On the question : "How important do you see the standard sprocess to be, and in which particular areas is it most important (core base content v overall system architecture)", almost all institutes stressed the importance of the use of standards, both for contents and for overall issues.
In general, the cultural heritage field has focused so far on Data structure standards, basically for the use of data exchange and to secure data for future use. It was noted, however, that cultural heritage institutions at times seem to start off with a standard, only to forget to hold on to it in the long run.
Organisations that have been active in this field are: CIDOC, MDA, CIMI (see also Part 2 chapters 2 & 3).
More need is identified for content standards. Some institutes mention the AAT (Art & Architecture Thesaurus, see Part 2 chapter 2).
From a sites & monuments institute came the suggestion that minimum core data and semantic data models be developed for interchange of archaeological data. Equally important are multimedia standards and standards to integrate spatial geographical data, 3-D topological information, remote sensing data and information from digital excavations. Other suggestions were: to develop standards for video and film documentation and to look into meta data classification issues.
The institutes that were not convinced of the use of standards, are usually rather specialised institutes (archive, small museum) with little need of information exchange outside its borders and a long tradition of cataloguing information, thereby calling its methods de facto standards.
On the field of digitisation, it was noted that it is important to develop standards in the sense of 'codes of practice', related to digital object coding and linking of meta data for cataloguing purposes. Also in general, a need for standardised procedures was pointed out as important.
Not every institute seems to find it automatically necessary to distinguish CHIO standards from other IT standards.
As indicated before, the selection of institutes is based partly on their known involvement with information exchange technology in the field. In that context it is important to stress here that most institutes in the cultural heritage field are not aware of standardisation activities by bodies like CIDOC, CIMI or MDA. This has been confirmed by the representatives that the project team met during the 2nd special meeting in Brussels. See also Part 2 chapters 2 & 3 regarding the role of agencies like CIDOC and CIMI.
Some institutes mentioned that their awareness of standards increased during cooperative pilot projects, including some of the EC funded experimental projects. Some institutes have a (inter)national role to play in supporting the field in use of standards (e.g. MDA, RKD).
Others mention their involvement in CIDOC as a means to keep them up to date on standards, even though CIDOC traditionally focuses on museum documentation. Another possibility is attending the major conferences like CIDOC, MDA, EVA.
By their goals, the following institutions are guiding in the field of cultural heritage data) standards):
Additionally, an 'Archaeological Sites Working Group' of CIDOC has been very actively supported by the NRSM and RCHME. It developed a core data standard that has been endorsed and adopted by the Council of Europe as its standard.
The RKD supports Dutch museums in the field of IT development and thereby encourages museums to use standardised technology as well as well known data standards (MDA) and context standards (e.g. AAT). It is also connected to CIDOC work.
The ScM is involved in long term co-operation in the use of IT for collection management through the LASSI project that includes a group of major British museums. The ScM has been active in CIDOC and MoU, and has long term contacts with theMDA.
Other institutes do not expect themselves to play an active role to in the standardisation arena, though some indicate that by their national importance any standard accepted by them will evolve into being a generally recognised standard.
Some countries not included in the survey have national bodies involved with standardisation of data structures or terminology issues. Usually such bodies are responsible for or closely connected to projects for national inventories for cultural heritage. See also relevant section in Part 2.
Almost all institutes expect European level activities regarding standardisation to be very useful. It was pointed out, however, that such activities could not take place without a global dimension. As budget constraints of many institutes in the cultural heritage field make participation in fora difficult, communication via the Web could be a solution. There is definitely a need for an initiative aimed at managers and directors. Some institutes expressed a concern about communication within the EC and the reflection of that in a standards activity.
As seen in Part 2 chapter 2, the field is mostly influenced by a small set of standards setting bodies. Of the interviewed institutes these are MDA, RCHME and NRSM, while RKD can be seen as a 'gate keeper' for the field. These institutes work in principal on a national level but tend to be very active on international cooperation as well. Many countries have such bodies (see Part 2 chapter 2 for an overview), in addition to which there are some international bodies like CIDOC and CIMI. Other institutes follow developments closely (e.g. AAC or PiH) or are indirectly working via projects towards larger standardisation influence (e.g. ScM). Some smaller institutes are not very involved in standardisation issues.
The focus is on data standards (some good examples internationally available) and content standards (still much need for development). The institutes stress the need for technical standards but generally do not see themselves as standard setting organisations in that field.