2 DELIVERABLE REPORT Doc. Identifier: D. 2.3 State of the Art of Virtual Museums Date: 31-01-2014 DELIVERABLE REPORT D 2.3 Document identifier: V-Must.net - D 2.3c Due Date of Delivery to EC End of Month 8 – 30 September 2011 Actual Date of Delivery to EC M36 Document date: 03/03/2014 Deliverable Title: State of the art on Virtual Museums in Europe and outside Europe Work package: WP 2 Lead Beneficiary: CNR KCL, FHW, INRIA, Ulund, CREF-Cyl, IME, UVA, Cultnat, CDR, Other Beneficiaries FHG, VisDim, SEAV, NL, UoB, Daniele Ferdani, CNR ITABC [other contributors] Marco Sartini, Paolo Vigliarolo, Hugh Denard, Andrew Prescott, Authors: Sofia Pescarin, Victor Menchero Lopez, Efsthasia Chatzi, Giorgos Giannoulis, Sorin Hermon, Luigi Calori, Holger Graff, Breffni O’Malley, Emanuel Demetrescu, Alessandra Antonaci Document status: Version Document link: http://www.v-must.net/library/documents Grant Agreement 270404 KCL Public 1 /192 2 DELIVERABLE REPORT Doc. Identifier: D. 2.3 State of the Art of Virtual Museums Date: 31-01-2014 Changes Version Date Comment Authors Marco Sartini, Paolo Vigli- 1.1 10/10/2011 Addenda by CDR arolo, Marco Sartini, Paolo Vigliarolo, Giorgos 1.2 10/10/2011 Structure modification by CDR and FHW Giannoulis, Esftathia Chatzi Marco Sartini, Paolo Vi- 1.3 30/10/2011 Addenda by CDR gliarolo, Esftathia Chatzi Marco Sartini, Paolo Vi- gliarolo, Sofia Pescarin, 1.4 31/10/2011 Addenda by CDR Esftathia Chatzi Mrco Sartini, Paolo Viglia- rolo, Hugh Denard, An- Structure modification by KCL, CNR, SEAV and 1.5 14/10/2011 drew Prescott, Sofia Pe- CDR scarin Daniele Ferdani,Emanuel Demetrescu, Esftathia Structure modification and addenda by CNR- 1.6 12/01/2013 Chatzi, Giorgos Giannou- ITABC lis. Copyright notice: Copyright © V-Must.net. For more information on V-Must.net, its partners and contributors please see http://www.v-must.net/ The information contained in this document reflects only the author's views and the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Grant Agreement 270404 KCL Public 2 /192 2 DELIVERABLE REPORT Doc. Identifier: D. 2.3 State of the Art of Virtual Museums Date: 31-01-2014 Table of Contents 1.Executive summary..............................................................................................................4 2.Aim of the report..................................................................................................................4 3.Challenges in defining “Virtual Museums”............................................................................4 4.“Virtual Museum” work-in-progress definition.......................................................................6 5.2011 - ON LINE SURVEY..................................................................................................10 5.1Methodology of the online survey ...........................................................................10 5.2Categories of VM technologies and deployment purposes .....................................12 Scenario 3: Web-delivered Virtual Museum.................................................................15 Scenario 4: Multimedia Virtual Museum.......................................................................17 Scenario 5: Digital Archive...........................................................................................18 5.32011 Conclusions....................................................................................................19 5.4What “innovation” means in VMs? 2 case studies...................................................19 5.5New researches required in 2011............................................................................21 6.2012 “EXPERT” SURVEY in 2012.....................................................................................22 6.1Goal and methodology............................................................................................22 6.2Results ...................................................................................................................23 6.3Representative cases evaluated.............................................................................27 7.2013 “EXPERT” SURVEY in 2013.....................................................................................44 7.1Goal and methodology............................................................................................44 8ANNEXES...........................................................................................................................46 8.1ANNEX 1: LIST OF SURVEYED EXAMPLES (survey 2011).........................47 8.2ANNEX 2: CHART AND IMAGES (survey 2011)...........................................86 8.3ANNEX 3: LIST OF SURVEYED EXAMPLES (UPDATED VERSION 2012) 93 8.4ANNEX 4: CHARTS AND IMAGES (2011 and 2012 surveys).....................142 8.5ANNEX 5: LIST OF SURVEYED EXAMPLES (UPDATED VERSION 2013) 157 8.6ANNEX 6: CHARTS (2011, 2012 and 2013 surveys)...................................190 8.7ANNEX 7: BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................195 Grant Agreement 270404 KCL Public 3 /192 2 DELIVERABLE REPORT Doc. Identifier: D. 2.3 State of the Art of Virtual Museums Date: 31-01-2014 1. Executive summary This document describes the work carried out within the Virtual Museum Transnational Project (V- MUST.NET) and the !ork Packa"e # $house of &uestions' dedicated to establish re(uirements and criteria analysis in the Virtual Museum domain. This document contains the research and the state of the art about Virtual Museums (VM) taking into account the results of Deli+erables #., and #.# and increasin" them with new researches about the -resence of VM in Europe and outside Europe describing and anal).ing their main characteristics. 2. Aim of the report !ith this Deli+erable we aim at drawin" an o+er+iew of Virtual Museums in Europe and outside Europe tr)ing to better de%ine their identit) based on /0ate"ories/ and "De%initions/ alread) chosen in Deli+erable #.,. 0ross-sectional analysis of each VM is use%ul not onl) %or data collection and catalo"ing but also to tr) to reach a clear de%inition VM. 1%ter the acti+ities in the House of &uestions in %act what has emer"ed is not what it means as VM. 3ne of the main objecti+es of !P # is -recisel) to achie+e a correct de%inition of VM so that in the %uture we can include onl) certain instances of the VM. Starting with some -roposals %or de%ining the VMs that arise %rom the interaction with -artners and %rom the analysis of the material alread) -roduced b) the acti+ities of the !P !e carried out an e4tensi+e research on the web using di%%erent web browser and +arious keywords related to VMs. Throu"h this research and analysis work we intend to make %urther -rogress on the knowled"e about the -resence of VMs in the world and their characteristics so then tr) to move %urther to - wards the most objecti+e -ossible de%initions of the VM. This research of VMs in the world and the identi%ication of their "eogra-hic location will allow us to identi%) the countries where there are most -resence of MVs. In addition, the analysis and com-ar- ison of each VM identi%ied will hi"hli"ht the di+ersit) of understanding of VM re"istered amon"st the +arious countries in Europe and outside Euro-e. 6urthermore the subdi+ision of VMs distinct b) cate"ories of content here im-lemented res-ect D.#., will allow us to identi%) and also to e4amine VMs with others contents %rom those strictl) dedicated to cultural herita"e. Grant Agreement 270404 KCL Public 4 /192 2 DELIVERABLE REPORT Doc. Identifier: D. 2.3 State of the Art of Virtual Museums Date: 31-01-2014 3. Challenges in defining “Virtual Museums So what is a Virtual Museum7 The -roblem when we try to %ind a de%inition, is that the term “Virtu - al Museum' is currently used in many di%%erent ways as a sort of “short-cut”. 8illes Deleuze de%ines the world $+irtual' as 9 tout cham- -robl:mati(ue susce-tible d;:tablir des liens entre des objets ou des -rocessus en a--arence :trangers les uns aux autres< le +irtuel est en- ti=rement r:el m>me si tout en lui n’est -as actualis: » (Deloche #@@,). As 6. Antinucci was writing in #@@A “This %act immediately becomes a--arent when we obser+e the +ari ous entities that are called b) this name and reali.e that we are dealing with a wide +ariet) of +ery di%%erent things often without any theory or conce-t in common”. (Antinucci #@@A< AB) He also was indicating a -ossible way to start to de%ine a Virtual Museums by “stating what a +irtual museum is not”. This e4ercise seems to be in %act easier and the result was the %ol- lowing (Antinucci #@@A<C@-C,)< a. ”The virtual museum is not the real museum transposed to the web (or to any electronic form)” b. “ The virtual museum is not an archive of, database of, or electronic complement to the real museum”. These archives in fact aren’t developed for ordinary visitors, who do not have enough understanding, ending with a non-communicative result. c. “The virtual museum, finally, is not what is missing from the real museum” The real -otentialit) of a +irtual museum is hel-ing "uidin" users and +isitors who do not alread) “know' a topic communicatin" with them. 1ntinucci moreover underlined as “the +isual narrat- i+e is the best means to e%%ecti+el) communicate about objects in a museum to the ordinar) +isitor”. In order to de+elop hypotheses of de%inition of VMs 5t;s %irst undoubtedl) necessar) to de%ine what is a museum. The de%initions of museum can be ob+iousl) many, de-endin" on which