From zoeholbr@drizzle.com Wed Dec 1 09:12:15 1999 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id JAA59460 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:12:13 -0800 Received: from drizzle.com (IDENT:zoeholbr@twinpeaks.drizzle.com [216.162.192.3]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.08) with ESMTP id JAA07814 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:12:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (zoeholbr@localhost) by drizzle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA32696 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:12:12 -0800 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:12:12 -0800 (PST) From: Zoe Holbrooks To: Pacific NW Indexers Discussion list Subject: [FYI] Description and Indexing of Images (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:48:51 -0500 From: Terry Kuny Reply-To: Digital Libraries Research mailing list To: DIGLIB@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [DOC] Description and Indexing of Images 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: margaret.graham@unn.ac.uk -- *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 ******************************************************************** Sun's Summer Administrative Advisor newsletter is now at wwwwseast.usec.sun.com/edu/admin/adminadvisor2.html. Articles include a review of the JSTOR project, a Computer Portal update, and the announcement of a Java in Administration Special Interest Group. ******************************************************************** .