Band 6, Heft 2

The traditional archive catalogue constitutes a form of structural and descriptive metadata that long precedes the internet; and the cataloguing of photographs is just one part of a process of archival administration. The application of keywords to images contrasts with archival prose description, which is based on the visual content of the image and is predominantly context-free; a remediation of the image itself. At the heart of this lies the notion that the single photograph is itself devoid of context; it is a discrete embodiment of shutter time and there is nothing certain either side of that. Thus, one can only speculate at its context, and institutional description techniques actively avoid such speculation. Yet context in the archive is ever-present and key to the function of images as objects of information and evidence. It is built through static relationships, through the situating of photographs in accordance with the concept of original order, and it is replicated through storage systems and hierarchical catalogue entries. Such orders, hierarchies and relationships are absent within sets of images that are brought together by keyword search, including through the websites of archival institutions that struggle to reconcile archival principles and identity with network culture. Images are transported to places where contextual information is at best difficult to access, especially for those unfamiliar with archival interfaces. In contrast to the controlled stasis of archival storage and interconnected recordkeeping systems, network storage is messy, unstable and poorly described. However, we must accept that context is not a prerequisite for many users, and for them the networking of archival images denotes a freedom; a democratisation of the archive. But in a media-driven society that is becoming more and more indifferent to the evidential value of documents of any kind, the context-free image is left predisposed to exploitation.

During 2016, the Royal Danish Library digitized more than 200.000 pages from the library’s, collections all of which related to the former colonies in the Caribbean. This included books and other printed matter, but also sheet music, manuscripts, personal documents, photographs and drawings. Images were published in Digital Collections, the library’s platform for digitized materials, and were accompanied by limited metadata, thereby posing challenges in terms of accessibility and important historical contextualisation. This essay therefore reflects on the gaps and the silences that haunt indexing and descriptive practices in the migration online. Mette Kia Krabbe Meyer is Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Danish Library and has been project-managing the digitisation. Temi Odumosu is Senior Lecturer in Cultural Studies at Malmö University and has worked intensively with the collection as user and collaborator in the project What Lies Unspoken. As the Library embarks on initiatives to address the limited metadata associated with its digital collections, the authors come together to unfold key questions about approaches and process. They describe the characteristics of Digital Collections and the metadata currently provided, and ask what is left out and why; thereby engaging cultural biases that uneasily mirror the colonial project. The authors also explore how more inclusive user involvement, particularly in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), could shift language and epistemology. The leading inquiry question is: In the one-eyed colonial archive, what is it possible for metadata to do?

This paper is concerned with the ethical aspects of museum metadata. These are not always immediately evident when working with the metadata related to museum objects, although, I will argue, they are embedded in the object, accumulated at each phase of its journey into the institution; and continue to accumulate while it is part of a collection. This takes place against a backdrop of new development and possibilities afforded by digital technologies for building connections between and across heritage collections online, which can result in these complicated metadata potentially entering the data ecosystem. This eventuality, I will argue, has ethical and technical implications which need to be considered and understood through the theoretical lenses of critical data studies, museum informatics and the growing calls from museum scholars and others to decolonisation of museum collections. Using a small collection of drawings from the Pitt Rivers Museum of Anthropology and World Archaeology at the University of Oxford, I will demonstrate how difficult museum metadata can be buried deep in museum documentation, and how this data, once brought to the surface by digitisation, can expose the trauma of a collection’s origins. I will go on to ask whether the current models used to share heritage data online are appropriate mechanisms for materials with such sensitive histories, and ask how best to handle them in the increasingly digital future.

Feminist historiography is rife with debates about the nature and boundaries of women’s movements. Arguments over who to call an activist or a feminist sit at the heart of these definitional debates, which provide the groundwork for how scholars understand contemporary feminisms. Given the heated nature of ongoing disputes over the complicated identity politics of feminism and its archives, it is surprising that scholars have afforded so little attention to the technical infrastructure that defines and provides access to digitized primary source material, which is increasingly the foundation for contemporary historical research. Metadata plays an outsized role in these definitions, especially for photographic material that cannot be made word-searchable but is favored by digitizers because of its popularity. This article uses qualitative content analysis to examine how two digital archives define the Swedish suffrage movement - a historically contested concept, here understood through the theory of Susan Leigh Star as a “boundary object” subject to “interpretive flexibility”. The study uses keywords attached to photographic material from the the National Resource Library for Gender Studies (KvinnSam) and metadata within the related Swedish Women’s Biographical Lexicon platform for women’s biographies. The findings indicate that the hierarchies of archival organization do not disappear with individual document digitization and description. Instead, the silences built into physical archives are redefined in digital collections, obscuring the tensions between individual and movement feminisms, as well as the contested nature of movement boundaries.

Since the 1990s Western clinical radiology has been confronted with a fundamental media-induced change - the so-called analogue-digital migration. Film-based diagnostics and archiving of radiological images are transformed into digital interfaces and infrastructures. Networked software applications, namely picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), provide a new basis for processing and displaying image data. The design and implementation of PACS and their (user) interfaces challenged, amongst others, the search for data standards for digital diagnostics. The data format DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communication) was developed to provide the technological basis for encoding image data. Simultaneously, DICOM determines how patients’ bodies are rendered machine-readable and how radiologists are able to gain software-based insights. A main function of DICOM metadata is encoding and continuously actualising patient identification for technological and human actors. A misidentification of image data and specific patient could lead to fatal errors in the furthe+r treatment process. Accordingly, metadata themselves meander between being invisible to the human user and being essential and hence necessarily visible information for diagnostics. Shifting between normativity and fluidity, DICOM metadata enables new practices of radiological diagnostics, which literally bear vital consequences for patients and, on another level, for the profession of radiology. The paper analyses inherent politics and tensions of metadata from a media theoretical point of view by employing the case of the DICOM standard. Based on subject-specific discourses, data models as well as an in-depth examination of exemplary DICOM metadata it shows how (meta)data politics redefine diagnostic infrastructures and routines as well as gain impact on epistemic and aesthetic practices at the turn of the analogue-digital migration.

In this article, I focus on digital scientific archives which are made up of the leftovers of science, such as drafts, obsolete instruments, photographs, documentation, etc. The artifacts exhibited in such collections were neither meant to be representations, nor objects of gaze, but means used to achieve scientific results. As they lose functionality, they acquire aesthetic and historical value and emerge as clues, traces of past scientific practices and institutional histories. Therefore, the ways in which institutions situate these objects within the archive, the vocabularies and metadata they use, bear testimony on the manner they present and depict their past. How do the digital archives of the scientific institutions represent their histories? To address this question, I analyse the subject metadata of twenty-five institutional archives, turning them into objects of distant reading. Quantitative methods offer a way to discern the discursive frameworks that scientific institutions tend to adopt: Do they frame their collections as cultural heritage? represent them as corporate histories? emphasise technical specifications? scientific value? big names? A closer look at the metadata sets reveals that, in fact, these very different perspectives intermingle and clash with each other within the archive structures: the logic of heritage is juxtaposed with scientific classifications, institutional categories stand side by side with natural objects, and minority histories with celebrity narratives. Discussing this interplay of discourses, the article frames the digital archive of science as a specific mode of historical representation, which gives rise to a new (and still political) order of things.

Over the past two decades, the European Commission has mobilised cultural heritage to bolster a European identity. One of the main flagship initiatives promoted to this end has been Europeana, the most extensive digital cultural project financed by the EU. At the core of the project stands europeana.eu, a digital cultural portal aggregating metadata provided by national and local heritage institutions. Central in our analysis is the Europeana Data Model (EDM). Using standardised thesauri and vocabularies, EDM offers the possibility to create a semantic contextualisation for objects, allowing semantic operations on the metadata and their enrichment with Linked Open Data on the web. Due to its overarching nature, EDM cannot deliver the granularity that cultural heritage institutions need when documenting their resources. Nonetheless, heritage institutions accept to sacrifice accuracy to have their information represented in a Europewide collection. We study how this digital heritage infrastructure was designed to enact a sense of Europeanness amongst national and local institutions. Policy documents, ethnographic research and a systematic survey amongst the European heritage institutions enabled us to trace how a standardised European metadata structure plays a role in governing local and national heritage institutions. The EDM might enable heritage stakeholders to benefit from Europeana’s online exposure while enacting a European mindset. Ultimately, this study of the metadata model enriches the debate on the EU’s cultural heritage politics, which has not fully explored the role of the digital. At the same time, it also taps into debates about infrastructure and digital governmentality.

Digitalisation of research data and massive efforts to make it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable has revealed that in addition to an eventual lack of description of the data itself (metadata), data reuse is often obstructed by the lack of information about the datamaking and interpretation (i.e. paradata). In search of the extent and composition of categories for describing processes, this article reviews a selection of standards and recommendations frequently referred to as useful for documenting archaeological visualisations. It provides insight into 1) how current standards can be employed to document provenance and processing history (i.e. paradata), and 2) what aspects of the processing history can be made transparent using current standards and which aspects are pushed back or hidden. The findings show that processes are often either completely absent or only partially addressed in the standards. However, instead of criticising standards for bias and omissions as if a perfect description of everything would be attainable, the findings point to the need for a comprehensive consideration of the space a standard is operating in (e.g. national heritage administration or international harmonisation of data). When a standard is used in a specific space it makes particular processes, methods, or tools transparent. Given these premises, if the standard helps to document what needs to be documented (e.g. paradata), and if it provides a type of transparency required in a certain space, it is reasonable to deem the standard good enough for that purpose.

Metadata is part of our knowledge systems and, so, represents and perpetuates political hierarchies and perceptions of relevance. While some of these have come up for scrutiny in the discourses on digitization, some ‘minor’ issues have gone unnoticed and a few new mechanisms of imbalance have escaped attention as well. Yet, all of these, too, influence the usability of digital image collections. This paper traces three fields of ‘minor politics’ and their epistemic consequences, both in general and in particular, with respect to the study of architecture and its visual representation: first, the intrinsic logic of the original collections and their digital representation; second, the role of support staff in the course of digitization and data transfer; and, third, keywording as a matter of disciplinary habitus. It underlines the ‘political’ role of metadata within the context of knowledge production, even on the local level of a single database, and connects to the implementation of contemporary technologies like computer vision and artificial intelligence for image content classification and the creation of metadata. Given the abundance of digitally available (historical) images, image content recognition and the creation of metadata by artificial intelligence are sheer necessities in order to make millions of hitherto unexplored images available for research. At the same time, the challenge to overcome existing colonial and other biases in the training of AI remains. Hence, we are once again tasked to reflect on the delicate criterion of objectivity. The second part of this paper focuses on research done in the ArchiMediaL project (archimedial.eu); it demonstrates both the potentials and the risks of applying artificial intelligence for metadata creation by addressing the three fields mentioned above through the magnifying glass of programming.

At the core of museum practice is the notion of diversity. However, as this analysis of different types of metadata production shows, contradictory ideas and ideals pervade both metadata production among information specialists (i.e. archivists, metadata managers, curators working in the heritage institutions), and the systems for, and practices of, participatory metadata production. While the discourse on metadata standards is permeated by ideas of objectivity and interoperability the field is, in practice, far from coherent, being marked by a great variety as regards templates, formats and vocabularies. Conversely, the discourse on digital participation in the cultural heritage is permeated with notions of diversity, as means to increase democracy and support variety. In practice, however, the available crowdsourcing platforms are often formulaic offering few possibilities for the crowd to add individual interpretations and their own agenda. This analysis of the practice of producing descriptive metadata reveals the complex, multifaceted implications of notions of diversity for the cultural heritage. Diversity, meaning great variety, is then not solely a positive end in itself but can in fact hinder the distribution and linkability of information and thereby the creation and building of new knowledge. Likewise, participatory activities where heritage institutions reach out to the crowd do not automatically generate diversity as there is no direct correlation between the magnitude of the group and variability. To understand this complexity and acknowledge the, sometimes, contradictory demands and effects related to the notion and norms of diversity is at the core of the making and preservation of our cultural heritage.