Using Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) and CDWA Lite

Lubas, Rebecca L.; Jackson, Amy; Schneider, Ingrid

doi:10.1016/b978-1-84334-729-3.50005-4

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the approach presented in Wang and Strong (1996), we define metrics that go beyond accuracy, as we are interested in (1) the coverage of the KGs schemas and their data, (2) the references and interlinking with existing taxonomies that identify subjects in art (Iconclass, Getty), (3) alignments and ( 4) linking to external KGs to foster poly-vocality in art interpretations. These general metrics were adapted for the evaluation of the specific domain of knowledge, to obtain a specific quality assessment on domain data.…”

Section: Evaluation Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We refer to Baroncini et al (2021) for a comparison between the main theories which move from this first formalization attempt. For this study, we adopt Panofsky's theory to evaluate the level of description of artworks in available graphs due to its historical relevance and as it is cited as a reference for subject description by the main cataloguing standards of the field [3]. However, aspects put forward by other art historians will be considered.…”

Section: Artwork Descriptions and Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is dc:subject enough? A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web

Baroncini

Sartini

Erp³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeIn the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects.Design/methodology/approachThis study’s analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians’ theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures’ suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness.FindingsThis study’s results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity.Originality/valueThe main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study’s results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Artwork Descriptions and Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is dc:subject enough? A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web

Baroncini

Sartini

Erp³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Encoded Archival Description (2002) recommends inclusion of such characteristics as form and arrangement of materials; significant subjects represented; places represented; events represented; significant organisations and individuals represented; and collection strengths. CCO (Visual Resources Association, 2006) and CDWA (Baca and Harpring, 2009) suggest recording information about subject, significance and function in itemlevel free-text Description element. OSU Knowledge Bank Metadata Application Profile for Digital Video (Ohio State University Libraries, 2006) recommends inclusion of provenance and history of the work, as well as the nature of the language of the resource.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the richness of collection-level subject metadata in three large-scale digital libraries

Zavalina

2012

IJMSO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of digital libraries worldwide are now generating collection-level metadata to describe entire digital collections as integral wholes. This paper reports results of the study that used an in-depth comparative content analysis to assess free-text and controlledvocabulary collection-level subject metadata in three large-scale digital libraries in the European Union and the USA. As observed by this study, the emerging best practices in creating collection-level subject metadata include: (a) describing collection's subject matter with mutually complementary values in controlled-vocabulary and free-text metadata; (b) encoding a variety of collection properties in free-text metadata, including both subject properties (topical, geographic and temporal coverage, and types/genres of objects) and non-subject information: title, size, provenance, collection development, copyright, audience, navigation and functionality, language of items in a digital collection, frequency of additions, institutions that host a collection or contribute to it, funding sources, item creators, importance, uniqueness and comprehensiveness of a digital collection.

show abstract

Publicación de datos abiertos en instituciones de patrimonios culturales

Ninin¹,

Simionato²

2018

Palabra clave

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A partir del creciente movimiento de datos abiertos y de los debates acerca de la publicación de datos, se cuestiona: ¿cómo los centros de información pueden incitar a la publicación de estos datos en un formato abierto para facilitar la difusión, el acceso, uso y reutilización? El objetivo es, entonces, presentar la propuesta de publicación de datos abiertos en las instituciones de patrimonios culturales, proveniente de los resultados de un estudio comparativo entre los aspectos de metadatos relacionados con la descripción de patrimonios culturales y las buenas prácticas de publicación de datos que son recomendadas por el Consorcio World Wide Web (W3C). Los métodos y procedimientos incluyeron la investigación exploratoria en la literatura científica y documental, nacional e internacional, acerca del movimiento de publicación de datos y sobre el uso de metadatos en la representación de patrimonios culturales. Se presenta un estudio que compara los aspectos de metadatos relacionados con la descripción de patrimonios culturales y las buenas prácticas de publicación de datos recomendados en documento por el Consorcio World Wide Web (W3C). Los resultados mostraron una confluencia entre los objetivos del consorcio W3C, los procesos de representación practicados por la Ciencia de la Información y el alcance general de las Humanidades digitales con respecto a la sostenibilidad de los datos publicados y de la gestión de datos en el ambiente digital. Se propone un procedimiento de publicación de datos abiertos para ser aplicado por las instituciones culturales, como un incentivo para el entendimiento y uso de las herramientas del movimiento por las instituciones culturales nacionales.

show abstract

Using Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) and CDWA Lite

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Is dc:subject enough? A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web

Is dc:subject enough? A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web

Exploring the richness of collection-level subject metadata in three large-scale digital libraries

Publicación de datos abiertos en instituciones de patrimonios culturales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About