KNOWLEDGE, MUSEUMS AND
THE WEB
June 1997
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Knowledge and the World
Wide Web 1
The Internet: a Tool for Knowledge
Dissemination or Creation?
Some Thoughts Based on Experience 5
If You Build It, Will They Find It?
A Report on a Metadata Workshop 9
|
Edited by Pierre Landry
Coordinated by Barbara Lang Rottenberg
Printed and distributed by the Canadian Heritage Information Network
|
|
KNOWLEDGE AND THE WORLD WIDE WEB
by
Pierre B. LANDRY, Curator, Art/thèque, National Gallery of Canada
|
Last year in Vancouver at the Museums and Electronic Distribution SIG meeting, we discussed the advantages as well as the problems and costs that museums had to face in setting up a World Wide Web site. Cliff Quinn, in particular, gave us an excellent assessment of the situation, underlining the need for quality and professionalism in content and graphics presentation. Over the past year, the Internet has increasingly become part of our daily lives, at a pace that even the optimists among us could not have predicted. We no longer wonder whether a Web site would be useful. A few weeks ago, members of a working group met in Montreal to discuss structures for electronic media productions. The group commented that creating a Web site or a CD-ROM was now a rite of passage that any museum worthy of the name had to undergo.
A Web site or electronic mail address is a necessary addition to telephone and fax numbers for any organization that offers services or products. The media, from the Globe and Mail to the CBC, all have their own sites. Salespeople of all kinds describe their products on the Internet and scholars post their curriculum vitae there. The Internet is rapidly asserting itself as a communications medium in business, culture and recreation — electronic mail is becoming as ubiquitous as the fax. Moreover, the Web already appears to be headed towards convergence with that ultimate mass medium, television. The recent U.S. announcement concerning the introduction of digitized television channels — people are already predicting that digitized television sets will replace analogue models by the year 2006 — is a clear sign that the future of the World Wide Web will be played out in the homes of consumers, at least in developed countries.
The communications medium we call the World Wide Web has certainly evolved over the years. Sound, video, multimedia, 2D and 3D animation, and increasingly sophisticated graphics have made it an extremely dynamic and flexible medium, particularly with the growing number of “plug ins(1). I admit that the unprecedented growth of the medium can be annoying, if not downright irritating, when messages pour in from every corner — such and such a program has to be down loaded from such and such a site, another program has to be updated and, of course, connections get interrupted because the lines or servers are overloaded. It reminds me of the snow we used to get on old black-and-white television sets when the picture would slowly disappear during a good soap opera or right in the middle of a hockey game.
We no longer have any doubt that the Web is a formidable public relations tool. Museums quickly understood this potential and use it to good effect to disseminate a whole range of information, from their hours of operation to the museum’s location, mission, activities, collections and history. But, after this lengthy preamble, I want to come to the following point: how are we using, and more especially, how WILL we use, this new communication medium to disseminate knowledge?
As a starting point, I would suggest that knowledge generated in museums focuses on two main activities. Museums, whose missions are built around a collection of objects, use the objects as primary sources of research and develop knowledge that is specific to them, from which they infer more general, or distilled, knowledge. On the other hand, a number of institutions, particularly science and natural science museums, contribute equally significant, or perhaps even greater resources, to research and to the development of free learning activities for the public that are directly related to collections. Let us see how different museums disseminate this knowledge on the Web.
In 1995, David A. Wallace analyzed the contents of sixteen American and Canadian museum Web sites.(2) Wallace observed that these museums provided only a few images and scanty information about their collections, and did not provide a retrieval interface. I have extracted the following from his conclusions:
Unfortunately, for all four types of museums surveyed, the amount of digitized object offerings is not as robust as one would hope or expect. And, it is not entirely clear as to why this is the case. [...] While museums may have sound justifications at this point in not offering a wide assortment of images, there is no clear reason why documentation was found to be so often lacking. Documentation is one of the crucial areas in the networked digital environment. [...] Also puzzling was the absence of search and retrieval interfaces (not to mention indexes!) Not only to the collections but also to the sites themselves.(3)
Where are we now? I once again browsed a few sites created by Canadian museums, using a simplified evaluation form based on Wallace.(4) I focused chiefly on the way collections and exhibitions were presented, on documentation and on content created specifically for the Internet. I visited five art galleries (the Art Gallery of Ontario, the National Gallery of Canada, the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, the Mackenzie Art Gallery and the Glenbow Art Gallery), three museums of history and civilization (the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Musée de la civilisation and the Royal British Columbia Museum) and two science museums or centres (the Edmonton Science and Space Centre and the Saskatchewan Science Centre) as well as a number of sites devoted to museums and culture.
Although the sites varied considerably in depth and complexity, almost all responded well to the need to inform potential visitors about opening hours, admission prices, activities and exhibition programs. On the other hand, if I ask the question, “What did I learn by visiting the site that is specific to the mandate of this museum and that I would have only discovered by visiting or reading one of their publications?”, the reply in more than half the cases would not amount to much.
As Wallace found in 1995, museums do not use the retrieval systems linked to their databases to provide complete access to their collections. The Mackenzie Art Gallery, however, lists the works in its collections, along with fact sheets, a small number of illustrations and, more especially, rather useful biographical details about the artists on display. The Mackenzie Art Gallery is affiliated to the University of Regina which seems to have contributed to putting together this Web catalogue. The Royal British Columbia Museum provides excellent descriptions of the totems in its collections, along with old photographs of them, but I could not find any recent photographs of the totems. The treatment most museums that focus on collections resort to consists of not much more than a few illustrated representative samples along with a short description, or even the fact sheet on the work; these examples often appear alongside a general overview of the collections. Curiously enough, the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal has chosen to concentrate on its “Médiathèque”. Rather than concerning itself with works of art, it provides catalogues of the documentary resources available at the gallery; we have here a documentary resource index, like a library catalogue, because the documents themselves have not been made available.
Turning now to exhibitions, we primarily find short promotional descriptions aimed at motivating cybernauts to visit the museum by informing them about what they would find there. Some museums, however, have gone into this area more deeply and present their virtual visitors with a substantial amount of material. This is clearly the case with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is definitely the Canadian museum that has invested the most in new information and communication technologies and which, in addition to providing interesting material on its exhibitions, also created the Musée virtuel de Nouvelle-France that was described in a previous issue of this newsletter. On the other hand, lovers of the Albertosaurus and other equally legendary creatures will certainly be very happy with a visit to the Royal Tyrrell Museum. Their virtual tour, whether it follows a thematic plan or the order of the museum’s exhibition halls, is complete in itself and enables non-experts to learn in a captivating way how the earth was formed, what the badlands are — did you know that this expression came from the French mauvaise terres? — how life developed, and especially, what fossils and dinosaurs can be found in the museum. In this vein, I would also like to highlight the Royal British Columbia Museum’s section on animals and plants for the depth of its information on the Red List of Threatened Animals and Plants.
Other museums have opted to use resources that already exist on the Internet. This is the case at the Edmonton Space and Science Centre where net surfers can whet their appetite for knowledge, and their curiosity about images of the comet, Hale-Bopp, before they realize that a hypertext link has propelled them from Edmonton to Houston and the NASA site.
I firmly believe that all museums, whether they deal in art, history, science or nature, like to think that they are places of learning and knowledge, knowledge that they earnestly want to share with their peers and their community. Nevertheless, very few of us have learned how to maximize our use of the Internet to attain this goal. The majority of museum sites I visited barely contained much more than promotional material that would not meet the needs of even primary or secondary school students. Few sites can provide information or learning that researchers or high school students will find useful. And the astonishing thing is that the content of private sites frequently goes into greater depth. For example, fine arts researchers or collectors who are interested in Walter J. Phillips will find high-quality information, highlighted with many
reproductions, on the site constructed by Roger Boulet(5), a monumental task that institutions do not seem to dare to tackle.
There are plenty of precedents, however. In the U.S., the National Gallery of Art in Washington provides access through its Web site to a database and retrieval system that covers all of its enormous collections. The database contains data on their systematic catalogue, which contains a wealth of information on works and artists and even includes bibliographic references. The number of art works reproduced in digitized format here is impressive. This initiative is only one of a number of sizeable projects undertaken by our neighbours to the south with government and corporate support. In Canada, we still do not rely enough on such resources.(6)
Despite the many rumours about projects under development, we have not yet harnessed the potential of the Web to disseminate our knowledge; even less have we understood the Internet’s power to communicate for us. At the Vancouver conference, the most extraordinary project, in my opinion, was the Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History’s Frogwatch. This is one of the rare cases in which the community was invited to take part in collecting data and in the subsequent development of knowledge about the state of tree frogs in Nova Scotia. All the sites I visited provided electronic mail addresses to which users could send comments, but I am still looking for other examples of well-defined activities that solicit active participation. I still dare to think that the future will see better use of the potential for interaction and communication that the Internet (or the next generation of the electronic highway) puts in our hands, although I am still not clear about the details.
There are some who will perhaps question the value of setting up huge databases, especially in light of the enormous effort they require. Are the financial and human resources that must be invested justifiable when statistics tell us that the average user only spends four minutes at a site? We could even question whether the scraps of knowledge that are cut up and collected in these databases constitute real knowledge. I would argue that the virtuality of digitized communication has nothing to do with the ability to portray things in bits and bytes, without a physical medium. On the contrary, it stems from the possibilities inherent in reprocessing, sometimes in unforseen ways, data that is itself limited but which, in new combinations, will take on new meaning and constitute new knowledge for the user. I hope that this new knowledge, often unanticipated by experts, will be shared by means of the computer systems we are setting up and will thus move from the personal and the ephemeral to the collective.
My far too brief glance at Canadian museum sites often proved to be fascinating. One of the best experiences I had was the pleasure of recognizing in the old photographs at the Royal British Columbia Museum site the totems that I had only seen in the pictures of Emily Carr or the sketches of A.Y. Jackson. The combination of these images and the data that accompanied them, together with my personal knowledge, opened a new window on the oft-alienated worlds of art and the First Nations of the West Coast. We can prompt our public to have the same kind of experience that arises from putting museum knowledge into contact with people’s personal background. Our challenge in the coming years will be to disseminate and share our knowledge intelligently, to remain attentive to our community, whether local or global, and so play an active role in creating new collective knowledge.
|
|
THE INTERNET: A TOOL FOR KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION OR CREATION?
Some Thoughts Based on Experience
by Claude Camirand, Musée de la civilisation
|
The Musée de la civilisation, in Quebec, launched its Internet site (www.mcq.org) some two years(7) ago. Up until now, the site could be described as modest but with potential. It has certainly enabled us to learn a number of things. I will look back at our experience before I address the topic of the article, The Internet: a tool for knowledge dissemination or creation?
July 1995 - An Unusual Beginning?
At the beginning, our experience was more of a technological adventure than a conscious institutional decision to participate in a new dissemination medium. This was not at all unusual because it was our Technology Division that had initiated the project as part of its ?Technology Watch Program’. The purpose of the project was to master this technological medium and assess our ability to maintain a site before making a more definitive recommendation.
We called on outside help to produce our first site; this involved putting a promotional brochure about the Musée on the Internet to advertise current and upcoming exhibitions. Two months later, we already felt we needed to expand the content of the message.
The Learning Period
In the fall of 1995, we conducted a wide variety of tests. It would be pretentious to say that the testing was particularly structured. Indeed, it was sometimes difficult to maintain any kind of structure in a totally new environment. We thus relied on our intuition while keeping our minds open to the possibility of joint projects.
As an expert on content, the Musée de la civilisation has taken part in some joint Internet projects like “Christmas Traditions in France and Canada” (8) (a virtual exhibition) and “Bone Snow Knives and Tin Oil Lamps” (Internet catalogue of Amerindian objects)(9). These projects helped to make our Research and Collections Divisions more aware of this new technology.
As for the institutional site, we were obviously the publisher and were also responsible for keeping it up-to-date. In this way, we slowly became involved in other kinds of practical information: cultural activity schedules, press releases, educational activity programs and so on. What is more, we could not resist the temptation to create some original material: an Advent calendar, a description of sugar molds and a feature on kimonos and their meaning.
We even experimented with the idea of electronic information gathering. For example, we contacted a Quebec trainee at a research centre in the Japanese city of Iwaki for the “Kimonos” exhibition mounted at the Musée de la civilisation. As a result, three electronic reports on kimonos in modern Japan were prepared in a scant six weeks entirely through the Internet.
These varied experiences enabled us to see that we could update information without necessarily being computer experts. We also realized that the regular publication of original material required a different kind of energy than simply updating the activities offered at the Musée. We were also able to observe that without any kind of publicity and despite the fairly casual development of the site, mainly because of its experimental nature, we nonetheless managed to get 4,000 hits a month - a figure that continues to grow.
Recess is Over
After this experimental period, which parallelled other experiments involving CD-ROMs, it seemed a good time to put forward a more structured plan of action. We have just finished doing this.
Our suggested plan is based on developing a real commitment to our electronic clients. To do this, we have identified the main features of our institutional personality, those for which we are known and recognized, namely:
high-quality and accessible content;
continually renewed content;
interaction with our publics.
Using these parameters, it became clear that we had to place a special emphasis on the Internet as an electronic dissemination medium, particularly in view of the last two features, ie. renewal and interaction.
Then, we needed to identify our publics and the relationship we wanted to have with them. It goes without saying that the clients of most institutions come from their geographic area. However, in an electronic context, it seemed important to identify audiences according to their areas of interest. We thus moved from the idea of a geographically-based community to the notion of a community of interests. The following are the first interest areas that we intend to emphasize:
Community Accomplishments
Because we are a community museum, our traditional dissemination activities have been geared to this area of interest. It is natural that this should be maintained at the electronic level.
History
As a result of the amalgamation of the Musée de l’Amérique française and the Musée de la civilisation in June 1995, we have a very large historical archives section.
Objects in the Collection
This interest area seems natural enough but it goes beyond mere showcases. In fact, it is also designed to extend the existing program to heighten awareness of the need to preserve Quebec family heritage or the “Patrimoine à domicile” program. The program is implemented mainly by interaction between our curators and the Quebec public.
Educational Activities
Since its inception, the Musée has been actively involved with the education community. This interest area will enable teachers who are interested in including new methodologies in their teaching to consider activities taking place at the Musée as well as the electronic activities under development.
Programming and Other Practical Information
This last area is a very useful one for people who want to visit the Musée and would like to know what they might find.
These interest areas will be clearly identified and will appear in our home page.
Electronic material will complement activities taking place in the Musée. People will be able to enjoy the Musée’s activities without ever having to visit because electronic material will supplement them and seem like an extension of visits for people who physically tour the Musée. There will also be material linked to the exhibition program.
This is the basis, then, on which the management of the Musée intends to develop a commitment to its electronic clients and carry out its electronic dissemination work over the next eighteen months.
Disseminating or creating knowledge?
After this lengthy introduction, we finally return to the topic of the article. Should the Musée (because this is the context in which we have to work) use the Internet as a means to disseminate or create knowledge?
Before continuing, I admit that while the concept of disseminating knowledge can be explained quite clearly, the concept of knowledge creation is much more difficult to define. Would an electronic reference centre on French North America put together by a museum be a place, by definition, for the dissemination or the creation of knowledge? Is a reference centre designed to be used by experts more likely to be a place where knowledge is created than a reference centre meant for amateur historians? Would a dynamic dissemination model that promotes interaction between experts and electronic visitors be closer to knowledge dissemination or creation? We could continue to debate this issue at some length and hypothesize in support of one approach or another depending on how we might have defined the issue at the outset.
My contribution to the debate is linked first and foremost to the experience described in the foregoing sections. I thus believe that the Internet, just like museums, is a place for communicating. Communication is neutral: it is information and the way in which it is communicated that personalizes interaction. Some museums choose an educational approach and others a more scholarly focus, to the point where they even consider research to be as important as mounting exhibitions. Some use formal teaching methods while others teach by illustration or interaction. And then there is the contemplative approach which, for some topics, can also communicate a lot!
But where is the Internet connection? I think that museums have to choose the dissemination model that best suits their institutional personality. It would be curious, to say the least, for a museum with an educational approach to develop a reference or research Internet site. These are not necessarily incompatible but the museum would most probably have to look for expertise that it did not possess. As a result, a choice that does not suit the personality of the institution could be more expensive.
Then again, whether the idea is to disseminate or create knowledge, you have to decide if the move to electronic dissemination will be a one-time or a long-term project. For long-term projects, the division of staff time between physical and electronic clients must be considered. The institution must not only be provided with exhibition programming but electronic activity programming as well that integrates this programming into the work plans of the various sections of the organization.
There is thus no one preferred model just as there is no single model for a museum’s size, mission, choice of clients or communication style To my mind, the only valid concern is making an enlightened choice that balances financial and dissemination resources with the mission of the institution. From there, the extent and the nature of electronic activity (whether dissemination or creation) will take shape in harmony with the rest of the institution’s activities.
|
|
IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY FIND IT?
A Report on a Metadata Workshop
by Barbara Lang Rottenberg, Canadian Heritage Information Network
|
What is metadata and why should it be of concern to museums? Metadata is data about data. In the material world, a common example of metadata would be a library catalogue, information such as the author or date of a work, links to any related works, etc.(10) In the Internet world, the term metadata refers to any data used to help identify, describe and locate networked electronic resources.
What is the relevance of metadata to museum knowledge? If, as reported, the Internet is growing by 250,000 new pages a day, then mechanisms to help identify and locate information become crucial.(11) Existing Web search engines such as Lycos or Alta Vista are becoming increasingly powerful, but results are unreliable and often swamped with irrelevancies. Why should museums invest in the long term development and maintenance of substantial information resources on the Internet if access is, if not random, haphazard at best? Current initiatives to develop metadata standards may be one way to help future audiences discover your content.
The Dublin Core
On March 26 of this year, I attended a workshop on metadata organized by the National Library of Canada and given by Dr. Stuart Weibel, Senior Research Scientist for the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). Dr. Weibel currently coordinates networked information research projects in OCLC’s Office of Research, including applications of World Wide Web technology and Internet protocol standardization efforts. Dr. Weibel spoke of a metadata scheme that may be of particular relevance to museums. This is the Dublin Core and an affiliated endeavour, the Warwick Framework.
Let’s back up a little bit and look at some of the problems of existing search engines. Search engines such as Lycos and Alta Vista work by creating automated indexes for every site they can identify on the web. One problem with automated indexing programs as they are currently constituted is that they have difficulty identifying the characteristics of a document - whether it’s a poem, an article or a museum record. Second, the Web lacks standards for structuring documents that might help search engines in indexing. For example, while a human indexer might be able to distinguish, relatively quickly, the author of an article from a name mentioned in the text, a program will not understand the distinction. Another drawback of automated indexing is that most search engines are geared towards text and have problems
dealing with other media such as images, video and sound. Finally, many Web pages are no longer static files that can be analysed and indexed easily.(12)
What researchers such as Dr. Weibel have been doing is trying to address some of these problems. One proposed solution is to develop metadata which can be used to describe the majority of the resources available on the Internet and which can be attached to a wide
variety of file types including HTML; in other words, the basis for a type of network resource bibliography. The key to the success of such a scheme is to define a system which will help describe a wide range of electronic objects without requiring huge amounts of human effort. This would encourage site authors to create their own metadata. The Dublin Core is one of the most advanced of these initiatives.
Named after a workshop held in Dublin, Ohio in March 1995, the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set differs from many of the other metadata schemes due to its ease of use and its applicability to different disciplines. Participants in this and subsequent workshops deliberately limited the number of elements:
Title name given to the work by the author
Author or Creator person(s) responsible for the intellectual content
Subject and Keywords the topic of the work, keywords, or formal classification schemes
Description textual description of the content (abstract, prose describing an image, etc,)
Publisher the organization making the work available in its present form
Other Contributor person(s) other than the author who have made significant contributions to the intellectual content
Date the date the work was made available
Resource Type category of the resource
Format Data representation of the resource
Resource Identifier Unique identification string (eg. URL, URN, ISBN)
Source object from which this object is derived (if applicable)
Language language of the intellectual content of the object
Relation relationship of the object to other objects or collections
Coverage spatial locations and temporal duration characteristics
Rights Management a pointer to a copyright notice, a rights management statement, or a rights server(13)
Readers familiar with library and museum cataloguing, particularly for automated systems, will find these elements familiar. The Dublin Core elements are repeatable and optional and can be further qualified by “scheme” and “type”. They can also be imbedded in Web pages through the use of the META tag, an existing attribute tag in HTML.
Participants at the Dublin Metadata Workshop also established a number of principles for further work. They recognized that if there were to be progress towards an Internet-wide resource description standard, then interdisciplinary consensus was crucial. The element set needed to be easily understood by most users and flexible enough to be used in a wide range of subject areas. It was also important that the set be kept as small as possible to encourage widespread use by web authors.
Since 1995, a number of other meetings have been held to further refine the schema. A meeting in Warwick, England in April 1996, looked at issues of syntax and the need for a conceptual framework (the Warwick Framework) for the coexistence of many varieties of metadata. Another meeting sponsored by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in May 1996 developed a convention for embedding metadata in HTML. Of particular interest to museums was the Image Metadata Workshop held in September 1996 in which 70 participants from museums, archives, universities, libraries and database providers sought to identify a core element set for visual resources including photos, slides, image collections and motion picture or video clips. Workshop participants (including a representative from CHIN) concluded that the Dublin Core can serve for visual as well as textual resource discovery. Although some modifications may be required, consensus was reached on the benefits of using the same elements for both.
Dr. Weibel concluded his presentation with a brief overview of unresolved issues. Working groups have been formed to tackle multilingualism issues, registry issues for element sets and qualifiers as well as refinements needed to a number of elements. Other participants will develop user guides to help in implementation of the Dublin Core. Efforts will also be made to coordinate the Dublin Core initiative with other W3C metadata initiatives and with modifications to HTML. Finally, a number of pilot projects are being implemented in Britain, the UK, the US and Denmark which will put the Dublin Core into practice. Two important projects of this type are occurring in Denmark where all government publications in electronic format as well as the Danish National Bibliography will use Dublin Core metadata.
Relevance to Museum Knowledge
How is this rather dry and arcane subject of relevance to museums? At present, most museum web sites contain brochure-type information and act as mechanisms to publicize the museum and its services. However, many museums are looking at the web as a means to reach new audiences and fulfill their educational missions. Many museums are also making significant investments in automation, digitizing not only textual resources, but images as well. Yet many issues remain if museums are to meet their educational goals. Who are these new audiences and what are they looking for? What types of questions do people ask and what navigational tools are required to provide reasonable responses? Digital media are notoriously short-lived - roughly 20 years if carefully maintained, compared to 500 years for microfilm and decades or centuries for paper. (14) Where are the resources going to come from to digitize and maintain extensive resources and what is the opportunity cost of this investment? Work on standards such as the Dublin Core is of real value in improving the educational potential of the Internet. If museums choose to use the Internet as a medium to disseminate indepth educational content, it is important that this content be readily identified and located by would-
be researchers. As other institutions and organizations grapple with information retrieval on the Internet, it is also important that the museum voice be represented. CHIN, through its participation in CIMI, the Consortium of Museum Information, plans to be an active participant in any future developments.
(1)” Real Audio, Shock Wave, VRML
(2)David A. Wallace, “Museums on the World Wide Web: A Survey and Analysis of Sixteen Institutions”, in Archives and Museum Informatics, 9:4 (1995), 388-424.
(3)Ibid., 424.
(4)Lack of time prevented me from carrying out this review with the desired scholarly rigour. My samples were chosen on the basis of intuition using the virtual list of museums provided by the Canadian Heritage Information Network (www.chin.gc.ca) as a staring point. The reader can check this site for the addresses of the museums mentioned.
(5)I have myself, in pursuing my professional activities, had occasion to use the Boulet site’s descriptive catalogue of Phillips’ prints. I believe that it is still the only site specializing in Canadian art that I can use as a resource.
(6)The National Gallery of Canada, with the support of the American Express Foundation, has just embarked on the creation of a digitized Art/thèque that will provide access to complete data on its collections of art works.
(7)This activity was made possible in part by a grant from the Quebec government’s Secrétariat de l’autoroute de l’information.
(8) The “Christmas Traditions in France and Canada” project was produced in partnership with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Provincial Museum of Alberta in Edmonton, the Canadian Heritage Information Network, the Direction des musées de France and the Musée national des Arts et traditions populaires (Paris).
(9) The “Bone Snow Knives and Tin Oil Lamps” project was co-produced with the Royal Ontario Museum and the Canadian Heritage Information Network.
(10)Miller, Paul. 1997. “Metadata for the Masses”, Adriadne (Issue5). Http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ariadne/issue5/metadata-masses/
(11)Weibel, Stuart. 1997. The Dublin Core Workshop Series.
(12)Lynch, Clifford. 1997. “Searching the Internet”, Scientific American (March 1997) Http://sciam.com/0397issue/0397/lynch.html
(13)Weibel, Stuart. 1997. The Dublin Core Workshop Series.
(14)Weibel, Stuart. 1997. The Dublin Core Workshop Series.
|