Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•1,500 vues
This document summarizes the key points from a final review meeting for the MIMO project. It discusses contributors and outcomes related to work packages, results, sustainability, content analysis, targets and indicators, harmonization of metadata, interoperability, the MIMO database, digitization quality control, thesauri developed, multilingual access, difficulties encountered and remedies, dissemination activities and target groups, user involvement and feedback, the virtual exhibition, and impact and benefits for project partners. The project largely met its goals of digitizing over 45,000 musical instruments, developing shared vocabularies and standards, and making the content available through a central database and Europeana.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master
Similaire à Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Mimo musical instrument museums online project fp7 final review master
- 1. Final Review Meeting John Scally, Project Director, Norman Rodger, Project Manager (UEDIN) Frank Bär (GNM) : Rodolphe Bailly, Marie-Hélène Serra (CM) : Margaret Birley (HML) : Lars Christian Koch (SPK)
- 5. Contributors to Work Packages 1. Digitisation 2. OAI PMH, Database Development and EUROPEANA Interoperability 3. Thesauri and Classification 4. Project Management 5. Assessment and Evaluation 6. Dissemination
- 6. Contributors to Results 46,123 instrument records with at least one image + 1,757 audio + 308 video files MIMO Vocabulary Web Management Tool Updated HS Classification Content in Europeana MIMO Technical Platform – MIMO-DB MIMO Digitisation Standard Virtual Exhibition
- 8. Content Analysis – Digital Items 1. 46,123 instrument records with at least one image 2. 80,557 digital images 3. 1,757 sound files 4. 308 video files Contributors to
- 9. Contributors to Digitisation Tracking Statistics – Example
- 10. Targets and Indicators DoW targets* MIMO outcome Balance Images of musical instruments 45,000 / 45,921 80,557 + 79 % Musical instruments digitised 45,000 43,688 / 46,123** -3 % / + 2.5 % Audio files 1,768 1,757 (even) Video files 307 308 (even) **without / with other museums Contributors to *p. 9-13 (underlying content) and p. 69 (success indicators)
- 11. Contributors to
- 12. Harmonisation of Metadata • All museums use a Common object description model in their repository: LIDO • All museums use Common vocabularies • internal (elaborated during the project ) • external (GeoNames) Contributors to
- 13. • MIMO-DB : Advanced search through all data providers and compare results. • Report tool on data enrichment • Workflows and Protocols - local checking - pre-ingestion checking - post-ingestion checking Quality Control (quality of MIMO metadata) Contributors to
- 15. Interoperability Contributors to • again : LIDO • MIMO-DB : OAI inputs AND OAI output • URIs for each object and each term of the vocabulary • Vocabulary available in Linked Open Data
- 16. http://www.mimo-db.eu/InstrumentsKeywords/2232 H U M A N S H U M A N S M A C H I N E S M A C H I N E S URI for the instrument keyword "Octobass" HTML RDF Contributors to Vocabulary Exposition in Linked Open Data
- 17. • 43234 enriched LIDO records (Sept 2011) • MIMO vocabulary delivered through linked open data • Mapping ( XSLT ) between LIDO and EDM (in RDF) • D2.3 ( updated in sept. 2011 ) : Guidelines for harvesting MIMO’s database repository Material Delivered to Europeana Contributors to
- 18. Digitisation – Quality Control • Each institution controlled own results immediately during digitisation (photo, scanning, digitisation of audio and video) • Good practice examples shown in the MIMO digitisation standard • Monitoring on demand by WP1 lead • Short presentations by WP1 lead to the consortium about: • Resolutions, file sizes and image quality (Brussels, March 2010) • Colour management (Berlin, June 2010) • Review of consortium members‘ content (Berlin, June 2010): • Photo examples • Photo equipment • File naming conventions Contributors to
- 19. The MIMO Digitisation Standard Contributors to
- 20. The MIMO Digitisation Standard • Three versions as deliverables: 1. D1.1: Version 1, October 2009 2. D1.5: Version 2, November 2010 3. D1.8: Version 3 (final), September 2011 • Permanent input from all digitising partners • Numerous draft versions circulated among partners for discussion, approval and enhancement • Expert subgroup for extra-European instruments (MIM-BE, RMCA, SPK, CM) • Evaluation by professional photographers and members of CIMCIM and amended Contributors to
- 21. The MIMO Digitisation Standard • … defines minimum requirements: • Files for long-time preservation: master files • Images: 24 (3x8) bit colour; > 2,100 px longest side; Tiff-format LINK • Audio: 24-bit res.; 44,1 kHz sampling rate; lossless format (e.g. WAV, AIFF) LINK • Scanned images: Target is original size at 300 dpi (prints). • Video: 24 bit colour PAL; 720x576 px; 25 FPS; lossless format if possible LINK Contributors to
- 22. The MIMO Digitisation Standard • … defines minimum requirements: • Files for Web-use: derivatives • Images: 24 (3x8) bit colour; 800 px longest side; JPEG-format • Audio: > 128 kB/s bit rate; normalized; stereo if applicable; length depending on IPR issues (30 – 120 s); mp3, AAC or WMA format • Video: 24 bit colour PAL; 720x576 px; 25 FPS; MPEG-2, AVI, WMV, Quicktime, mp4/H264 at 300Kb/s-2Mb/s for download; ASF; WMV; Quicktime or mp4/H.264 at 300Kb/s-1.2 Mb/s for streaming Contributors to
- 23. The MIMO Digitisation Standard • … defines: • Parameters of position and view for an easy understandable description of an items position in a photo • Mandatory views as the first representative image of an instrument • Recommended views for further documentation of entire views of instruments • … helps: • all people concerned with the photography of musical instruments in sharing practical hints from all MIMO-partners. Contributors to
- 24. Thesauri 1) Names for musical instruments 2) Geographical names 3) Makers’ names Contributors to
- 25. 1) Family names - 9 e.g. Wind Instruments 2) Group names - 65 e.g. Bagpipes 3) Keywords – over 3,500 e.g. biniou, cabrette, musette Contributors to Thesauri Musical Instrument Names
- 26. 4) Synonyms West Asian goblet drum – Darabukka [ دربوكة ] Also transliterated as: – Darboukka – Darabuke – Derbouka – Darbouka – Daraboukkeh Contributors to Thesauri Musical Instrument Names
- 27. Contributors to
- 28. Contributors to
- 29. Contributors to
- 30. Contributors to
- 31. Contributors to Thesauri - Geographical Names
- 32. Contributors to
- 33. There are three sections to the thesaurus of musical instrument makers’ names: • 1) Corporations • 2) Persons (Individual makers) • 3) Families 4,988 names identified. (Deliverable 3.4) Contributors to Thesauri – Instrument Makers’ Names
- 34. Contributors to Multilingual Access The names for musical instruments have been translated by the consortium partners into the current languages of MIMO: – French – German – Italian – Dutch – Swedish – English
- 35. Contributors to
- 36. Multilingual Access Contributors to Q : how to search using terms in a language, and retrieve objects described in another language A : automatic metadata enrichment to the instrument keywords thesaurus during ingestion into MIMO-DB The record linked to a vocabulary term benefits from all the translations and synonyms of the keyword during search requests.
- 37. Contributors to
- 38. MIMO-DB • Professional search interface • Vocabulary management tool for • Instrument makers • Instrument keywords (through the vocabulary tool) • MIMO technical management • Data providers management : (easy to add new data providers) • Search interface management • Harvesting and Enrichment reporting Contributors to
- 39. Contributors to
- 42. Target Users Contributors to • School teachers, university teachers, student teachers, school pupils, and university students • Musical communities - musicians, ensembles, composers, instrumentalists • Geographical or ethnic communities • Journalists and editors • Academic researchers and scholars • Music fans, amateur musicians, general interest users • Instrument collectors • Instrument professionals • Instrument makers and conservators • Photographers of musical instruments
- 43. IPR Status Contributors to • Most IPR issues were resolved early in the project • Partners retain copyright on their own images • Images limited to 800px longest side • Audio and video files restricted in length to portions of 30 seconds • Some concerns over revised Europeana Data Providers’ Agreement
- 44. Performance Indicators Contributors to 16 key objectives listed in Dow • 15 of these met on time, many exceeding original targets • 1 objective not realised All Deliverables submitted
- 45. • General • Digitising 45,000+ delicate musical instruments encountered literally hundreds of practical difficulties • Solutions are collected in the “Practical Hints” section of the MIMO digitisation standard. • This kind of difficulties did not affect the overall project targets Contributors to Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial Actions
- 46. Contributors to • Lost instruments not clearly reported as such in the inventories • Remedial actions: • Providing records without image or with scanned images from glass slides etc. • Partial offset by the surfacing of objects not yet inventoried • Harmful contamination of musical instruments (GNM) • Remedial actions: • Careful analysis and personal protection • No immediate action possible to catch up • Future furnishing of treated objects through automatic harvesting Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial actions with Possible Impact to Targets
- 47. • Parts of instruments repertoried as musical instruments • Remedial actions: • None to catch up, but: • Fed into MIMO-DB as items of cultural heritage for future use in Europeana • Slowdown of digitisation process through unforeseen events as construction work, illness etc. • Remedial actions: • Review workflows for more efficiency and work harder • Employ supplementary personnel Contributors to Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial actions with Possible Impact to Targets
- 48. • Overall shortfall to digitisation target • Remedial actions: • Inclusion of resources from other museums already aggregated via CM Contributors to Digitisation: Difficulties and Remedial Actions with Impact to Targets
- 49. • Difficulty 1: OAI Repository development for data providers • Remedial 1.1: successful technical support from Cité de la musique (WP2 leaders) • Difficulty 2: Synchronisation between MIMO project and Europeana development • Remedial 2.1 : Very close work on EDM with Europeana office • Remedial 2.2 : Delivery of D2.3 in 2 phases • Difficulty 3: How to build and maintain a multilingual vocabulary collaboratively and remotely • Remedial 3.1 : Build a web tool Contributors to Difficulties Encountered and Remedial Actions
- 50. Contributors to • Lack of online content created difficulties for - user evaluation - dissemination Difficulties Encountered and Remedial Actions • Addressed through review in 1:1, WP and PSG meetings - revised approach to evaluation plan - revised dissemination strategy
- 51. Objectives and Tasks According to the Description of Work 1. The general public 2. Specialists • higher education (universities, conservatories); • instrument makers, conservators and instrument sellers (including large companies such as YAMAHA and wholesale); • relevant publishers, e.g. for school books or music literature etc. • phonographic industry; • curators Contributors to
- 52. Specification of the Target Groups • Higher education (Universities, music teacher association, teachers, schools) • Researchers (via musical instrument groups like CIMCIM) • Instrument professionals (other museums, curators, instrument makers, instrument sellers, collectors) • Music magazines (e.g."Das Orchester“) • National and international organisations (CIMCIM, Galpin Society) • Media • Non-professionals/General Public Contributors to
- 53. Dissemination Strategy Contributors to • General Public • National and International Organisations • Media • Specific Target Groups
- 54. Dissemination Materials • PowerPoint Presentations • Leaflets • Poster • Postcards • Press Pack • Website • Facebook • Virtual Exhibition Contributors to
- 55. Dissemination Activities Implemented to Reach Target Groups • Presentations at conferences • Talks/meetings with experts • Distribution of leaflets • Regular newsletters • Forwarding information material to various target groups by mail and email • Implementation into the partner‘s exhibitions • Media coverage • Promotion via Europeana Newsletter & Website Contributors to
- 56. Target Groups Reached via the Website/Newsletter Profession of subscribers (%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% m usician resea rcher in strum ent m akercollector student(hig her educa tion)curator teacher (higher edu cation) teacher (school)publisher conservation scientestjo urn alist producer pupil Contributors to
- 57. User Involvement and Feedback • Facebook • Project Website Contributors to
- 58. User Involvement - Facebook • 900+ subscribers • 233 entries - viewed 210,000 times • 1,650 user comments • 73 items of UGC (user generated content) Contributors to
- 59. Total Monthly Visitors to Facebook April 2010 – August 2011 Contributors to
- 60. User Involvement - Project Website • 609 newsletter subscriptions by end of the project • Over 70 new subscriptions since September • Forum was rarely used • Feedback via the contact form possible but seldom used Contributors to
- 61. User Involvement and Feedback Role in Evaluation • Amendments to Pilot Content (MIMO-DB) • External Evaluation of the MIMO Standards Document Contributors to
- 62. User Involvement and Feedback Amendments to Pilot Content (MIMO-DB) Surveys • Focus Group surveys November 2010 – February 2011 • Online Survey February 2011 Led to: • Revised Evaluation Strategy Contributors to
- 63. User Involvement and Feedback Amendments to Pilot Content (MIMO-DB) Consortium partners to arrange 5 interviews per institution 5 basic outcomes: • Is the quality of the images and he information given by the instrument’s and the maker’s name sufficient? • Are the different “related” terms relevant, understandable and useful? • Is the information on classification terms understandable and easy to retrieve? • Do we inform well on makers and their instruments? • Can we see which kind of users we reach? Contributors to
- 64. • Do you think that a document outlining standards for the digitisation of musical instruments is a useful idea? – 100% positive • Do you think that a document outlining standards for the digitisation of musical instruments is necessary - 85.2 % positive • Would such a document help you in your work? - 85.2 % positive • Do you feel that your artistic freedom would be limited by working to set standards? 63% said no • Was the index helpful? – 88.5% positive • Was the section on practical hints helpful? 80.8% positive • Is the distinction between mandatory and recommended views clear? 96% positive • Was it easy to understand the document in English? - 80% positive Contributors to User Involvement and Feedback External Evaluation of the MIMO Standards Document
- 65. MIMO web showcase – Photo & sound gallery of MIMO objects – By MIMO consortium in collaboration with Europeana • Launched 27th June 2011 Contributors to Virtual Exhibition http://exhibitions.europeana.eu/exhibits/show/musical-instruments-en
- 66. • MIMO project dissemination • A proof-of-concept Contributors to Virtual Exhibition
- 67. • 6 themes Contributors to Virtual Exhibition
- 70. Contributors to
- 71. Contributors to
- 72. Contributors to
- 73. Contributors to Impact – Changes and Benefits for Project Partners •Technical - Digitisation - Interoperability of data / aggregation •Internal Benefits •Internationalisation
- 74. Contributors to Impact – Changes and Benefits for Project Partners Technical - Digitisation • The need for and how to set up a proper workflows • The advantages of the use of a photography standard • The advantages of using standard source formats • Data management: importance of giving the correct filenames, central data storage, etc.
- 75. Contributors to Impact – Changes and Benefits for Project Partners Technical - •Input and harmonisation of metadata •Standard exchange formats •Data enrichment technologies and procedures •Aggregation
- 76. Contributors to Internal Benefits Increased understanding of collections Improved systems Improved access to collection Impact – Changes and Benefits for Project Partners
- 77. Contributors to Impact – Changes and Benefits for Project Partners Internationalisation An increased number of international contacts and the creation of a network of experts in the domain of musicology and musical instruments A better understanding of what is going on in European institutions with regard to digitisation, providing accessibility to digital cultural heritage,… Better knowledge of Europeana and its strategy to become a central access point for all European digital cultural heritage.
- 78. Contributors to Impact - The Benefits of Aggregation • Information about particular kinds of instrument • Information about particular people • Information about instrument making in particular places • Information about instruments of a particular period • Identification of instruments • Impact on Other Museums
- 79. Contributors to External collaborations • EUROPEANA version 1 Working Group 3.3 • EUROPEANA Communications Group • EUROPEANA Council for Content Providers & Aggregators • EUROPEANA Project Share Development Group • Virtual Exhibition
- 90. Contributors to Where are we now? Work Plan for the Next Period • Ongoing dissemination • Promotion to museum community • Incorporation of new content • Negotiation with CIMCIM • Revise website
Notes de l'éditeur
- Although I’m sure you have all read the documentation on the project, I’ll begin with a brief recap of the project’s aims and objectives, outlining how the project came about and what we set out to achieve. Before this project there was a long standing recognition within the musical instrument museums that not only was it difficult to find information about collections online but there was no common standard for the online presentation of musical instruments. The original aim for MIMO was therefore to create a project that built on the digital content which museums already held, add new material and create a portal that would significantly improve access to museum collections of musical instruments. With the launch of the EUROPEANA website as a single point of access for European cultural objects, it became apparent that offering our content to the public via that route would not only negate the need for a specific MIMO portal but would also contribute to a larger European cultural initiative.
- The project consortium was made up of 11 major musical instrument museums - nine of whom are delivering content - and was led by the University of Edinburgh. The partners were drawn from 6 European countries - 3 in Germany, 2 in the UK, 2 in Belgium, 2 in Italy and 1 each in France and Sweden.
- The project sought to harvest the digital content of nine of the partner museums from their collection databases and make this available to all through EUROPEANA.
- In terms of digital content, our target was: 45,000 images of instruments, with descriptive metadata, thus making available 40% of Europe’s and 16% of the world’s heritage of historic musical instruments in public possession. 1,800 digital audio files giving an impression of the instruments’ sound 300 video clips. In addition, the project also worked on improving multilingual access to such content through the delivery of dictionaries for controlled vocabularies for musical instruments databases. This was to ensure consistency of classification for the musical instruments in the 6 languages of the partnership - Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Swedish.
- Work was split into six distinct Work Packages with a different member of the consortium taking responsibility for leading each section. There was, of course, some overlap and interdependency between them. The six areas were: 1. Digitisation 2. OAI Harvesting, Database Development and EUROPEANA Interoperability 3. Thesauri and Classification 4. Project Management 5. Assessment and Evaluation 6. Dissemination All these areas will be covered in detail in today’s presentation.
- Results From our perspective we are more than satisfied with the outcomes of the project. There is a slight variance in the target and actual digitisation figures but, as Frank will explain later, the difference is very small and entirely justifiable. We currently have just over 46,000 instruments digitised, slightly higher of the original target figure but in terms of images, the figure is much higher than planned,with 80,557 digital images in total (i.e. Including multiple views). We are very slightly under in terms of our audio target, by 43 files but just over in video terms of video. As Rodolphe will outline in greater detail, we have successfully established the technical infrastructure that facilitates the harvesting of our museum content into MIMO-DB and on to Europeana and along with that the classification and thesauri that underpins multi-lingual searching. Margaret will expand on that aspect. Frank will also discuss our other key output: the digital standards document. As project managers we feel that the running of the project has been carried out efficiently with all deliverable submitted on or close to original targets. Evaluation has been carried out in all processes of the project and Norman will outline that element of the work. A dissemination strategy was developed through WP6, led by SPK, and Lars will outline what has been achieved in that area of work, along with input from Marie Hélène on one of the key aspects of work in this area, the virtual exhibition that was produced in conjunction with Europeana.
- Finally, and again this will be outlined in greater detail later in this session, we have established a Sustainability model which will, in the first instance, allow us to maintain what we achieved but more importantly will enable us to grow.
- This figure presents the actual technical architecture of MIMO, result of the WP2 work. On the left, the museums (data providers) implemented a mapping between the description format used in their own database and LIDO. They also implemented an OAI repository exposing their metadata using the LIDO format. The Middle of the figure represents MIMO-DB, hosted in Paris by the Cité de la musique. MIMO-DB harvests the LIDO records coming from the Museums. Before ingesting the records in the MIMO database, the records are going trough the enrichment process, using MIMO vocabulary, as well as external linked data vocabulary. MIMO-DB exposes the enriched data in LIDO, also using OAI, to be harvested by Europeana. The MIMO Vocabulary is also exposed in Linked data. The right part of the figure represents Europeana.
- The whole MIMO project has been an occasion for data providers to « digg into their data », clean it, and harmonize it with other Museums. The 2 mains catalysts for this harmonization are the use of common data model, and the use of a common vocabulary, LIDO was a very good choice for the on-going project, as well as for the future of it. It has more and more success in the museum community, and has a good chance to become the de-facto standard for museum objects description. The vocabulary has been elaborated by curators during the project. Therefore, all the needs for each data providers ( in its own language) have been taken into account
- Advanced search and Report tool are Workflows and protocol : 1) : Local 2) : Sampling by Paris before final ingestion 3) : Post ingestion test
- So what we call metadata enrichment is the fact that we are adding links from the instrument records to the vocabulary. During metadata ingestion, there is an automatic process trying to create links between the vocabulary and specific LIDO elements (basically classification terms, agents, locations) . If there is a match between the term in the record and a term from the vocabulary, ( here an instrument maker ) a URI to the vocabulary term is added into the record. Through this link (URI), the records inherits additional information about the term , such as all the translations and synonyms. Europeana can directly get all this information directly in RDF from the linked data version of the term. So for instrument keywords and locations, we are close to 100% match. For locations, we use the web service of an external source called geonames, we had many issues, and we finally decided not to apply enrichment to locations with data providers that were not able to provide context to their locations ie the type of the location : if it is it a city, a region or a country, and the language used to describe thelocation.
- Obviously LIDO is a key to the overall interoperability of MIMO, as well as a OAI inputs and outputs MIMO-DB. But we also are ready for the near future, as each of our objects now have a URI, as well as each vocabulary term. We also choose to make our vocabulary using linked data technologies, making MIMO content being part of the semantic web.
- We decide to expose our vocabulary to Europeana and the rest of the world using Linked Open Data Principles. It means that each term of the keywords, H&S Class and each Instrument makers has a URI (universal resource identifier), meaning an identifier in the web. Now if a user uses a common web browser to see what is behind this URI, he is gonna have the HTML version of it, allowing him to see all the “record” of the authority. But this user can also be a program interested in getting information about this term, then he will get the RDF version of the term. RDF will then allow us to make semantic relationship between other terms in the same vocabulary entity or with other vocabularies in the web of data.
- The Mapping between MIMO-LIDO and EDM is the result of a very hard and close work with the Europeana Office.
- MIMO’s work group 3 was tasked with work on three different types of thesauri: 1) Names for musical instruments, 2) Geographical names and 3) Instrument makers’ names
- MIMO’s instrument thesaurus consists of three types of instrument names. The most common names are the family names for instruments, which are widely known by the general public.
- In addition to the over 2,000 keywords for musical instruments, the MIMO database is also very rich in synonyms, particularly for instruments with names that have been transliterated from scripts other than the Roman alphabet, where there is no standard transliteration. An example is the West Asian goblet drum, the darabukka. All these different transliterations of its name appear as synonyms in the MIMO thesaurus.
- As deliverable 3.1 the MIMO partnership revised and updated the standard classification of musical instruments, the Hornbostel Sachs system first published in 1914. The MIMO partnership’s revision of the classification has been published on the website of CIMCIM, the international committee for musical instrument collections of ICOM, the international council of museums. It will also be published in the forthcoming edition of the New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments, an international reference source on musical instruments.
- Using the MIMO web-tool which was developed by the Cite de la Musique for the management of the vocabularies it is possible to navigate through the hierarchy of the Hornbostel Sachs classification system to locate a particular category of instruments. In this case we are seeking an important group of Asian and African harps, the arched harps or bow harps. All these harps have curved necks , and they lack a forepillar unlike the western orchestral harp so they are included in the subcategory of ‘open harps’. The full definition of this category is found in the right hand column of the web page.
- From this page it is possible to navigate through to all the examples of arched or bow harps in the collections of the MIMO partners, and from there
- to individual instruments, such as this beautiful example of an arched harp made in Rangoon in Burma, now in the collection of the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin.
- From one of the pages of data about the arched harp from Rangoon it is possible to access the link to the Geonames data on Rangoon.
- The Geonames website not only provides geographical data, with the co-ordinates of latitude and longitude and with satellite views of the location, but also sociological data with information on the current population total. As a registered user, MIMO had the remit to manually edit, correct and add new geographical names.
- Another MIMO thesaurus is that of the names of musical instrument makers, which was Deliverable 3.4. There are three sections to the thesaurus of musical instrument makers’ names: 1) Corporations, 2) Persons (Individual makers) 3) Families. 4396 names identified and 592 rejected. (Deliverable 3.4)
- I would now like to introduce the subject of multilingual access.The names for musical instruments have been translated by the consortium partners into the current languages of MIMO.
- It is possible to interrogate the MIMO database with the aid of the multilingual thesaurus. This ensures that the heritage of European instrument making that is enshrined inthe partners’ museum collections is very richly represented. For example, a search on ‘clavecin’ brings up 217 records of the instrument also known as the harpsichord, cembalo and Klavicimbel , one of the most complex and often highly decorated instruments in museum collections.
- No translation is being made on each partner database. The simple structure of the vocabulary ( 6 language trees linked to one pivot ), as well as the vocabulary management tool are crucial for the development and maintenance MIMO multilingual access No translation is being made on each partner database. The simple structure of the vocabulary ( 6 language trees linked to one pivot ), as well as the vocabulary management tool are crucial for the development and maintenance MIMO multilingual access
- The main information website for MIMO was the project website – www.mimo-project.eu – and Lars will discuss this in a few minutes.
- MIMO-DB is the web platform offering the following services: A professional search interface A multilingual vocabulary management platform A entry point for all manual technical management tasks
- As Rodolphe has already outlined, we decided that the MIMO-DB site should be made public, principally for 2 reasons: Delays with getting material into Europeana meant that we had no live online content live so making this site offered a stop gap solution ii) We recognised early on that, for professional users, the database offered more detail than could be displayed in Europeana, so it was important to allow access. However as the site was designed primarily as an in house technical platform for uploading and checking content, it was not ideal as a stand alone resource as, for example it offered no scope for adding general information about the project and its results.
- Most IPR issues were resolved early in the project, during the development stages before the submission of the project proposal. . All museum partners retain copyright on their own images provided to the project. The museums keep their commercial use of high-resolution, printable images. It was agreed that all online images be restricted to a maximum file size with a longest side 800 pixels, which ensures reasonably high quality for viewing online but is not suitable for print. Users requiring access to higher quality images or full length audio and video will be able to do so via each holding institution’s regular channels. Audio and video files were restricted in length to portions of 30 seconds. As examples, they will have the function of a citation rather than of a copyrighted work. All museum partners delivered only audio and video files on which they retain either full copyright or have arranged an agreement with another concerned party. Like most projects we had originally worked on the premise that anything delivered to Europeana would be on a non commercial basis so when European announced changes to its Data Agreements earlier this year, allowing the possibility for commercial re-use of metadata there was some initial resistance from one or two partners. This has now been resolved and we are committed to sign the new agreements.
- For example, the target for number of digital images harvestable by the end of the project was 45,000 but this final figure was 80,557 Visitors to the website 23,431 unique visits, compared with 600 originally estimated. All deliverables were submitted, as planned, except where permission was sought from the Commission to change the focus. The objective which was not met was reaching a target of 600 users for evaluation purposes and we will discuss in detail later in this presentation.
- Difficulty 2 : The implementation of EDM in Europeana portal has been announced during a long time for the Danube release ( April 2011 ) Today, in nov 2011, it is still far from being done. first EDM xml schema obtained late june ) Remedial 2.1 : This work on EDM was performed on different technical levels (design, XML schema development and mapping implementation). Remedial 2.2 : This document is the guidelines for Europeana to harvest MIMO-DB. It has been delivered a first time in January 2011 as planned in DOW, but largely updated in september, after the first harvesting. Difficulty 1 : As pointed during mid-term review data providers encountered some technical difficulties on 2 levels : mapping between their model and LIDO, as well as their OAI repository Difficulty 2 : The implementation of EDM in Europeana portal has been announced during a long time for the Danube release ( April 2011 ) Today, in nov 2011, it is still far from being done. first EDM xml schema obtained late june ) Remedial 2.1 : This work on EDM was performed on different technical levels (design, XML schema development and mapping implementation). Remedial 2.2 : This document is the guidelines for Europeana to harvest MIMO-DB. It has been delivered a first time in January 2011 as planned in DOW, but largely updated in september, after the first harvesting.
- Objectives and tasks according to the Description of Work To effectively disseminate information about the project to interested target groups (specialists, higher education, industry) as well as the general public. Target groups according to the DoW were: 1. The general public: they were informed about the project, its aims and results by various information materials like presentations, leaflets, poster, articles in the media (media as a mediator to reach the broad public), the website, a Facebook page, the newsletter and the Virtual Exhibition. 2. Specialists: In the context of this project, “specialists” are those working with musical instruments and in related areas of digital cultural heritage: higher education (universities, conservatories); instrument makers, conservators and instrument sellers (including large companies such as YAMAHA and wholesale); relevant publishers, e.g. for school books or music literature etc. phonographic industry; curators
- 2. Specification of the target groups According to Task 6.4 (Targeted dissemination activities) selected target groups were identified in cooperation with WP5 and a dissemination strategy was developed accordingly. Higher education (Universities, music teacher association, teachers, schools) Researcher (via musical instrument groups like CIMCIM) Instrument professionals (other museums, curators, instrument makers, instrument sellers, collectors) Music magazines like "Das Orchester" National and international organisations (CIMCIM, Galpin Society) Media Non-professionals/broad public
- The dissemination strategy for targeted activities included the following targets: Broad public: The MIMO website’s gallery was enhanced. All partners sent 50 pictures with the corresponding metadata to SPK, who then uploaded them to the gallery. Website users were informed via the latest newsletter. Every partner implemented MIMO into their exhibition. Additionally a virtual gallery was developed in cooperation with Europeana. National and international organisations: SPK spoke to the heads of the GALPIN Society and of CIMCIM and got the permission to contact their members via the organisation’s mailing list. They were informed about MIMO and invited to join the website and/or subscribe to the newsletter. Media: Each partner wrote a short article on a highlight of their collection. These were featured in an article for the Galpin Society, were posted on Facebook and will be put into the newly developed press pack to be handed out to the media. Specific target groups: Each partner contacted schools, universities, a teacher association and an instrument makers association in their country, informing them about MIMO. Within the partnership over 4000 schools and 100 universities were reached.
- Dissemination materials PowerPoint presentations in all 6 MIMO languages Leaflets (20.000) Poster Postcards (5000) Website Facebook page Virtual Exhibiton The ppp and the poster were used at conferences, presentations and meetings, mainly to inform specialists in various fields. The leaflets and the postcards were distributed at conferences as well, they were displayed and distributed to the broad public in the MIMO partner institutions, send to schools, universities and teacher associations as well as instrument maker organisations.
- Dissemination activities implemented to reach target groups Specialists were informed at relevant professional conferences and international institutions working on musical instruments (such as the CIMCIM and Galpin Society) were contacted via their mailing lists. The industry sections mentioned above were contacted by SPK in Germany but it was later on decided by the consortium to not actively follow up on these target groups. Each partner contacted universities, a music teacher association and schools in their country, within the consortium more than 4000 schools and 100 universities were reached. Researcher and instrument professionals were reached via the newsletter, the CIMCIM and Galpin Society mailing lists and presentations at conferences and meetings. The media was invited to important MIMO meetings and MIMO was featured in national and international media coverage (e.g. an article in 'Das Orchester' and 'Das Rohrblatt' or a recent radio broadcast in Germany). The broad public was reached by the above mentioned materials and the implementation of MIMO into every partner's exhibition. A Wikipedia entry has been created in German and awaits translation into the other MIMO languages. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_Instrument_Museums_Online) The most important dissemination achievement is the virtual exhibition “Explore the World of Musical Instruments”, launched on 27th June 2011 in partnership with Europeana. The exhibition focuses on six themes, each offering a selection of instruments, with high quality, zoom-able images, description and some sound clips. It has been produced in the six languages of the MIMO partners.
- Subscribers were able to specify their profession in their user profiles. 79 (16.5%) of them chose not to do so. The remaining part of the users belongs nearly without exception to social groups with a special interest in music and musical instruments. Musicians (22.4%), researcher (16.9%) and instrument makers (15.6%) show the strongest interest in the newsletter and are clearly dominate the readership. These are followed by collectors (9.9%) and students in higher education (8.7%). The remaining groups, such as curators, teachers, publishers, conservation scientists, etc. fall beneath the average (7.7%).
- Apart from direct contact to the MIMO partnership via email, phone or in person, user had two main possibilities to give feedback: the MIMO website and the Facebook page. Feedback via the website was scarce, maybe two messages per month on the average and the forum was hardly used, while the community was very active on the MIMO Facebook page.
- By far the most successful web 2.0 resource used in the project was the MIMO Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/MIMO-Musical-Instrument-Museums-Online). This was set up immediately after the WP6 sub group meeting in Edinburgh, in April 2011 quickly became popular with a very satisfying world-wide user base The items posted were of three main categories; photos and brief descriptions of instruments, news items about the progress of the project sometimes with photos of a ”behind the scenes” nature and user generated content. 232 items were published from then until the end of the project. People were mostly reacting by liking or sharing pictures and news posted on the page, but often they would also comment on the pictures, for example asking questions about an instrument or giving information about it. They also had the possibility to post pictures of their own instruments, that was used from time to time. Brief summary of facts and figures 900 subscribers 233 entries which have been viewed 210,000 times 1,650 user comments 73 items of UGC (user generated content) A discussions forum was opened, but this didn't produce any significant input. Demographics - Subscribers per country 92UK 92Italy 89USA 76Belgium 66Sweden 63Germany 55France 46Holland 44Spain 39Portugal 23Poland 17Greece 12Nepal 12Brazil 12Switzerland 9Serbia 7Canada 7Finland 7Australia
- Demographics - Location and Language
- 609 newsletter subscriptions by end of the project over 70 new subscriptions since then Forum was rarely used Feedback via the contact form possible but seldom used Subscriptions to the newsletter and registrations to the website were growing constantly throughout the project. The recent jump in user numbers is probably due to the supporting promotion via Europeana's newsletter and website and the link to the Virtual Exhibition from the Europeana home page. The forum and the contact from on the homepage were rarely used. The forum might have simply been the wrong web tool for the target groups the project reached. The contact form was mainly used to ask questions about the project or the website and to notify the administrators that there were technical problems with the registration.
- The evaluation strategy as described in the Description of Work was largely focussed on the usability and content of the material being delivered by MIMO to Europeana. However, from the outset we were aware that no content would be live on the Europeana site until towards the end of the project’s lifetime and consequently any evaluation of online content could not be undertaken on that interface. At the start of the project we did explore the possibility of creating a mock up of the Europeana site for evaluation purposes but it soon became apparent that setting up something with sufficient functionality for complex evaluation was going to prove too time consuming. As an alternative, we developed an approach using access to the MIMO-DB interface, which, unfortunately, did not proved as successful as had been hoped.
- Initial surveys were undertaken at the end of 2010, with a second phase in early 2011. All partners were asked to arrange 5 interviews per institution and the surveys were undertaken using guest access to MIMO-DB. In addition a second, more general survey was undertaken online using SurveyMonkey. The first survey’s participants were identified by staff at each partner museum, so inevitably this meant that participants came from more of a specialist rather than general user base. In an attempt to counterbalance this, the online survey was promoted through both email invitation - via the MIMO mailing list and open access via the MIMO Facebook page. In so doing, it was hoped that not only would this survey be carried out by a greater number of people but also a wider user base. While both surveys showed a high percentage of positive answers and produced some minor amendments to our content there were a number of concerns. - For example, there were only 40 respondents to the online survey and it was felt that that was not an adequate sample. - Of those 40, the greater number were from the musical instrument community and it was felt that the target should have been a more general audience rather than only “experts” being involved. As indicated above, it had been hoped that the online survey might have been more successful in this respect but here too it became apparent that a significant number of the respondents came from a musical background. In order to reach a more general audience it was agreed that we should no longer pursue this line of enquiry and instead develop an alternative approach. Given that the interface being used for the evaluation bears no relation to the Europeana site, i.e. the only place in which MIMO content will be publicly visible, it was also agreed that it made more sense to wait until material was live on Europeana before undertaking a wider evaluation, as this would be of more relevance to the general public. It was also noted, however, that in terms of making changes to content in response to feedback or revising the test site, an evaluation of MIMO material on Europeana would serve little practical purpose, as by then it would be too late to make any significant changes to our approach. After some discussion it was therefore agreed that we should rethink our evaluation strategy as laid out in the DoW. This will have an impact on the type of evaluation undertaken in the final months of the project and, consequently the focus of the remaining deliverables from this Work Package. The following points were therefore agreed: In terms of online content, a full evaluation of MIMO will not be possible until the final stages of the project when it is live and people can actually look at the site. Further discussion is required to develop a strategy that ensures more general public input to any further surveys. D5.5, due on 24.06.11, will not be possible to complete under the title of the report given in the DoW - “Final amendments to Pilot Content in Response to Feedback and the Test Site Revised.” This will have to be completely re-focussed. The project manager and the leader of WP5 are to discuss this and bring proposals to the next WP5 meeting in May. The final WP deliverable, D5.6 should be an evaluation of the whole project covering, for example: The overall management of the project Overall project outputs What has been developed by each of the partners What they have been able to complete as part of the project How has MIMO improved the condition of the collections at each of the partners? What were the benefits of the aggregation and enrichment? Although this will represent a shift away from the approach outlined in the DoW it should be recognised as a positive move and one which has arisen from ongoing internal evaluation through discussion at project meetings.
- As outlined earlier, a key out of the project was the MIMO Digitisation Standard document. Three editions were produced over the life of the project, as a result of ongoing internal evaluation, with the final evaluation being opened up to external users. To conduct this, an online survey was set up using Survey Monkey and this was promoted via the MIMO website and the Facebook Page. The intention was to request specialist users of both sites, namely those with an interest in the photography of musical instruments to review the document in detail and provide feedback. The survey ran for one month from 11th March, 2011. Having already undertaken internal evaluation of the document both through staff within each of the MIMO partners and the photographers employed to photograph instruments, the WP1 team had already refined the Standard to its 3rd edition. This exercise was principally aimed at ensuring that the final version was ready for release and seeing how it might be used rather than as a vehicle for making further changes. As such, and although the number of responses was relatively low, we did receive useful and generally positive feedback.
- MIMO VE is a web showcase of MIMO objects Like the other VE done by Europeana (Art nouveau) it is presented as a structured photo and sound gallery It was produced by MIMO consortium with the collaboration of Europeana Launched on 27th june 2011, 2 months before MIMO’s ending.
- MIMO VE was designed first for project dissemination A key output from WP6 (EU newsletter, press conferences, …) It offers visibility during the project’s lifetime before achieving MIMO’s harvesting by Europeana A proof-of-concept MIMO concept : Unique access to musical instruments EU inheritage (quantity & quality) MIMO VE shows the richness and complementarity of major EU museums collections for Professionnals and large audience (especially museums audiences)
- 6 thematics Musical instruments (Makers) and Social role Art (design, creatures, experimental) History (Celebrities) Cultures (rites…)
- Additional work Not foreseen in the DoW Huge investment (550 hours) Designing, Organizing, Collecting, Selecting, Writing, Translating, Work with Europeana Scientific value Texts written by curators Multilingual
- Photography of musical instruments The need for and how to set up a proper workflow for a large scale photography project of musical instrument collections - from selecting the instruments, cleaning, moving, through to post-production The advantages of the use of a photography standard The advantages of using standard source formats (Tiff, JPEG,…) Data management: importance of giving the correct filenames, central data storage, etc.
- Input and harmonisation of metadata The importance of the use of a metadata standard to increase the reliability and readability of the collection metadata Importance of streamlined and standardised data input processes into central collection management database: standard use of the metadata fields, standard use of terminology (e.g. by use of thesauri) Interoperability of data / aggregation Standard exchange formats The importance of having an xml export of the institution’s data, using a rich and standard metadata exchange format (like LIDO XML) to allow proper data exchange through the internet Practicality of OAI-PMH as an automatic process for transferring metadata MIMO’s adoption of LIDO XML has helped raise awareness of the schema. Data enrichment technologies and procedures Enrichment procedure for linking geographical references with Geonames Multilingual vocabulary construction Aggregation Content feedback within the consortium; identification of musical instruments and correction of metadata through comparison
- Added value for partner institutions Better awareness of the importance of online resources for education, culture and marketing. Improvement in the quality of the institutional Thesaurus and Authorities through the collective work of the MIMO consortium. Increase in knowledge of Digital Library technologies. Amelioration of the conservation of the collection itself: general verification of the whole collection (“récolement)”; cleaning up the collection, adaptations to the organisation of the depots, detection of urgent restorations Enlarging the institution’s knowledge and expertise, chairing of information, international contacts Building an international reputation concerning digitisation, data exchange… Knowledge and experiences of the project regarding a range of different issues can be used internally Increased cohesion within the staff (curators, conservators); tight collaboration through working towards the same middle-term goal Before MIMO no database was accessible to the public – people now have the possibility to research all the collections online, which is a big advantage for international researchers and interested people from all over the world. The database now has high quality, consistent pictures thanks to the digitisation standard. The database includes some instruments that had previously been thought lost, which were found as a result of the project. New data has been added to the database and old metadata has been double-checked. This means the database is more reliable and has additional information to offer. The updated database makes the preparation of future exhibitions and publications much easier. The institution's staff are now much more familiar with the collection. The conservational condition of the collection is now known, since each item, even those held in storage, had to be examined and cleaned before being photographed. This means that many objects have been studied in detail for the first time by curators and conservators and this has provided new insights in the collection’s potential. Storage facilities have been rearranged and thoroughly cleaned while the instruments were at the photographer's studio. Involvement in MIMO has raised the profile of the musical instrument museum within the University and this has assisted in the development of new capital projects for the museum. (UEDIN) Being a partner in a EU-project and leading a work package raised the profile of the museum in general and of the musical instrument department in several controlling and supporting institutions, as: GNM’s administrative council GNM’s scientific council The friends and supporters of the museum (GNM) Being a partner in MIMO will underline the scientific efficiency during the museum’s external evaluation in 2014. (GNM) Participating in overall museum issues as guides, audio-guides, and internal multimedia applications is now more efficient for the musical instrument collection than for others. MIMO served as a showcase and training area for future harvesting of other collections by EUROPEANA. The musical instrument department has become a counsellor in the area of digitising three-dimensional objects for other museum departments as well as for other museums. (GNM) Through the attribution of keywords and the data enrichment process employed by MIMO-DB, GNM’s musical instrument collection is the only one in the museum disposing of controlled vocabularies for object names, places and makers. (GNM) GNM’s understanding of the need for external collaboration in order to provide controlled vocabularies increased.(GNM)
- An increased number of international contacts and the creation of a network of experts in the domain of musicology and musical instruments International contacts with technical specialists in data interoperability Research on the classification of musical instruments, ethnonyms, authority files… The set up of a classification of group 5: electric and electronic instruments A better understanding of what is going on in European institutions with regard to digitisation, providing accessibility to digital cultural heritage,… A better understanding of other European projects, both Best Practice Network and digitisation projects (Pilot B), working to improve access to digital cultural heritage Better knowledge of Europeana and its strategy to become a central access point for all European digital cultural heritage. The MIMO project has been closely monitored by external musical instrument museums and has forced them to consider how they operate in the digital domain.
- EUROPEANA MIMO has maintained close ties with EUROPEANA since the start of the project. As a member of EUROPEANA version 1 Working Group 3.3, Rodolphe Bailly (CM) was present at all of this Working Group's meetings (January 2010 in Berlin, April 2010 in Berlin and June 2010 in Pisa). During these meetings, metadata experts helped EUROPEANA version 1 WP3 to design the current version of EUROPEANA Data Model (EDM 5.2). The 2nd meeting in Berlin was specifically dedicated to Museums, and Rodolphe Bailly provided samples of MIMO’s metadata in order to help testing the model. A specific attention to EUROPEANA new recommendations was followed regarding the use of specific technologies in various domains, such as linked data as a way to use and expose vocabularies (as seen on WP3 with Geonames). WP6 is represented on the EUROPEANA Communications Group by Norman Rodger, the Project Coordinator, and some of the MIMO Web 2.0 tools were presented to that group’s meeting in Edinburgh in April 2010. Rodolphe, Norman and Roxanne Wynns (MIM-BE) are also members of the EUROPEANA Council for Content Providers and Aggregators: Norman is part of the Sustainability sub group, while the others are in the Technical Group. MIMO was also represented on the EUROPEANA project Share Development group by Norman Rodger. He also acted as liaison with European on the development of the “Explore the World of Musical Instruments” virtual exhibition.
- Sustainability has been a key focus of this project since the kick off meeting in Florence in September 2009. From the outset we took the view that, as a minimum requirement, we had an agreement in place within the life of the project that would ensure that we could continue to deliver our content post project. By focussing on this early, it would then allow us the time to explore a longer term exploitation plan.
- So to recap, 9 of the original 11 partners from the project contribute content to Europeana, via MIMO-DB, which is hosted by Cité de la musique in Paris. Each of these partners has agreed to a subscription based sustainability model, with each partner paying 2,000 EUR for a 5 year period – which will ensure that all our content continues to be delivered to Europeana until at least 31st August 2016. We refer to this as our Level 1 Sustainability Model. The technical end of the operation will continue to be operated via Cité de la musique, with management coming from the University of Edinburgh. However, in terms of long term sustainability and exploitation this model will not be enough.
- As the project developed it became apparent that as MIMO-DB offers greater search functionality than Europeana, MIMO-DB would be a more likely starting point for serious researchers, so this resource was made publicly available. But, as MIMO-DB was developed principally as a technical platform on which to build the project, it was not really designed as a public interface.
- So, as a part of the first stage in long term development, we are now working on the development of a new MIMO website with full search capability. This will be especially important for any new museums adding content, particularly if they are non European and their content would not, therefore, be exposed through Europeana.
- More significantly, we have already begun to active encourage expansion of the network of museums contributing to MIMO. As reported earlier, MIMO was heavily promoted at this year’s annual conference of CIMCIM – the International Committee of Musical Instrument Museums – in Paris and Brussels at the end of August, with very positive feedback. We already have two museums working towards adding content, with others likely to follow. We have also been invited to present at next year’s conference in New York, with the aim of attracting North American collections. As a launch pad for this process we have set up and promoted the MIMO-Toolkit website as a first point of information for museums wishing to add content. The Toolkit has been discussed earlier today so I won’t go into much detail here other than to reiterate that it contains all the background information that is required when considering involvement and outlines the processes that must be undertaken before this can be done. In terms of cost, we are not asking for any contribution towards hosting, within the initial 5 year post project period, as that is covered by the existing membership, but we will seek remuneration for technical support and set up advice.
- In terms of Management, the 9 original members will meet once a year to discuss progress and review applications from new museums wishing to add content.
- Once on board, new members will also attend these meetings
- In addition, a second managerial level has been established, the Core Management Group, made up of the University of Edinburgh, Cité de la musique, Germanisches Nationalmuseum and MIM, in Brussels.
- In addition, and this is key to the future, a representative of CIMCIM will be invited to attend these meetings. The reason for this is that ultimately we see it as CIMCIM’s role to take over the management and long term development of MIMO as they represent all the world’s musical instrument museums. To that end we are currently working with them on a five year plan so that they can be satisfied that we are giving them a fully functioning model and, in turn, we are convinced that they are in a position to properly manage and develop this resource. Based on discussion with the CIMCIM Board in Paris in August, we have submitted a draft Memorandum of Understanding and this will be expanded over the next few months for a formal presentation and resolution at the next full meeting in May 2012.
- In terms of formal contractual elements, each of the original members has already signed the Level 1 Agreement, so that is now operational. In addition to the agreements that we have with Europeana, each contributing organisation will have to sign a Data Providers Agreement, which commits them to meeting MIMO standards. In turn we will provide each contributor with a Service Level Agreement which outlines our responsibilities. In the initial five year period, the responsibilities of and to the original 9 contributing partners are covered by the Level 1 Sustainability Agreement.
- In looking towards post project development the main goal of the MIMO partners is now to attract other museums to add their collections to MIMO-DB. In so doing, we will further enhance the range of information available to our users. We aim to reach a point where MIMO can become the single access point for information on musical instrument collections for the entire world and, within that, a key objective will be to digitally rebuild collections which, in the physical world, have become dispersed. For example, trying to do research into the instruments produced by Stradivari, even digitally, would currently involve visits to multiple museum sites, but what MIMO has already done and will continue to do is to pull some of that information together into one place, thereby greatly assisting the research process. If we can continue to build our contributing group of museums, that resource will grow in scale and become increasingly valuable. In the virtual world, all the instruments produced and sold by Stradivari and which had never previously existed together, would thus come back into a single collection. It is proposed that the benefits of aggregation theme will form the focus of much of our immediate post project dissemination activity. In the short term we will continue to promote our work with the intention of encouraging new museums to their collections. We already have one museum in Berlin ready to add their material, with another in Birmingham likely to follow. As already outlined, we received extremely positive feedback at the CIMCIM conference at the end of August and on the back of that have been invited to present at their next annual conference in New York in May 2012. We will also present to the American Musical Instrument Society at the same time. The CIMCIM conference will also enable us to meet again with their Board to discuss the next steps towards merger and transfer of control of MIMO and a formal proposal being made to the CIMCIM membership to pursue this strategy and agree to adopt the MIMO Digitisation Standard. Other forthcoming presentations include next month’s DISH conference in Rotterdam and hopefully the Museums Next Conference in Barcelona, also in May 2012.
- The MIMO Toolkit will continue to be the first point of information for any museums wishing to add their collections but the site will be subject to ongoing review, especially in the FAQ section, in response to user feedback.
- Finally we will continue to work on the main MIMO website/portal, replacing the current site with an updated version that will incorporate direct search functionality from MIMO-DB. We aim to have this ready for the presentations in May next year.
- In terms of digital content, our target was: 45,000 images of instruments, with descriptive metadata, thus making available 40% of Europe’s and 16% of the world’s heritage of historic musical instruments in public possession. 1,800 digital audio files giving an impression of the instruments’ sound 300 video clips. In addition, the project also worked on improving multilingual access to such content through the delivery of dictionaries for controlled vocabularies for musical instruments databases. This was to ensure consistency of classification for the musical instruments in the 6 languages of the partnership - Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Swedish.