2021
DOI: 10.1002/pra2.526
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Management Software for Monitoring Related Versions of Cultural Heritage Artifacts for Libraries and Museums

Abstract: In cultural object conservation, tracking provenance has served as the foundational method of managing information for historical artifacts. To find data points, archivists identify related versions of an artifact at various time points. In this paper, we discuss four categories with versioned examples to display the importance of data points for identifying patterns over time through events in history, cultural heritage, performing arts, and fine arts. We describe our use of the Ashurbanipal diristry to docum… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For our purposes, provenance does not refer to the relatively narrow sense of why, how, and where-from input data in a database influenced the output of a query as reviewed in (Cheney et al 2009), but rather to the broader concept of who (or what automated agent) produced which version of an artifact by what process, as defined in (Moreau et al 2010). In prior work, we discussed how such a notion of provenance could apply to cultural artifacts, for which the emphasis is on physical artifacts rather than digital ones (Athreya et al 2021). Here, we focus on representing the provenance of scholarly literature, where the key artifacts are the specific versions of a document, digital or physical, and the roles people and software agents created in producing it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For our purposes, provenance does not refer to the relatively narrow sense of why, how, and where-from input data in a database influenced the output of a query as reviewed in (Cheney et al 2009), but rather to the broader concept of who (or what automated agent) produced which version of an artifact by what process, as defined in (Moreau et al 2010). In prior work, we discussed how such a notion of provenance could apply to cultural artifacts, for which the emphasis is on physical artifacts rather than digital ones (Athreya et al 2021). Here, we focus on representing the provenance of scholarly literature, where the key artifacts are the specific versions of a document, digital or physical, and the roles people and software agents created in producing it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%