partners. 2017. Improving Findability and Relevance Johnston, Lisa R., ed. 2017. Curating Research Data. Chi- of Transportation Information. NCHRP Research Report cago: Association of College and Research Libraries. 846. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Josephides, Lisette and Anne Sigfrid Grønseth, eds. 2017. Wiesenmuller,̈ Heidrun and Silke Horny. 2017. Basiswissen The Ethics of Knowledge-Creation: Transactions, Relations RDA: Eine Einfuhrung̈ fur̈ deutschsprachige Anwender, 2nd and Persons. Methodology and History in Anthropology rev. ed. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. 31. New York: Berghahn Books. Longo, Brunella. 2017. The Neglected Librarian: Seven Arti- cles on Cataloguing Big Data 2010-2011. London: Online Data Assessment.