Metadata Standards for Virtual Museums

  • Stella Sylaiou
  • Elena Lagoudi
  • João MartinsEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11196)


The raison d’être of museums are their collections. Museums’ main purpose is to collect, preserve exhibit and interpret the objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or scientific significance for the higher reasons of education, study and enjoyment. Museum objects are information carriers. In the Information and Communication Technologies era information about museum objects is documented, organized and communicated with the help of information systems in virtual museums. Considering the working definition of the ViMM project, a virtual museum (VM) can be considered a digital entity that, considering the museum’s specificities, enhances, complements, or augments the museum through interactivity, personalization, user experience and richness of content. The virtual museums’ context is organized with the help of metadata, the data about the data. This paper presents the main metadata standards used by virtual museums and the qualitative results of an extensive survey conducted in the framework of the ViMM project for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the main used metadata standards.


Virtual museums Digital documentation 



The research was supported by the Virtual Multimodal Museums (ViMM) project, Coordination and Support Action (CSA) funded under the EU Horizon 2020 programme (CULT-COOP-8-2016). The authors would like to thank Effie Patsatzi for her helpful advice on various issues examined in this paper and all the anonymous survey participants for their valuable feedback.


  1. 1.
    Kavoura, A., Sylaiou, S.: Effective cultural communication via information and communication technologies and social media use. In: Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 4th edn. IGI Global (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Virtual Museum definition, Virtual Multimodal Museums project. Accessed 15 May 2018
  3. 3.
    Bekiari, Ch., Doerr, M., Angelakis, D., & Karagianni, F. Building comprehensive management systems for cultural – historical information. In: CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology Concepts, methods and tools, Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 7th–8th March 2014, Rethymno, Crete, Greece, pp. 227–234. Archaeopress, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The ability of multiple systems with different hardware and software platforms, data structures, and interfaces to exchange data with minimal loss of content and functionality. National Information Standards Organization, Understanding Metadata. NISO Press, Bethesda (2004).
  5. 5.
    Aloia, N., et al.: Enabling European archaeological research: THE ARIADNE e-infrastructure. Internet Archaeol. 43 (2017). Accessed 21 June 2018
  6. 6.
    Moulaison Sandy, H.M., Dykas, F.: High-quality metadata and repository staffing: perceptions of united states–based OpenDOAR participants. Cat. Classif. Q. 54(2), 101–116 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sabharwal, A.: Digital Curation in the Digital Humanities, Preserving and Promoting Archival and Special Collections, 1st edn. Chandos Publishing, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillis, S.: Embedding metadata to sustain a museum’s visual archive. J. Digit. Media Manag. 4(3), 217–230 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hajmoosaei, A., Skoric, P.: Museum ontology-based metadata. In: IEEE Tenth International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), Laguna Hills, CA, pp. 100–103 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barroso, I., Hartmann, N., Ribeiro, C.: Metadata crosswalk for a museum collection in a thematic digital library. J. Libr. Metadata 15(1), 36–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A Guardian Guide to your Metadata. Guardian News and Media Limited. Accessed 12 June 2013
  12. 12.
    EUROPEANA. Accessed 28 July 2018
  13. 13.
    International Council of Museums: Statement of principles of museum documentation, 2 November 2016.
  14. 14.
    Getty Research Institute. Art & Architecture Thesaurus® Online. Accessed 28 July 2018
  15. 15.
    Getty Research Institute: Cultural Objects Name Authority® Online. Accessed 28 July 2018
  16. 16.
    Getty Research Institute: Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names® Online. Accessed 28 July 2018
  17. 17.
    Getty Research Institute: Union List of Artist Names® Online. Accessed 28 July 2018
  18. 18.
    Idea: Mapping the world of cultural metadata standards. Accessed 28 July 2018
  19. 19.
    CIDOC: Supporting Museum Documentation. Accessed 28 July 2018
  20. 20.
    Higgins, S.: Data modelling for analysis, discovery and retrieval Managing. ALA Neal-Schuman, p. 39 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Categories for the Description of Works of Art. Accessed 28 July 2018
  22. 22.
    Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images. Accessed 28 July 2018
  23. 23.
    Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. Accessed 28 July 2018
  24. 24.
    MARC 21 XML schema. Accessed 28 July 2018
  25. 25.
    UNIMARC - Universal MARC format. Accessed 28 July 2018
  26. 26.
    MODS - Metadata Object Description Schema. Accessed 28 July 2018
  27. 27.
    VRA Core. Accessed 28 July 2018
  28. 28.
    LIDO – Lightweight Information Describing Objects. Accessed 28 July 2018
  29. 29.
    Thornes, R.: Introduction to Object ID: Guidelines for Making Records that Describe Art, Antiques, and Antiquities. Getty Publications Virtual Library (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spectrum UK collection management standard. Accessed 28 July 2018
  31. 31.
    ISAD(G) - General International Standard Archival Description. Accessed 28 July 2018
  32. 32.
    EAD - Encoded Archival Description. Accessed 28 July 2018
  33. 33.
    Van Hemelrijck, D., Vanlanduit, S., Anastasopoulos, A.A., Philippidis, T.P.: Emerging Technologies in Non-destructive Testing VI: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Emerging Technologies in Non-Destructive Testing, Brussels, Belgium, 27–29 May 2015. CRC Press (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anglo-American cataloguing rules. Accessed 28 July 2018
  35. 35.
    ISBD: International Standard Bibliographic Description - Consolidated Edition. De Gruyter Saur, Berlin/Munich (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    RDA: Resource Description and Access. Accessed 28 July 2018
  37. 37.
    TEI P3. Accessed 28 July 2018
  38. 38.
    PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata. Accessed 28 July 2018
  39. 39.
    MARC 21 Format for Authority Data. Accessed 28 July 2018
  40. 40.
    Encoded Archival Context for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families. Accessed 28 July 2018
  41. 41.
    ORCID iD - Open Researcher and Contributor ID. Accessed 28 July 2018
  42. 42.
    VIAF - The Virtual International Authority File. Accessed 28 July 2018
  43. 43.
    GeoNames geographical database. Accessed 28 July 2018
  44. 44.
    ccREL - Creative Commons Rights Expression Language. Accessed 28 July 2018
  45. 45.
    DOI - Digital Object Identifier. Accessed 28 July 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece
  2. 2.National Documentation CenterAthensGreece
  3. 3.CTS-UNINOVA and FCT/UNLCosta da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations