Digital collections, open data and the boundaries of openness: a case study from the National Galleries of Scotland

Paper
Jen Ross, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Ashley Beamer, Royal Ontario Museum, Canada, Christopher Ganley, national galleries of scotland, UK

Published paper: Digital collections, open data and the boundaries of openness: a case study from the National Galleries of Scotland

Discussions of openness in the cultural heritage sector often do not acknowledge that “all forms of openness entail forms of closed-ness” (Edwards 2015, 253). We need more sensitivity to what is gained and lost with different framings of openness. In the cultural sector, openness has political as well as practical implications, and associated closures, that require attention. This paper draws on the experiences of the National Galleries of Scotland (NGS), gathered in the form of research interviews in late 2016 and internal reflections on a major project to redevelop the NGS website. We explore the extent to which particular emphases around openness, including copyright and the need to focus on digitizing collections, took priority over other important issues, such as open data and standardization. We characterize NGS’ strategy as one of “progressive openness.” The underlying infrastructure of the website was developed to eventually facilitate sharing of data via Web services to other projects or digital outputs, for example, ArtUK and Europeana, making it technically possible to expose and share data. However, this functionality and its implications were not well understood within the institution, and the widely shared vision of openness did not always include possibilities for making material available beyond the boundaries of the website. Assumptions about the website as the core location for digital objects left some opportunities underexplored, such as the opportunity to think beyond this website to the other places, times, and contexts in which people might encounter the collections online. Strategic attention to and awareness of open data, standardization, and the licensing of textual materials do not necessarily flow naturally from an orientation and commitment to openness. This paper explores this dynamic, and discusses how organizations might consider their own “boundaries of openness.”

Bibliography:
Aufderheide, P., Milosevic, T. and Bello, B. (2016) ‘The impact of copyright permissions culture on the US visual arts community: The consequences of fear of fair use’, New Media & Society, 18(9), pp. 2012–2027. doi: 10.1177/1461444815575018.

Bayne, S., Ross, J., & Williamson, Z. (2009). Objects, subjects, bits and bytes: learning from the digital collections of the National Museums. Museum and Society, 7(2), 110–124. Retrieved from https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/mas/article/view/136

Beamer, A. and Ganley, C. 2017. Welcome to the new National Galleries of Scotland website. Museum Computer Group blog, https://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/welcome-to-the-new-national-galleries-of-scotland-website/

Bray, P. (2009). Open Licensing and the Future for Collections. Presented at the Museums and the Web 2009, Indianapolis. Retrieved from https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2009/papers/bray/bray.html

Cameron, F. and Mengler, S. (2009) Complexity, Transdisciplinarity and Museum Collections Documentation: Emergent Metaphors for a Complex World, Journal of Material Culture, 14(2), pp. 189–218. doi: 10.1177/1359183509103061.

Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via social and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01360.x

Conway, M., Clifford, M. and Deines, N. (2016) ‘Open Content at the Getty: Three Years Later, Some Lessons Learned’, The Iris: Behind the Scenes at the Getty, 16 August. http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/open-content-at-the-getty-three-years-later-some-lessons-learned/

Crews, K. D. (2011). Museum Policies and Art Images: Conflicting Objectives and Copyright Overreaching. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 22, 795–834.

Edwards, R. (2015). Knowledge infrastructures and the inscrutability of openness in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1006131

Eschenfelder, K. R., & Caswell, M. (2010). Digital cultural collections in an age of reuse and remixes. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701045

Graham, H. (2017) ‘Publics and Commons: The Problem of Inclusion for Participation’, ARKEN Bulletin, 7. https://issuu.com/arken_museum/docs/bulletin_2017_fe4c9dee90af81

Kelly, B. et al. (2008) ‘What Does Openness Mean To The Museum Community?’. Museums and the Web 2008 Conference, University of Bath. Available at: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/mw-2008/

Kingston, A., & Edgar, P. (2015). A review of a year of open access images at Te Papa. Presented at the MWA2015: Museums and the Web Asia 2015, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://mwa2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/a-review-of-a-year-of-open-access-images-at-te-papa/

Kirton, I., & Terras, M. (2013). Where Do Images of Art Go Once They Go Online? A Reverse Image Lookup Study to Assess the Dissemination of Digitized Cultural Heritage | MW2013: Museums and the Web 2013. http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/where-do-images-of-art-go-once-they-go-online-a-reverse-image-lookup-study-to-assess-the-dissemination-of-digitized-cultural-heritage/

Sanderhoff, M. (2013). Open Images. Risk or opportunity for art collections in the digital age? Nordisk Museologi, 0(2), 131. https://doi.org/10.5617/nm.3083

Walsh, P. (2007). Rise and fall of the post-photographic museum: Technology and the transformation of art. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage, 29.