MOST MUSEUMS HOLD many shared images and documents on their institutional networks. A search may reveal the existence of extraneous duplicates, multiple versions, and various edits or updates of any given image or document file. It may not be apparent who created them, whether they are still viable, or if they are authentic. Knowledge of the existence of some of these files might have saved time on a previous project; eliminating redundancy among them definitely would ease the demand for network capacity. Such problems are common in the museum community, and information managers are increasingly aware of the need to control electronic files through a system that can aid in their organization, identification, searching, and retrieval in an easy, efficient, automated, and reliable manner.
To manage electronic files, many museums are turning to digital asset management systems (DAMS). These systems historically have been used by advertising and marketing professionals, but most cultural institutions now implement them to provide efficient access to files and to centralize operations. Although an asset management system can be, at its most basic level, an organized folder structure on a server, more sophisticated enterprise level or proprietary systems are designed to manage, track, display, and authenticate various types of files, their versions, and related information (or metadata) that exist within an institution’s spectrum of media and document resources.
Much like any physical object cared for by a museum, digital files increasingly are recognized as valuable assets that require preservation and management. The lifecycle of a digital file—the time and money invested in its creation or capture, the frequency with which its content is used or repurposed, the amount of cross-department use of the file, and the need to archive its content as institutional history—demonstrates its value. DAMS can be programmed to facilitate the oversight of file relevance, quality, and longevity, ultimately making extremely efficient use of extant human and electronic resources. The following sections will explain the functionality of a DAMS, its various components, and the investments that an institution must consider concerning scoping, implementing, and maintaining a system.
What exactly does a DAMS do? What goes into a system and how does it work? How does an institution choose a system? According to the Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials from the National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage1 (NINCH) implementing a DAMS involves:
Creating an efficient archive that can hold digital resources (such as images, audio, video and text) and the metadata used to describe them; implementing an infrastructure to ensure that these electronic data are managed and preserved in such a way that they will not become obsolete; [and] implementing search facilities that enable users to identify, locate and retrieve a digital object.
Before implementing a DAMS, the museum staff must first know what it wants from a system. For a DAMS to function properly, resources must be identified and organized in a manner that will produce positive results for these specific needs. The maintenance of files needs to be addressed for ultimate usability and preservation. This preparation involves establishing and implementing policies that address the standardization of file types, formats, sizing, and in some cases, naming.
Image collections are commonly a shared resource for curators, registrars, exhibition designers, marketing teams, public relations managers, education professionals, membership departments, and web and IT staff. Although many individual departments within an institution may manage their own image collections, DAMS introduce the ability to share images of objects, archival and historical images, and activity, program, and exhibition-related images. With new forms of publication and dissemination such as blogs and podcasts come increased activity for new and existing images by various departments. As a result, the types of digital files and the frequency with which they are used and repurposed is increasing, virtually flooding shared drives with images. Before implementing a DAMS, it is important to distinguish the types of images that exist, what they can be used for, and which can be eliminated.
The results of a search within a DAMS interface will often display its results by listing, either by file name or thumbnail view, the various versions of an image that exist in an institution’s repository or server. It is important to know the intended output format, such as a printed publication or screen use for the web or presentations, and to determine whether the available images are sufficient. Included in the available resources should be a master file—an original, high resolution, archival version.
Master files should remain the preferred and preserved archival copies of the files, stored in an un-compressed, unaltered format, such as RAW or TIFF (see section on file formats that follows). This version of an image best preserves the visual information of the object, person, or event displayed. Considering that many images are used and repurposed by many departments, it is important to preserve a master version of a file.
Depending on the storage parameters designated by your institution, master images may be stored as RAW files, which take up less space, or uncom-pressed TIFF files, which take up significantly more space (depending on their pixel dimensions). It is important to keep in mind that each camera model has its own RAW image setting, and these are not universally readable. For this reason, many institutions may prefer to convert RAW master images to digital negative (DNG) format, which is managed by the Adobe Corporation and, thus, is a more universally used file format. The master image should remain unaltered over time. The California Digital Library recommends that the master file should have a life span of approximately fifty years.2
DAMS can produce derivative files when downloaded that are commonly suitable for reuse. These files are created on demand by the DAMS and do not need to be stored. This feature can be customized for your institution’s needs and should at least consist of a version that is sufficient for printing (minimally a 300 ppi JPEG or JPEG 2000), as well as a version created for digital use or web output (72-96 ppi JPEG; see CHAPTER 5H, “Photography,” for more information about image sizing). It is imperative that a policy be developed to standardize the quality of master images, as well as their derivatives. The master file should be reliable enough to reproduce a variety of derivatives for many intended uses without having to rescan or recapture the original. Additionally, a DAMS should provide a function that can capture versions of files. Versioning will track assets that are edits of a master file using a text history for accountability. Not to be confused with derivative files that are merely different file sizes, versions capture the often extensive work done from a master file. For example, composite images or images with extensive digital photo alterations can be stored and linked along with the master image to retain the original as context as well as the new creation.
Careful consideration should be given to the long-term preservation of born-digital images—images that were not created using a physical medium such as film—as they remain the primary source file with no analog format to rely on as a backup. A strategy should be employed to oversee the long-term preservation of these assets so that they can be retrieved for future generations. Procedures that will preserve the accessibility, quality, and integrity of the digital master should be maintained throughout the entire lifecycle of a digital object (see CHAPTER 3G, “Managing Digital Art”). This is not the case for analog media, which are now commonly digitally reformatted to serve as the primary archival records and sources for derivative files. Digital media also serve to protect the information contained on the original analog from loss if it is misplaced, borrowed and not returned, or physically degraded over time through use or inherent vice.
Long-term preservation of digital files begins with understanding the purpose and use of various file formats. Lossless file formats are the preferred for archival storage because the data stored in the file are not compressed in such a way that discards information; these file formats include TIFF, RAW, and DNG. Lossy file formats (in which some image quality is lost during compression), such as JPEG, are preferred for applications such as web pages or embedding images into collections management systems (CMS) because they are smaller in size. Lossy formats cannot, however, be used for archival purposes because the method that makes their file size smaller requires that some data be discarded on saving.
As physical objects in a collection have accession numbers, so also a unique identifier (e.g., an alphanumeric naming scheme) may be assigned to each digital asset to help locate and identify the resource.
With different versions of digital assets located in different areas of an institution’s CMS and DAMS, a distinctive naming scheme will help identify the differences between the various purposes of extant versions of any given file. One option is to use qualifiers to keep all versions of a file consistently named (such as adding 001, 002, etc.). However, this number should not interfere with any existing naming conventions, such as for the page number of an album or catalog. Another easy identifier is the date. For example, an object with the accession number 25-5525 may be photographed before and after a treatment. Naming the files “25-5525_2017.TIFF” and “25-5525_2018.TIFF” would differentiate the files, alert the user to the difference, and make them easy to identify when they have been downloaded from the system. More detailed dates that include the month and day, or using predefined codes such as “bt” and “at” for “before treatment” and “after treatment” are also ways of making a file name meaningful. DAMS assign a unique ID number to every file that is uploaded into the system. It is important, however, to implement a consistent file naming system that is relevant for your institution. Once files are downloaded to a user’s computer, it is extremely helpful if they contain easily identifiable information. When developing file naming conventions, there are some rules to keep in mind:
Additional master images of the same object images that are ancillary views to the approved view of a collection object and provide persistent identifiers include:
Images from which no professional image has been obtained and snapshots may link records management to the CMS and are used as a record image or to document condition:
You can note in the file name or the metadata (preferably both) if the photo was taken for a particular department which can help with sorting, searching, and the return of relevant results for users. For example, identification images could be made visible only to registrars and conservators, identified by a department code in the file name such as accession-number_date_verso01_reg.tif.
Gallery views, archive images, events, and other related images are often reusable assets. For these images, it is important to retain information in the file name that will enable retrieval later. There are numerous possibilities for doing this, but the best option may be to use file names that include dates, content, or identify the departments to which the images relate. For example, images of a yearly gala event might be file names such as:
For a recurring event such as a lecture series that takes place on the first of every month you might use:
Note that the date for file names and folders should be in the form of a four-digit year, two-digit month and two-digit day (YYYY-MM-DD) to ensure that files and folders sort chronologically.
Most institutions that implement DAMS do so to manage their image and media collections. The primary concern with documents is that some formats may not be supported in the future because of regular updates and changes in proprietary software. On the other hand, the problem with choosing a nonproprietary file format (or standard) for long-term access is that the formatting preferences and design elements, such as fonts, are sometimes lost when the file is reduced to its textual elements. Currently, three standard file formats are considered preservation formats because they rely on web-based technologies:
Metadata (the information attached to digital objects) are used to search for files on a server. A DAMS will display a small thumbnail image, the various versions of a file that may exist within an institution’s image resources, the title, size, and other related information. There are numerous types of metadata that can be related to a file, including:
The type and amount of metadata that appear in a DAMS are entirely at the discretion of the institution and should be in compliance with policies and procedures that are place. It is good practice to confer with other institutions to determine what types of metadata they regularly embed in their assets. Some metadata are necessary to ensure the longevity and vitality of the digital file, but what is needed will differ depending on vocabularies and metadata standards developed by the Getty Research Institute,4 such as the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), a popular example of linked open data.
One of the ways to link information about images of collection objects (metadata) and other images (such as exhibition and installation or gallery images) to their sources is through an institution’s CMS. The DAMS will allow a user interface to mimic the information found in cataloging information, such as tombstone or label information, creator or author identification, administrative information about the file (e.g., a creation date or input device, such as a scanner), the intellectual property or copyright status of an art object, and just about any other information the institution deems pertinent.
As information in a CMS is cataloged and updated, it can be synchronized with a DAMS as required. Through the process of performing scheduled checksums (programmed operations that check for errors and redundancies in files), which will decipher changes that have been made, and a deployment agent that systematically delivers all new information to the DAMS, the system can also be set up to feed information from the DAMS back to the CMS. To maximize access potential for future content, placeholder records can be created for catalog records that do not have matching images, indicating that there are existing media available that have not been digitized and linked to the system. The DAMS-CMS connection can be configured to collect the DAMS high-quality image files to be included in a CMS object package, making analog and digital condition-checking easier with better quality photography.
It is possible to program the system to be selective in its choice of information and the type of images it chooses to deploy. A security matrix can be designed to block private information or information that should not be available to end users from object records, including information about loaned objects or donor information. Default ranking—a system designed to indicate, in a specific order, the preferred file to be used for an intended output format—can be set up to maintain selectivity so as not to overload the system with substandard images.
Programming permissions for any file or folder in the repository gives an end user the limited capability of viewing, reading, or seeing a list but not permission to make changes to the information in the document or its metadata. Some institutions choose to limit the information in their DAMS to tombstone data and intellectual property information for the artwork or image and any potentially restricted uses. Permissions levels can also be set to restrict the image results that a user can find.
In addition to configuring the permission levels for objects, metadata, and users, a DAMS provides security for the museum’s assets by backups of the system to protect the institution’s firewalls and by tracking the history of every user action. Robust metrics reports can provide a clear view of how the museum’s assets are being used and by whom.
Many factors contribute to choosing a DAMS for an institution. Budgetary, staff commitment, and architecture and design are the main determining factors for the system. Enterprise-level systems are time consuming and costly to implement, support, and license. Some organizations may choose an open source system or a trusted repository, both models that archives and libraries have historically used. Like an enterprise-level system, these are somewhat usable off the shelf, but require technical support from on-site staff to customize.
It is recommended that a strategy be enforced to manage the information in electronic records along with the media on which they are stored. The strategy should ensure that the media remain reliable and authentic without losing the integrity of the original. Preservation metadata, unlike descriptive and administrative metadata, are the information infrastructure that support the processes associated with digital preservation. Preservation metadata are defined by PREMIS (Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies) as “the information a repository uses to support the digital preservation process.”5 For more information on the structure and contents of preservation metadata, refer to the PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Records Management Metadata.6 More specifically, preservation metadata are necessary to:
Data format and software obsolescence pose a large threat to the long-term accessibility of digital objects. As file formats continue to evolve and new versions and updates appear for software, files can become indecipherable. Media may become unreadable over time because of physical damage to the storage device or technological developments in hardware that render preexisting formats obsolete. Two strategies have been formulated to deal with these problems:
The use of file-converter software will allow easy migration from one file format to another. Outsourcing format migration is an option, as is investing in new software technologies that can automatically scan and report the compatibility of files, which then can be selected and converted to new version formats. The Council on Library and Information Resources7 recommends that file-conversion software:
In addition to migration and emulation, the NINCH Guide to Good Practice8 also recommends:
According to the Digital Preservation Coalition, tracking the life cycle of a digital file can be used to allocate costs.9 The Digital Preservation Coalition based its calculation models on various studies completed by researchers interested in determining the economic impact on cultural institutions of managing these files. TABLE 4D.1 outlines a structured approach to reinforce the cyclical costs associated with the various stages in the life of a digital file.
Because of many variables, it is extremely difficult to gauge the costs associated with these stages. Open archival information systems (OAIS) developed its own reference models that describe each stage of the life cycle as a cost event. Each stage is evaluated for likely cost sources and depending on the purpose of the study, a total cost may then be calculated per item, per time period for preservation of all collection material, or per process (see TABLES 4D.2 and 4D.3). Even if these models are not used for estimating associated costs, they provide a good foundation for thinking about the cyclical nature and the accumulated activity surrounding digital files.
Table 4D.1 Typical Cost Events
| Activity | Cost Events |
| System creation and management activities | Creating organizational infrastructure Creating repository architecture Archive administration, repository operation, and maintenance upgrades |
| Digital material workflow and life cycle activities | Selection, acquisition, validation, creation of digital collections, conversion of deposited material, rights negotiation and management, resource description (e.g., cataloging metadata and preservation metadata creation), storage, evaluation and revision, disposal/deaccession |
| Specific preservation activities | Technology planning activities, such as technology watch and long-term strategies (e.g., migration and emulation) |
| Specific access activities | Access to objects Access to catalogs Access to user support |
Table 4D.2 Typical Cost Sources
| Cost Type | Cost Sources |
| Digital object or data acquisition | Purchase price or licensing cost |
| Labor | Personnel (dedicated staff as well as varying proportions of time of senior management, supervisor, information technology staff, curatorial staff, etc.) |
| Technology | Hardware, software, level of requirements (e.g., speed, availability, and performance) |
| Nonlabor operational costs | Facilities and space (e.g., rent and electricity), materials and equipment, communications, insurance, legal costs |
Table 4D.3 Life Cycle Stages of Physical and Digital Objects
| Stages identified in the lifecycle of physical collections | Stages identified in the lifecycle of digitized material |
| Selection | Selection |
| Acquisition processing | Checking intellectual property rights |
| Cataloging and press-marking or numbering objects | Conservation check and remedial conservation costs, retrieval and re-shelving costs of physical media, capture of digitized master |
| Preservation, conservation, storage, retrieval deaccession | Quality assurance of digital master and production of service copies |
| deaccession | |
| Access cost over time | |
| Storage costs over time |
Unfortunately, by the time this book is published some of the information in this section may already be outdated. It is a disadvantage of technology that many new developments in software or hardware are replaced by something newer and greater at very brief intervals. Museums are now faced with the gargantuan task of managing digital files in a way that is conducive to access and preservation. Methods of managing information before the digital age no longer apply. We are in an era of transition, as new means of providing access to collections replace the old in exciting ways. In the meantime, as we continue to learn how to use available technologies, we must maintain and strengthen the integrity of our existing resources. •
1. NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials, 195. Available at: http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/pdf/chapter1/1.17.pdf.
2. The California Digital Library. Available at: www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/guidelines/bpgimages/introduction.html.
3. G. S. Hunter, Preserving Digital Information (New York: Neal Schuman Publishers, 2000), 60–62.
4. Available at: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies.
5. Available at: http://preservationmatters.blogspot.com/2017/04/understanding-premis.html.
6. PREMIS Data Dictionary. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v3/.
7. Council on Library and Information Resources. Available at: www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub93/risk.html
8. Available at: http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/pdf/chapter1/1.17.pdf.
9. Digital Preservation Coalition, available at: www.dpconline.org/graphics/handbook/.