From Spectator to Annotator: Possibilities offered by User-

generated Metadata for Digital Cultural Heritage Collections

Seth van Hooland

Université Libre de Bruxelles

Metadata creation for image collections

• Retrieval of high level semantics within images relies entirely on human indexing

• Indexing of historical image collections is notoriously hard and extremely expensive

• Digital images are created on a large scale (>10.000) • No specifically trained staff for attributing metadata

within the institution on an intensive basis• => Highly problematic to have enough inhouse

ressources to index image collections

Possible solution: distributed indexing

• Development of web-based collection management software at the end of ‘90s

• Possibilies to distribute the access of the database to a larger number of indexers

• The process of cataloging and indexing is no longer necessary an inhouse activity

• Example: http://na.memorix.nl/

Distributed image indexing: web2.0 tools

• Passive consumer of information => active user who reorganizes, augments and distributes information (RSS, blogs, wikipedia)

• Social / colloborative tagging• P2P based information retrieval• Two emblematic applications: http://del.icio.us/ and

http://flickr.com/

Differences with traditional indexation

• Form nor content of the metadata are controled

• Produced by the user community: fundamental change in the resource-user relation, where the authority of the librarian/archivist/conservator is questioned

• Incorporates metadata that are intrinsically linked to the indexer

Possibilities for the cultural sector?

• Prototype: Steve project• Advantage: « serendipity »• Desadvantage: very low semantic value of the tags• Alternative form of user-generated metadata: user

comments• Historical context • Attempt to evaluate the quality of user-generated

metadata and to draw up a typologie of these comments • Case study: image database of the National Archives of

the Netherlands

Method

• Information quality definition=> « fitness for purpose », meaning are the comments usefull to the users?

• Query analysis: compare the content of queries with the content of the comments

• Mapping with « Shatford-Panofsky » categories

Shatford-Panofsky categories:

Results:

• Categorisation of queries: S1=17,50%, S2=5,5%, S3=57%, S4=2,5%, G1=9%, G2=8,5%

• Categorisation of comments: S1=67,61%, S2=18,87%, S3=30,70%, S4=20,56%, G1=6,29%, G2=1,71%, G3=0,57%, G4=0,29%, A2=2,86%

• Queries and comments alike concentrate on specific notions, use few generic terms and no abstract terms.

Typologie of the comments:

• Corrections of the existing metadata: 34,13%

• Narrativity / context: 18,87%

• Personnal experiences: 4,29%

• Opinion: 2,86%

• Dialogue / questions: 1,15%

Correction of existing metadata

Narrativity

• Certain comments put diverse and scattered information into a context

• => Lev Manovich « Database as a cultural form » (Language of new media)

Personal experiences

• Small number of comments reflect on personal experiences regarding the image

• What is the interest to other users?

Personal opinions

• Very few personal comments

• Again: what interest to other users?

Dialog

• A small number of users poses questions and interacts with other users by sending comments

• Acts in a forum like manner• Helps in the creation of virtual communities around

heritage institutions

Postmodern indexing?

• The role of each intervenant within the information chain is no longer strictly defined: user - librarian - indexer - editor - author

• Two index-layers: the authority of the librarian/archivist/conservator is confronted with the informal and personal metadata of users

• How can these different layers be managed within a collection management system?

• « Narcissm of the viewer» should be avoided