Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the current state of Linked Data (LD) in archival moving image description, and propose ways in which current metadata records can be enriched and enhanced by interlinking such metadata with relevant information found in other data sets.

Several possible metadata models for moving image production and archiving are considered, including models from records management, digital curation, and the recent BIBFRAME AV Modeling Study. This research also explores how mappings between archival moving image records and relevant external data sources might be drawn, and what gaps exist between current vocabularies and what is needed to record and make accessible the full lifecycle of archiving through production, use, and reuse.

The author notes several major impediments to implementation of LD for archival moving images. The various pieces of information about creators, places, and events found in moving image records are not easily connected to relevant information in other sources because they are often not semantically defined within the record and can be hidden in unstructured fields. Libraries, archives, and museums must work on aligning the various vocabularies and schemas of potential value for archival moving image description to enable interlinking between vocabularies currently in use and those which are used by external data sets. Alignment of vocabularies is often complicated by mismatches in granularity between vocabularies.

The focus is on how these models inform functional requirements for access and other archival activities, and how the field might benefit from having a common metadata model for critical archival descriptive activities.

By having a shared model, archivists may more easily align current vocabularies and develop new vocabularies and schemas to address the needs of moving image data creators and scholars.

Moving image archives, like other cultural institutions with significant heritage holdings, can benefit tremendously from investing in the semantic definition of information found in their information databases. While commercial entities such as search engines and data providers have already embraced the opportunities that semantic search provides for resource discovery, most non-commercial entities are just beginning to do so. Thus, this research addresses the benefits and challenges of enriching and enhancing archival moving image records with semantically defined information via LD.

Moving images represent a category of material which has historically received short shrift in most libraries and archives. Film, video, and now digital images form a significant part of many library and archival collections, however, and can be found in many formats and genres. Despite the ubiquity of such media in cultural institutions, the majority of libraries and archives owning collections of moving images have neglected these holdings—with the specific exception of those few archives devoted primarily to the care and preservation of moving images.

As I make my last contribution as editor of Advances in Librarianship, I would like to say a few words about my twelve years’ experience with this annual. My tenure has greatly enriched my life both professionally and personally. My first association with Advances goes back to 1980 when I was asked to submit an article on library materials budgeting for volume 10. Later, in 1992 I joined Advances as a member of its editorial advisory board. At that time, Irene Godden (Colorado State) edited the volume. I owe her a great debt for her counseling and guidance. After Godden resigned in 1998, I took over as co-editor of Advances and from 2001 (volume 25) I have been its sole editor. Through all these years, I truly enjoyed working with my colleagues on the editorial board and with the many prominent librarians whose papers appeared in Advances. I am especially grateful to Nancy Allen (University of Denver), G. Edward Evans (Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles), and Mary Jean Pavelsek (NYU), longtime editorial board members, who constantly provided encouragement and support. As editor I worked closely with the publishing staff, first at Academic and later Elsevier. I would like to single out both Marvin Yelles (Academic) and Christopher Pringle (Elsevier) and their assistants, Naomi Henning and Julie Neden, for their excellent work in turning manuscripts into the fine finished books that the reader sees.