Project Reflection 1
The process of selecting, identifying, and tagging resources from the Battersea Arts Centre (BAC) Archive was not in itself challenging. However, aligning the descriptive keywords that I used to classify the objects with the terms from the Jewelry and Beads controlled vocabulary was quite challenging. In what follows, I will describe and reflect on how I identified and ranked keywords for four resources and squared these concepts with concepts from the controlled vocabulary.
My process for selecting and ranking the keywords was driven by three guiding principles. First, my aim was to differentiate these resources within the wider context of the collection at large. My second aim was to identify the subject matter the resources were about. Third, I added keywords that were included in the records’ detailed descriptions, but were not apparent in the object itself. To illustrate this line of reasoning, I decided to list the type of art as the first keyword. My thinking was that within the collection, the form of these resources (linocut prints and mosaic flooring) is the most differentiating feature, since most of the collection is about flyers. If I had chosen all flyers, my method would have been different, since flyers make up the bulk of the collection, and thus the tag of flyer does little to offer a selecting function. This is apparent in my choice of “Flyers” as the last keyword for the Intan Crafts object. Next, my focus was the subject matter of the particular piece. For example, with the linocut prints, I added keywords for what was being depicted. An example of my third principle of tagging important qualities of the work found in the resource details is apparent in the Elephant and Lion linocut print where I added African Culture. In cases where no description was offered, I did not infer a particular intent upon the resource. These principles also guided the number of keywords I added, making the content and context of the items the only driver for the number of tags. Thus, I tried to avoid extraneous tags and scope misalignment, as well as slim description. My hope is that by taking all the keywords together, one can understand a succinct description of the object. I believe this approach serves users best from the point of view of keyword searching, where any combination of terms could aid retrieval. Nevertheless, I would have liked to see more contextual information in the resource details pages to better understand the objects, as historical information is lacking from most. This could have altered my tagging approach to better serve the community for which this collection is intended.
Aligning my choice in keywords with the Jewelry and Beads controlled vocabulary was challenging, since the domain of the vocabulary (jewelry and beads) does not quite accommodate the domain of objects in the BAC collection, which holds contemporary flyers, performance paraphernalia, and visual art exhibit material. In fact, I went through several rounds of selecting objects to tag in order to maximize the alignment of the controlled vocabulary to describe BAC objects. I make this point only to reinforce the notion that controlled vocabularies are best utilized when they annotate the kinds of content for which they were originally built; transferring their use to another content set comes with the risk of using the vocabulary awkwardly. It is true that there was some alignment in natural objects, such as flowers, animals, and colors that pertain to both, and I could add some artistic techniques to the controlled vocabulary based on the BAC. But for the most part, I think the best approach for new terms for the BAC collection would be a new taxonomy for this collection rather than forcing the scope of the vocabulary to widen. If it were integrated, there would need to be much reworking to accommodate both the domains of the BAC and the Art History of Jewelry and Beads digital library.