----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Forwarded from the NINCH list. Judy -------------Forwarded Message----------------- From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE, INTERNET:[log in to unmask] To: Multiple recipients of list, INTERNET:[log in to unmask] Date: 11/24/99 10:16 AM RE: DIGITAL IMAGE RESEARCH NINCH ANNOUNCEMENT News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources from across the Community November 24, 1999 NEW DISCUSSION LIST ON IMAGE-BASED HUMANITIES COMPUTING: LOOKSEE http://www.rch.uky.edu/~mgk/looksee/ U.K. REPORT ON DESCRIPTION & INDEXING OF IMAGES http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/ARLIS/ * * * NEW DISCUSSION LIST ON IMAGE-BASED HUMANITIES COMPUTING: LOOKSEE http://www.rch.uky.edu/~mgk/looksee/ Readers may be interested in a new discussion list designed for inquiries as well as deeper, structured discussion on issues related to hiumanities image-based computing. LOOKSEE is organized by Matt Kirschenbaum at the University of Kentucky. For further information go to LOOKSEE's Webpage . Here is an earlier introductory comment from Matt: "As noted in the introductory message, however, I also intend that LOOKSEE be a venue for more structured kinds of discussion, in which participants will be asked to turn their attention to particular topics that will unfold in sequence. (Our first such topic will be medical imaging and informatics.) In short, I envision LOOKSEE as a space for both informal exchange and for directed discussion, with the group eventually working towards some collaborative applied research. ==================================================================== U.K. REPORT ON DESCRIPTION & INDEXING OF IMAGES http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/ARLIS/ >Original-Sender: [log in to unmask] >Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:42:36 +0100 () >Subject: New Report: Description and Indexing of Images >From: Neil Beagrie <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:34:50 +0100 Catherine Grout <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I am pleased to announce the presence of the following report which > should be of interest to list members > > Best Wishes > > Catherine > --------------------------------------------- > > Graham, Margaret E. Description and indexing of images: report of a > survey of ARLIS members, 1998/99. Institute for Image Data Research, > University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 1999. > > This report presents the findings of a survey of UK art and picture > libraries into the description and indexing of images, carried out > within the Institute for Image Data Research, University of > Northumbria at Newcastle, in the period November 1998 to January 1999. > The report covers background information on the context of the survey; > the methodology adopted; presentation and discussion of the findings; > and, a summary and conclusions. > > In the Autumn of 1998, the Institute for Image Data Research was > commissioned by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the > Higher Education Funding Councils to prepare a state of the art report > on Content-Based Image Retrieval (URL: > http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/CBIR/cbir.html) , with particular emphasis > on the capabilities and limitations of current technology, and the > extent to which it is likely to prove of practical use to users in > higher education and elsewhere. The ARLIS Survey was carried out in > order to inform a section of the report to do with current techniques > for image and video retrieval. It also gave the researchers the > opportunity to find out what were some of the issues to do with the > management of image collections and current cataloguing and indexing > practices. > > The questionnaire was distributed in early November 1998 to 181 > institutional members of the Art Libraries Society of the UK. By > January 1999, sixty-one completed questionnaires had been returned > representing fifty-eight organisations. > > A summary of the findings is as follows: > > Survey respondents: > The majority of the respondents (60%) were from academic institutions, > representing the further and higher education community. > > Image collections maintained: > The image collections maintained by respondents included the following > types: slides (35 mm); video; photographs (positives); photographs > (negatives); posters; prints; paintings; drawings; transparencies (5"x > 4"); fabrics; film; art reproductions; illustrations/cuttings; and > lantern slides. The most popular combination of types in any > collection was '35 mm slides' and 'videos'. > > The extent of digitisation is low, with just under a quarter of > respondents (23%) reporting that they had digitised some or, in one > case, all of their image collections. Some had grants to undertake > partial digitisation and one or two were about to start a digitisation > project. > > Cataloguing and indexing practices: > Three quarters of the respondents formally described their images, > although the level of description varied considerably across > organisations and sometimes between types of material within the one > organisation. Artist/photographer, Title and Date were the most > popular descriptors. > > For each type of image, with the exception of video, the majority of > respondents used in-house rules to describe their images, although > several indicated that practice varied between different types of > image. In the case of videos, the majority used the Anglo-American > Cataloguing Rules. Specific tools for describing non-text items, such > as the standards developed by the Museum Documentation Association and > the Visual Resources Association, were in use by a small number. > > There was a wide variation in the way images were described in terms > of their content, e.g. subject, period, genre, etc. In most cases, > Title was ranked highest alongside Subject headings. > > The majority of respondents used in-house schemes to classify and > index their images. The Dewey Decimal Classification was the most > popular classification scheme in use, particularly for videos. > Specialist schemes such as Social History and Industrial > Classification, the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Thesaurus of > Graphic Materials, and ICONCLASS, were in use by a small number of > respondents. > > Two thirds of the respondents maintained catalogues and indexes for > some or all of their image collections. The most popular type were > manual indexes and catalogues, followed by online catalogues and > database management systems. Only a small proportion used image > management systems. > > Issues to do with indexing images: > Just over half the respondents (52%) were not satisfied with the > content indexing of their image collections, whilst 42% indicated that > they were satisfied. Of the former, 55% indicated that more in-depth > indexing was required or that not enough subject terms or keywords > were assigned. > > The three most important problems or issues that arose when > cataloguing and indexing images were: aspects of the indexing process > itself; resources (i.e. time, money or people); and, the indexing > tools available (or, sometimes, the lack of an appropriate tool). > > Issues to do with searching for images: > The three most important problems or issues which users experience > when searching and retrieving images were: the indexing policies or > practices in the institutions concerned; aspects of users' information > seeking behaviour; and, the type of index available and how this > affected the way users searched and retrieved images. > > Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR): > On the whole, more respondents thought that CBIR techniques would be > of some use to the users of their image collections than thought they > would be of no use, although there was some variation across types of > image. However, several respondents indicated that they were not > sure, or did not know, if CBIR would be of use to their users. > Retrieval by colour and shape were considered more useful than > retrieval by texture. > > Uses of images: > The three most popular uses of images were: supporting lectures, > seminars and teaching; private study and research; and publications. > ________________________________ > > The report is available at: http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/ARLIS/ > > Printed versions of the report are available from the author. > > Margaret Graham > Research and Development Manager > Institute for Image Data Research > University of Northumbria at Newcastle > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 8ST > > Tel: 0191 227 4646 > Fax: 0191 227 4637 > Email: [log in to unmask] > -- > *Catherine Grout*Visual Arts Data Service Project Manager* > **Surrey Institute of Art & Design**Farnham**Surrey** > ****URL: http://vads.ahds.ac.uk *tel: 01252 892723**** > > Providing, preserving and promoting . . . > high quality digital resources for the visual arts > > ************************************************************************ Neil Beagrie Tel: +44 (0)171 928 7991 Assistant Director Fax: +44 (0)171 928 6825 The Executive Arts and Humanities Data Service Email: [log in to unmask] King's College London Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK ************************************************************************ ============================================================== NINCH-Anounce is an announcement listserv, produced by the National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH). The subjects of announcements are not the projects of NINCH, unless otherwise noted; neither does NINCH necessarily endorse the subjects of announcements. We attempt to credit all re-distributed news and announcements and appreciate reciprocal credit. For questions, comments or requests to un-subscribe, contact the editor: ============================================================== See and search back issues of NINCH-ANNOUNCE at . ============================================================== __________________________________________________________________ Mail submissions to [log in to unmask] Administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc) to [log in to unmask] ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance: http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html Questions may be addressed to list owner at: [log in to unmask]