Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master

Final Review Meeting

John Scally, Project Director, Norman Rodger, Project Manager (UEDIN)Frank Bär (GNM) : Rodolphe Bailly, Marie-Hélène Serra (CM) :

Margaret Birley (HML) : Lars Christian Koch (SPK)

Contributors to

Work Packages

1. Digitisation 2. OAI PMH, Database Development and EUROPEANA Interoperability3. Thesauri and Classification 4. Project Management 5. Assessment and Evaluation 6. Dissemination

Contributors to

Results46,123 instrument records with at least one image + 1,757 audio + 308 video files

MIMO Vocabulary Web Management Tool

Updated HS Classification

Content in Europeana

MIMO Technical Platform – MIMO-DB

MIMO Digitisation Standard

Virtual Exhibition

Contributors to

Sustainability

Content Analysis – Digital Items

1. 46,123 instrument records with at least one image

2. 80,557 digital images

3. 1,757 sound files

4. 308 video files

Contributors to

Contributors to

Digitisation Tracking Statistics – Example

Targets and Indicators

DoW targets* MIMO outcome Balance

Images of musical instruments

45,000 / 45,921 80,557 + 79 %

Musical instruments digitised

45,00043,688 / 46,123**

-3 % / + 2.5 %

Audio files 1,768 1,757 (even)

Video files 307 308 (even)

**without / with other museums

Contributors to

*p. 9-13 (underlying content) and p. 69 (success indicators)

Contributors to

Harmonisation of Metadata

• All museums use a Common object description model in their repository: LIDO

• All museums use Common vocabularies

• internal (elaborated during the project )• external (GeoNames)

Contributors to

• MIMO-DB : Advanced search through all data providers and compare results.

• Report tool on data enrichment

• Workflows and Protocols

- local checking

- pre-ingestion checking

- post-ingestion checking

Quality Control (quality of MIMO metadata)

Contributors to

Metadata Enrichment

Contributors to

Interoperability

Contributors to

• again : LIDO

• MIMO-DB : OAI inputs AND OAI output

• URIs for each object and each term of the vocabulary

• Vocabulary available in Linked Open Data

http://www.mimo-db.eu/InstrumentsKeywords/2232

HU

MA

NS

HU

MA

NS

MA

CH

IN

ES

MA

CH

IN

ES

URI for the instrument keyword "Octobass"

HTML RDF

Contributors to

Vocabulary Exposition in Linked Open Data






• 43234 enriched LIDO records (Sept 2011)• MIMO vocabulary delivered through linked open data• Mapping ( XSLT ) between LIDO and EDM (in RDF)• D2.3 ( updated in sept. 2011 ) : Guidelines for harvesting MIMO’s database repository

Material Delivered to Europeana

Contributors to

Digitisation – Quality Control

• Each institution controlled own results immediately during digitisation (photo, scanning, digitisation of audio and video)

• Good practice examples shown in the MIMO digitisation standard

• Monitoring on demand by WP1 lead

• Short presentations by WP1 lead to the consortium about:• Resolutions, file sizes and image quality (Brussels, March 2010)

• Colour management (Berlin, June 2010)

• Review of consortium members‘ content (Berlin, June 2010):• Photo examples

• Photo equipment

• File naming conventions

Contributors to

The MIMO Digitisation Standard

Contributors to


• Three versions as deliverables:

1. D1.1: Version 1, October 2009

2. D1.5: Version 2, November 2010

3. D1.8: Version 3 (final), September 2011

• Permanent input from all digitising partners

• Numerous draft versions circulated among partners for discussion, approval and enhancement

• Expert subgroup for extra-European instruments (MIM-BE, RMCA, SPK, CM)

• Evaluation by professional photographers and members of CIMCIM and amended

Contributors to


• … defines minimum requirements:

• Files for long-time preservation: master files

• Images: 24 (3x8) bit colour; > 2,100 px longest side; Tiff-format LINK• Audio: 24-bit res.; 44,1 kHz sampling rate; lossless format (e.g. WAV, AIFF) LINK• Scanned images: Target is original size at 300 dpi (prints).• Video: 24 bit colour PAL; 720x576 px; 25 FPS; lossless format if possible LINK

Contributors to


• … defines minimum requirements:

• Files for Web-use: derivatives

• Images: 24 (3x8) bit colour; 800 px longest side; JPEG-format• Audio: > 128 kB/s bit rate; normalized; stereo if applicable; length depending on IPR

issues (30 – 120 s); mp3, AAC or WMA format• Video: 24 bit colour PAL; 720x576 px; 25 FPS; MPEG-2, AVI, WMV, Quicktime,

mp4/H264 at 300Kb/s-2Mb/s for download; ASF; WMV; Quicktime or mp4/H.264 at 300Kb/s-1.2 Mb/s for streaming

Contributors to


• … defines:

• Parameters of position and view for an easy understandable description of an items position in a photo

• Mandatory views as the first representative image of an instrument• Recommended views for further documentation of entire views of instruments

• … helps:

• all people concerned with the photography of musical instruments in sharing practical hints from all MIMO-partners.

Contributors to

Thesauri

1) Names for musical instruments2) Geographical names 3) Makers’ names

Contributors to

1) Family names - 9 e.g. Wind Instruments

2) Group names - 65 e.g. Bagpipes

3) Keywords – over 3,500 e.g. biniou, cabrette, musette

Contributors to

Thesauri Musical Instrument Names

4) Synonyms

West Asian goblet drum – Darabukka [ دربوكة ]

Also transliterated as: – Darboukka

– Darabuke

– Derbouka

– Darbouka

– Daraboukkeh

Contributors to

Thesauri Musical Instrument Names

Contributors to

Contributors to

Thesauri - Geographical Names

Contributors to

There are three sections to the thesaurus of musical instrument makers’ names:

• 1) Corporations• 2) Persons (Individual makers)• 3) Families

4,988 names identified.

(Deliverable 3.4)

Contributors to

Thesauri – Instrument Makers’ Names

Contributors to

Multilingual AccessThe names for musical instruments have been translated by the consortium partners into the current languages of MIMO:

– French

– German

– Italian

– Dutch

– Swedish

– English

Contributors to

Multilingual Access

Contributors to

Q : how to search using terms in a language, and retrieve objects described in another language

A : automatic metadata enrichment to the instrument keywords thesaurus during ingestion into MIMO-DB

The record linked to a vocabulary term benefits from all the translations and synonyms of the keyword during search requests.

Contributors to

MIMO-DB

• Professional search interface

• Vocabulary management tool for• Instrument makers

• Instrument keywords (through the vocabulary tool)

• MIMO technical management• Data providers management : (easy to add new data providers)

• Search interface management

• Harvesting and Enrichment reporting

Contributors to

Contributors to

Target Users

Contributors to

• School teachers, university teachers, student teachers, school pupils, and university students

• Musical communities - musicians, ensembles, composers, instrumentalists

• Geographical or ethnic communities

• Journalists and editors

• Academic researchers and scholars

• Music fans, amateur musicians, general interest users

• Instrument collectors

• Instrument professionals

• Instrument makers and conservators

• Photographers of musical instruments

IPR Status

Contributors to

• Most IPR issues were resolved early in the project

• Partners retain copyright on their own images

• Images limited to 800px longest side

• Audio and video files restricted in length to portions of 30 seconds

• Some concerns over revised Europeana Data Providers’ Agreement

Performance Indicators

Contributors to

16 key objectives listed in Dow

• 15 of these met on time, many exceeding original targets

• 1 objective not realised

All Deliverables submitted

• General

• Digitising 45,000+ delicate musical instruments encountered literally hundreds of practical difficulties

• Solutions are collected in the “Practical Hints” section of the MIMO digitisation standard.

• This kind of difficulties did not affect the overall project targets

Contributors to

Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial Actions

Contributors to

• Lost instruments not clearly reported as such in the inventories

• Remedial actions:• Providing records without image or with scanned images from

glass slides etc.• Partial offset by the surfacing of objects not yet inventoried

• Harmful contamination of musical instruments (GNM)

• Remedial actions:• Careful analysis and personal protection• No immediate action possible to catch up• Future furnishing of treated objects through automatic harvesting

Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial actions with Possible Impact to Targets

• Parts of instruments repertoried as musical instruments

• Remedial actions:• None to catch up, but:• Fed into MIMO-DB as items of cultural heritage for future use in

Europeana

• Slowdown of digitisation process through unforeseen events as construction work, illness etc.

• Remedial actions:• Review workflows for more efficiency and work harder• Employ supplementary personnel

Contributors to

Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial actions with Possible Impact to Targets

• Overall shortfall to digitisation target

• Remedial actions:• Inclusion of resources from other museums already aggregated via

CM

Contributors to

Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial Actions with Impact to Targets

• Difficulty 1: OAI Repository development for data providers• Remedial 1.1: successful technical support from Cité de la musique (WP2 leaders)

• Difficulty 2: Synchronisation between MIMO project and Europeana development• Remedial 2.1 : Very close work on EDM with Europeana office• Remedial 2.2 : Delivery of D2.3 in 2 phases

• Difficulty 3: How to build and maintain a multilingual vocabulary collaboratively and remotely

• Remedial 3.1 : Build a web tool

Contributors to

Difficulties Encountered and Remedial Actions

Contributors to

• Lack of online content created difficulties for

- user evaluation

- dissemination

Difficulties Encountered and Remedial Actions

• Addressed through review in 1:1, WP and PSG meetings

- revised approach to evaluation plan

- revised dissemination strategy

Objectives and Tasks According to the Description of Work

1. The general public

2. Specialists • higher education (universities, conservatories);

• instrument makers, conservators and instrument sellers (including large companies such as YAMAHA and wholesale);

• relevant publishers, e.g. for school books or music literature etc.

• phonographic industry;

• curators

Contributors to

Specification of the Target Groups

• Higher education (Universities, music teacher association, teachers, schools)• Researchers (via musical instrument groups like CIMCIM)• Instrument professionals (other museums, curators, instrument makers, instrument sellers, collectors)• Music magazines (e.g."Das Orchester“)• National and international organisations (CIMCIM, Galpin Society)• Media• Non-professionals/General Public

Contributors to

Dissemination Strategy

Contributors to

• General Public

• National and International Organisations

• Media

• Specific Target Groups

Dissemination Materials

• PowerPoint Presentations• Leaflets • Poster• Postcards • Press Pack• Website• Facebook• Virtual Exhibition

Contributors to

Dissemination Activities Implemented to Reach Target Groups

• Presentations at conferences• Talks/meetings with experts• Distribution of leaflets• Regular newsletters• Forwarding information material to various target groups by mail and email• Implementation into the partner‘s exhibitions• Media coverage• Promotion via Europeana Newsletter & Website

Contributors to

Target Groups Reached via the Website/Newsletter

Profession of subscribers (%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Contributors to

User Involvement and Feedback

• Facebook

• Project Website

Contributors to

User Involvement - Facebook

• 900+ subscribers• 233 entries - viewed 210,000 times• 1,650 user comments• 73 items of UGC (user generated content)

Contributors to

Total Monthly Visitors to Facebook April 2010 – August 2011

Contributors to

User Involvement - Project Website

• 609 newsletter subscriptions by end of the project• Over 70 new subscriptions since September• Forum was rarely used• Feedback via the contact form possible but seldom used

Contributors to

User Involvement and FeedbackRole in Evaluation

• Amendments to Pilot Content (MIMO-DB)• External Evaluation of the MIMO Standards Document

Contributors to

User Involvement and FeedbackAmendments to Pilot Content (MIMO-DB)

Surveys

• Focus Group surveys November 2010 – February 2011• Online Survey February 2011

Led to:• Revised Evaluation Strategy

Contributors to

User Involvement and FeedbackAmendments to Pilot Content (MIMO-DB)

Consortium partners to arrange 5 interviews per institution

5 basic outcomes:

• Is the quality of the images and he information given by the instrument’s and the maker’s name sufficient?• Are the different “related” terms relevant, understandable and useful?• Is the information on classification terms understandable and easy to retrieve?• Do we inform well on makers and their instruments?• Can we see which kind of users we reach?

Contributors to

• Do you think that a document outlining standards for the digitisation of musical instruments is a useful idea? – 100% positive

• Do you think that a document outlining standards for the digitisation of musical instruments is necessary - 85.2 % positive

• Would such a document help you in your work? - 85.2 % positive• Do you feel that your artistic freedom would be limited by working to set standards? 63% said no• Was the index helpful? – 88.5% positive• Was the section on practical hints helpful? 80.8% positive• Is the distinction between mandatory and recommended views clear? 96% positive• Was it easy to understand the document in English? - 80% positive

Contributors to

User Involvement and FeedbackExternal Evaluation of the MIMO Standards Document

MIMO web showcase – Photo & sound gallery of MIMO objects – By MIMO consortium in collaboration with Europeana

• Launched 27th June 2011

Contributors to

Virtual Exhibition

http://exhibitions.europeana.eu/exhibits/show/musical-instruments-en

• MIMO project dissemination • A proof-of-concept

Contributors to

Virtual Exhibition

• 6 themes

Contributors to

Virtual Exhibition

Contributors to

Virtual Exhibition

Project Website

Contributors to

Contributors to

Contributors to

Impact – Changes and Benefits for Project Partners

•Technical

- Digitisation

- Interoperability of data / aggregation

•Internal Benefits

•Internationalisation

Contributors to


Technical - Digitisation

• The need for and how to set up a proper workflows

• The advantages of the use of a photography standard

• The advantages of using standard source formats

• Data management: importance of giving the correct filenames, central data storage, etc.

Contributors to


Technical -

•Input and harmonisation of metadata

•Standard exchange formats

•Data enrichment technologies and procedures

•Aggregation

Contributors to

Internal Benefits

Increased understanding of collectionsImproved systemsImproved access to collection


Contributors to


Internationalisation

An increased number of international contacts and the creation of a network of experts in the domain of musicology and musical instruments

A better understanding of what is going on in European institutions with regard to digitisation, providing accessibility to digital cultural heritage,…

Better knowledge of Europeana and its strategy to become a central access point for all European digital cultural heritage.

Contributors to

Impact - The Benefits of Aggregation

• Information about particular kinds of instrument

• Information about particular people

• Information about instrument making in particular places

• Information about instruments of a particular period

• Identification of instruments

• Impact on Other Museums

Contributors to

External collaborations

• EUROPEANA version 1 Working Group 3.3

• EUROPEANA Communications Group

• EUROPEANA Council for Content Providers & Aggregators

• EUROPEANA Project Share Development Group

• Virtual Exhibition

Contributors to

Where are we now?

Work Plan for the Next Period

• Ongoing dissemination

• Promotion to museum community

• Incorporation of new content

• Negotiation with CIMCIM

• Revise website

www.mimo-toolkit.com

Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master

Education

Transcript of Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master