Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories Group SixDana Carter, Kristen Holdman-Ross, Molly Masse, Steve Rinker, Kristin Zachrel

Introduction to VRAVRA Core 4.0 is a data standard for the cultural heritage community that was developed by the Visual Resources Association's Data Standards Committee. It consists of a metadata element set (units of information such as title, location, date, etc.), as well as an initial blueprint for how those elements can be hierarchically structured.

Introduction to VRAThe element set provides a categorical organization for the description of works of visual culture as well as the images that document them.VRA Core website, http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/

History of VRA CoreIn 1968 visual resources curators met at the College Art Association (CAA) conferences

Wanted to formalize their group within College Art Association.

However, nothing came of this intent and they remained a committee.

History of VRA CoreAnother group formed at the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) conferences in the early 1970s.

This group was also involved in visual resources management.

History of VRA Core1972 Southeastern College Art Conference (SEAC) and the Mid-America College Art Association (MACAA). Group created workshops on visual resources maintenance.Topics slide room managementstandards of VR managementNewsletter calledInternational Bulletin for Photographic Documentation of the Visual Arts.

History of VRA CoreIn 1980 Visual Resource Curators active in CAA and ARLIS/NA collaborated and formalized their association with one another by creating bylaws for their organization and electing officers.

The first formal meeting of the VRA was held at the CAA conference of 1983.

Core Categories HistoryCore Categories were developed after research by the Data Standards Committee of the VRA determined that documentation for works of art needed to be standardized.

In 1995 the elements needed to be included when describing works of art were debated.

Core Categories HistoryIn 1996 The Core Categories for Visual Resources, Version 1.0 (published in the Fall 1996 issue of the VRA Bulletin and on the VRA website).

VRA Core 4.0 was released on April 9, 2007.

Definition of VRA Core 4.0A data standard for the cultural heritage community by the Visual Resources Associations website

It is a metadata scheme used to describe works of art and visual culture, as well as the images that document it.

VRA Core 4.0 Goals Facilitating the sharing of records for artwork and images between institutions and databases through standardization of description. Using VRA Core 4.0 ensures that there is uniformity and consistency between the records or descriptions of various works, whether they are produced at different institutions, or by different catalogersor unrelated works.

VRA Core 4.0 ComponentsVRA consists of a metadata element setstandardized units of information about any given piece of artwork or image

And a framework for hierarchically structuring those elements.

VRA Core 4.0 Data Elements19 different data elements or categories Examples include:Agentdatelocationrights subject

VRA Core 4.0 Sub-Elements23 different sub-elements 21 relate specifically to only one element Example: Sub-element for agentattribution culturedates (attribute =type)earliestDate (circa) latestDate (circa)name (attribute = type)role 2 can be used on any element DisplayNoteSome sub-elements also have attributes that further modify data.

Global Attributes9 global attributes that can be applied to any element or sub-element as necessary. dataDate extenthref pref refid rules source vocab xml:lang

Element OrderElements are listed in alphabetical orderExcept for the top level element which is listed first. The top level element must be work, collection, or image. It distinguishes whether the record is referring toan actual object, a collection of objects, or a visual surrogate or image of a work

Completed StructurePut it all together, this is what the hierarchical structure looks like for the agent element of a record:AgentAttributionCulturedates (type)earliestDate (circa)latestDate(circa)name (type) role

Element FlexibilityNo single element is strictly required in any given record, nor do they all have to be used, however,

Providing the basic who, what, when, where, how, and subject at minimum is strongly suggested (Eklund), if known.

Restricted vs. Unrestricted VersionsThe unrestricted allows any value or words to be input in the type attribute and is recommended for local cataloging The restricted requires controlled values (wording) and date formats to be input in the record.

XMLThere have been several versions of the VRA Core Categories prior to the current 4.0 version. One of the major changes from past versions and a very important characteristic of VRA Core 4.0 is that it has been designed to be expressed or encoded in XML. This is to further enable record sharing and exchange.

About XMLExtensive Markup Language may seem unfamiliar. XML is a non-proprietary text-based encoding system similar to HTML. While HTML is about displaying information, XML is about describing information structure and meaning.XML schema files are flexible. A file may be as strict or as lax as needed.

CDWAAmong encoding and metadata standards, VRA Core is similar to CDWA, another metadata standard used for cultural heritage objects, art, and images. ALA describes it as the mother of all metadata for art materials in a 1999 Networked Resources & Metadata Committee Situation Report. It stands for Categories for the Description of Art Work and was created by the Art Information Task Force in the 1990s. CDWA has 532 categories and sub-categories and seems to be a much larger system with more general applications than VRA, which is specifically designed for the sharing of visual resource records.

ToolsTo make the best use of VRA Core 4.0, it must be used in conjunction with tools for standardizing data contents and data values within the records. Data value standards dictate what terms to use to describe an item and data contents standards are rules for how to format and organize those words.

Data Value StandardsData value standards that are used with VRA Core 4.0 include Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT). Library of Congress authority files are used as well.

ExampleHere are some examples of records created using VRA Core 4.0, provided by the VRA on vraweb.org:

This is what the XML coding would look like for the record of Goyas Los Caprichos

http://gort.ucsd.edu/escowles/vracore4/examples/02.xml

ExampleThis is how it might display in a database:http://gort.ucsd.edu/escowles/vracore4/examples/02-display.html

Uses of VRAThe Core is divided up into different sections or Sets. These Sets consist of elements & sub-elements. These sets allow for the recording of multiple values so if there are multiple artists, or multiple media used, they can all be included.

Data StandardsCataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images (CCO): provides consistent data content to produce more effective data exchange. tells the user how to populate the different fields in the Core. VRA established the fields and the CCO tells you what data to enter into the fields.

Getty Union List of Artists Names (ULAN)Resource to use to provide consistency when populating the creator field. It supplies the artists or manufacturers name (including any spelling variants), dates (birth, death, work span, etc.), role (painter, sculptor, artist, etc. and specifies preferred role), gender, other pertinent info.

http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/ulan/

Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT)Same as ULAN except it provides the proper terminology for things like work type (paintings, tables, lamps, armchairs), creator role (painter, sculptor), material (oil, glass, etc). It allows for more specificity with terminology while creating a consistent standard http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/

Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN)Again the same as ULAN & AAT but for geographic names, ie. Chicago, London, etc.

http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/tgn/

Who Uses the CoreMuseums & Academic InstitutionsCreates a more reputable & thorough setting for accessing images & image content than a public source like Google Images. Many institutions keep their databases password protected.

Could be Used for Record SharingImages are endless Wouldnt be able to tailor to individual institution Can choose the order in which the info will display Wouldnt be able to choose what info to include in description and notes fields based on what user needs to know Cataloging mistakes & variations are also shared

Capas Portrait of Picasso

Joseph Beuys How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare

Beuys: I Like America and America Likes Me

Searchinghttp://www.lib.ku.edu/imagegateway/

www.via.lib.harvard.edu

EvaluationThe description of anything visual can be arbitrary. Our perceptions are highly individualized. VRA Core exists to provide an appropriate and hopefully inclusive means of describing original art, images, photographs, architecture, fashion, and even performance art.

Janice Ecklund QuotationCultural works are as individual as the artists who create them and the scholars who write about them, according to Janice Eklund a member of the VRA Data Standards Committee work group. And this also extends to the descriptive metadata that has been recorded and published about them.

EvaluationMuch of the information recorded about cultural works is scholarly opinion.

Information professionals must record this information for effective retrieval in a compatible computer environment without compromising any nuanced artistic and scholarly content.

EvaluationSince the introduction of VRA Core 1.0 in 1996, three upgrades have been released: Core 2.0, published in 1998; Core 3.0, published in 2002; Core 4.0 Beta, published in 2005; and the latest Core 4.0, published in 2007. Each subsequent core has built upon its predecessor.

EvaluationThe mapping of Core 1.0 was influenced by other standards such as MARC and the Getty-sponsored Categories for the Description of Works of Art, or CDWA. The first core was more or less a rough draft without any real sense of how the elements might interact in application. This led to a more sophisticated scheme in 2.0 including more descriptors.

EvaluationEffective data exchange emerged as a primary reason for revising the VRA Core. Digital technology also impacted the way many analog slide and picture collections were being managed. Varying data structures and content rules made mapping data to VRA Core 3.0 categories inconsistent and problematic.

EvaluationVRA sponsored the development of the Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) project. The CCO is a guide to describing cultural works and their images. Out of this also came the emergence of Extensible Markup Language (XML) as the data exchange format of choice. The XML expression became an effective way to merge image metadata from different library collections.

Janice Ecklund QuotationEcklund explains, The local image data could be mapped to the VRA Core and tagged according to XML schema developed expressly for the VRA Core. The XML schema emerged as a logical extension of the revised VRA Code and a vital component in reaching the goal of using the Core as an effective mechanism for data exchange. The XML VRA Core, coupled with CCO brings us closer to the goal of a shared cataloging environment for visual resources.

Advantages of VRA CoreProvides a basic element set to consider when designing descriptive metadata fields for a database model. It has the potential to be both a point of departure and a common destination for image collection managers who (wish) to administer their data locally, and export it for discovery in a larger resource or repository.

Advantages of VRA CoreThe greatest challenge found in shared collections was the inconsistent data content and submission format. Thus, the goal became to develop a format where different collections with varying descriptive structures could map their data to a common set of core elements.

Changes from 3.0 to 4.0Because many visual resource collections had adapted Core 3.0, it was decided the next version should remain as close to the 3.0 model as much as possible. Rather than re-invent the VRA Core, revisions were made with the intention to make data values contained in the existing elements more specific while providing a means in which an XML schema could be introduced.

Changes from 3.0 to 4.0The XML interface is a vital addition

The latest version of the Core is laden with many bells and whistles. However, they are there only if needed. He uses a visual paradigm to compare past and present Cores.

Ben Kessler Quotation(The) earlier versions of the VRA Core might look something like an antique secretary with its sequence of cubbyholes built to hold objects of varying sizes, but fundamentally inert in structure. By contrast, VRA Core 4.0 might be envisioned as something like a fancy picnic hamper, with its highly specified functionality --- an efficient carrying case for the complex sets of data visual resources professionals deal with every day.

Questions?

References N. Ebersole, personal communication, July 10, 2009.Ecklund, J. (2007). Herding cats: CCO, XML, and the VRA core. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, (Spring) 34:1. p. 45-68.Kessler, B. (2007). Encoding works and images: the story behind the VRA core 4.0. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, (Spring) 34:1. p. 20-33.VRA Core Introduction (2007). Retrieved 16 July 2009 from http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/VRA_Core4_Intro.pdfVisual Resources Association (2007) Retrieved 16 July 2009 from http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/

*