ࡱ> a ?jbjbA]A] $+?+? F.$d)))8)$)4d=9(*^**:***.*+ 8888888,!<Rs>8+**++8r,**8r,r,r,+**8r, 6 p+8r,r,07|8* C)+78 90=97{?r,{?$8r,dd$dd$Geo-Aware Digital Cultural Heritage David Bearman Archives & Museum Informatics http://www.archimuse.com Abstract Museums face numerous challenges in the 21st century. Among these are providing access to their collections at all times and in many languages, interpreting the context of their collections, resisting demands from those who created or once owned their collections to return them to their original owners, and engaging the audiences that they reach. An emerging technical infrastructure of smart objects and location aware devices can play a role in enabling museums to succeed in these tasks. If the museum adds geographical coordinates to the description of the objects in its collections, people who are in the vicinity of those locations can be informed about the holdings of the (distant) museum, 24 hrs a day. These people include those from whose cultures the objects were once taken and people visiting as tourists; these two audiences are especially interested in understanding the museums collection, because it is relevant to them, literally where they stand. Having access to the cultural objects that have been removed from their original contexts can reduce demands that they be repatriated, especially if the museum can engage locals to contribute their knowledge of the objects, and tourists to supply terms in their native language that would help their compatriots find the object. In this way, geo-aware objects could help museum fulfill numerous demands currently being made of them and usher in an extra-institutional dimension to cultural interpretation. This paper examines the requirements for museum success in a geo-aware future. Geo-Aware Digital Cultural Heritage I. Challenges Facing Contemporary Museum At the start of the 21st century, the authority of established institutions government, religion, family - is everywhere being challenged. Museums are no exception. For a century or more, they have been respected authorities in interpreting culture, but increasingly the unassailable voice (Walch, 1997) is being challenged. Among those with claims to be heard are the people whose cultures created museum works, the people who once used or owned museum works or similar objects, and people who live near where the objects were discovered or created. These may be the same people, or a number of different communities. And each increasingly wants the museum, and the public they serve, to hear their views. The museum claim to authority rested in part on its ownership of the artifacts and in part on its claim to professional, scientific, objective, knowledge. Today the ownership itself is being challenged as well. Much of what museums hold came to the institution without the uncoerced permission of its previous owners. It may have been seized in war, taken from archaeological digs, or bought in transactions tainted by power differentials between the parties. Only a small proportion has been obtained in completely straightforward commercial transactions. In many cases, the objects now are facing demands for repatriation. Some of these demands, such as from indigenous communities, are increasingly being heard and acted upon, as reflected in the history of NAGPRA. (Fine-Dare, 2002) Others are, as yet, not being heeded because they are not strongly supported by the society, but this is subject to changing quiet rapidly as the cases of Nazi war loot and trans-border shipment of declared national treasures demonstrate. Even if all the collections of each museum had been obtained without taint, the complete dispersal of objects and specimens from any given place to museums worldwide would pose a challenge for understanding the context from which they were taken. Simply reunited these collected items enabled us to answer research questions, provide public interpretation, and teach in ways that are denied us by their dispersal. The contemporary museum is expected to be inviting as well as inclusive. Challenges to authority and ownership are related to the perceived decreasing ability of the museum to engage audiences. Groups not raised to respect the museum dont visit, they dont look to the museum for interpretation of the unknown, and they dont think of museums as open to their input. Museums are trying to counter this by encouraging their visitors to speak back, but giving those who visit a voice does not engage their potential audience, only the one they have already reached. In the past, museums could rely on culture and the educational system to give its clientele a common template on which to assemble the added meaning provided by museum interpretation of novel artifacts and specimens. The museum contextualized its holdings so that visitors could connect them to their shared cultural knowledge. In the contemporary world much of that assumed common framework of shared cultural; knowledge is not present. Contextualizing objects requires the museum to place them on a new template available to all, on which the collections of other institutions can also be located and which situate the alien museum artifact in the physical and social universe of the potential audience. At the same time, the museum is expected to reach an audience that will never be able to travel to visit it physically, but might come virtually. These people speak many languages, have many different prior experiences and expectations, and have little in common with each other or the museum. Finally, as publicly funded institutions with a perceived purpose of public education, museums are finding the society is less understanding of why most of its collection is in storage than it was in an age when the museum was seen largely as an institution devoted to research. The museum is expected to make its entire collection available to the public, and is presumed to have the knowledge and resources to describe its entire collection in ways that will reach all and engage them. How can museums engage everyone, everywhere, with their entire collection and those of other institutions, in context, and give them a meaningful opportunity to interact with the objects, and through objects with each other? II. The Potential of Location-Aware Computing Conveniently, location-aware computing, a new confluence of technologies and social services, points to some promising solutions. Location-aware computing links knowledge in databases on the Internet to space on the face of the earth using geo-positioning satellite (GPS) data. Because this has immense commercial potential (think of easily answering the question of whether there is a good, inexpensive, Italian eatery within walking distance in a strange city), the infrastructures for location-aware computing, first modeled only a few years ago (Chen, 2004), are being constructed very rapidly. And services to take advantage of this potential are being rapidly put in place. The grid on which all human activity takes place is the face of the earth. The questions, where am I?, or more actionably, what is near me?, are universal and always present. A service that answers these questions in a selective way of my choice (when I want to know about nearby food, it tells me, and when I want to know about nearby repair shops, it can likewise tell me that), will be valuable to almost any traveler or consumer if they can access it. Therefore, increasingly cell-phones are being deployed with the ability to identify their location either by GPS or by triangulation of receiving stations (indeed are required to be so equipped in the USA). GPS service covers the entire globe. The objects in museums have been collected from around the world. The one thing they all share is a relevance to a place. Geo-location contextualizes everything in a way that is immediately meaningful both to those who live there and to tourists. Satellites are also delivering images of the surface of the earth that can be reprocessed by map service providers and overlaid with databases showing other human constructed and/or natural (subterranean, ecological, etc.) features. By re-distributing their collections in virtual item-exhibits across the face of the earth, museums can both share their interpretation of the objects and can give voice to those who live or are visiting a location at which the artifact was created, used, owned in the past. The authority crisis can be overcome by attributing each voice to its author so those who prefer to give credence to the account of a member of the tribe that one used the artifact in its ritual celebrations, over the voice of the museum professional are free to do so (Taylor, 2007). Those who are interested in what the totally uninformed tourist who has just first encountered both the place and the virtual museum object thinks, may study that interpretation knowing its authority as well. If the museums, libraries, archives and other cultural repositories of the world could repopulate the globe with virtual archeological layers of tangible and intangible cultural records, we could selectively walk through Paris in 1870, or set our receivers to the Australian outback before the British arrived. For regions dense in world history that have long been denuded of important archaeological objects, virtual repatriation provides a politically palatable way of restoring lost heritage to its original owner-culture and of giving visitors a realistic experience of the past (Tolva, 2005). For more contemporary periods we could interact with records of dance, music, and film as well as with artifacts. And the museum could painlessly share its ownership of the (virtual) object with any number of possibly legitimate owners, including other cultural institutions established to collate virtual artifacts in this way (Charlie and Krahn, 2007). No prior knowledge (or even literacy in the language of the museum) is required to search for cultural content using the discovery by walking about mode of retrieval if a geo-position is recorded for a museum object. Being engaged means only not choosing to shut off the cultural history input on your geo-location receiver. If museums wished, they could equally easily enable anyone to contribute back to the museum, their personal interpretation of the objects, with attribution. Interestingly, if the museum knows some things about an object, such as the name of a church in which it was displayed, or the type of vegetation on which a specimen in the collection lived, members of the public with very little knowledge can help the museum to acquire a geo-positional code that will then make the object more available to others, including others with specialized knowledge of the place. In other words, lay people (including locals who could otherwise not communicate with the distant museum curators) could roughly locate objects for which the museum does not have good geo-knowledge, and thereby give more specialized professionals the ability to locate them more precisely and add relevant data that becomes known through that process. From the perspective of this new audience for the museum, here instantly contextualizes the content and serves to automatically collocate other objects from dispersed collections. Locational-provenance becomes a dynamic mechanism for organizing the worlds collections around each individual at all times. And even if the museum knows little else about the object, placing it in a geographical context situates the meaning culturally and ecologically. Needless to say, one of the most attractive features of the proposed virtual display of the museum on the grid of the earth is that it attracts an audience who could never have come to the museum, and who didnt know of its existence or of the existence of the museum object they have serendipitously encountered. And it makes it possible to display the totality of the museum collection at all times. Even those who are not actually present at the site of the virtual geo-location of the museum object can use geo-positioning tools to visualize the place and objects virtually gathered around it (Opperman, 2006). It should be evident that elements of this proposal would revolutionize not just the museum, but also the human experience of cultural time and place in exciting ways. But what is required? III. The Architecture of Location-Aware Cultural Services As with many other technologies that have historically been of benefit to museums, from the telephone to the Web, location-aware services not only do not have to be invented by museums, they become valuable to museums precisely to the degree that they become ubiquitous for other reasons. This network-effect means that the more widespread the availability of location-aware services becomes, and the more essential they become in the everyday lives of people, the more value they will have to museums. And, of course, the less expensive they become, the more technically routine their support is and the less museum specific instruction the public will need to use them. Fortunately, the major elements of a location-aware infrastructure have already been put in place by others. Geo-positioning satellites, for example, cost billions of dollars and already blanket the globe. They were initially funded by the U.S. Defense Department for military reasons before being given civilian roles. More density will be achieved in coming years with many additional, redundant, systems put in place by other countries. The resolution of their accuracy, generally within a few metres, is improving constantly, and commercial services supporting greater precision are falling in cost. Receivers are likewise becoming ever smaller and more affordable. A decade ago, GPS receivers were expensive, fairly bulky devices used almost exclusively for by ships and aircraft. Today, cars, cell phones and laptops are fitted with GPS receivers and a dedicated receiver can be had for under $50. Cell phones with GPS receivers will spread rapidly in the next few years; in the United States the government is mandating that phones have geo-positioning capability in order to ensure location-aware 911 (emergency phone) services. The fact that the phones have GPS doesnt mean that services can be freely built on them (this would require legislation, or a strong competitive value to the phone companies), but it does mean the infrastructure is there. GPS receivers are now small enough, and inexpensive enough, that they have begun to appear in watches (suunto.com/x9i). Further miniaturization will essentially hide the gps receiver altogether. Digital maps of the entire earth, with roads and street names overlaid on satellite imagery are available free of charge as web services with Ajax accessible functionality from Google and others. Software (Javascript), and access keys, to pinpoint ones location on those maps, and send and receive locations for other people and objects are likewise completely free. For several years, a variety of free tools also made it possible for the totally non-technical person to build a map mashup ( HYPERLINK "http://www.schmap.com/publish-a-schmap" http://www.schmap.com/publish-a-schmap); then Google introduced the MyMaps feature on maps.google.com and overnight everyone became mashup capable. Hackers are daily releasing new code to allow friends to find each other in the city (http://www.mologogo.com/), backcountry travelers to report their locations to concerned observers (http://www.anytrack.com/), heritage and tourism organizations to publish historical tours (http://www.communitywalk.com/) and fleet owners to track their employees or parents to keep tabs on their children (TrimTracXS). And the potential services that would create a competitive advantage to those companies that open their GPS capabilities to outside applications have been enabled by open standards and are beginning to emerge. A new generation of open source Web 2.0 technologies (combined with open - APIs) are making geographically based mashups of data sources very popular whether to find nearby sellers of objects on E-Bay, real-estate on the multiple listing service (MLS), or restaurants (with user reviews) on a city tourism site. Protocols for communicating geo-positioning data, and narrowcasting it back to those who are tuned to specific locations include GML over RSS and Atom feeds and KML for Google applications. Business models that support the delivery of flexibly configured subscription services based on geographical location information, which are already succeeding in some markets, could expand. Automobile companies have learned to sell monthly contracts that charge users to receive information that sellers have largely paid already to deliver to them, thus collecting money from both! Advertisers of all sorts are using geo-location to profit from very targeted advertising placement (for example in Google AdSense). Because a consumer who is nearby, and looking, is just short of being a customer, the value of reaching people where they are with information that they seek about retail shops, restaurants or services is extremely high, and we can confidently predict location-aware services will be put in place to capture them. IV. Making Collections Geo-Aware Library, archives or museum collection databases can be configured with the same open-APIs that support AJAX based mashups in many popular applications at no significant expense. Maintaining telecommunications links and paying for the data traffic through servers contributes directly to the mission of cultural institutions to make their holdings accessible. What else is needed? The most serious problem is that we do not presently have geo-positioning metadata about our collections. Millions, perhaps billions, of objects need to be geo-tagged. However this barrier is not as insurmountable as it sounds because often we have partial information that can be successfully used as an intermediate step to better resolution GPS data, and because assigning geo-tags can be done complete successfully by volunteers, worldwide, who have no cataloging expertise and no on-going relationship with our institutions. Let us start with the simplest examples, tagging the source of artifacts or specimens that come from a single place. If we have some information in our records, we may be able to locate them correctly in a continent, a country, a region or even a town. With the assistance of authority files built collectively (the basis for which already exist in such tools as the Getty Thesaurus of Place Names, we can translate many geo-graphical names into geo-coordinate boundaries. With the addition of a temporal dimension, so that the London of Samuel Johnson is distinct from todays London, and geo-graphical concepts such as the Nile River Delta can be given likely shape based on historical data, we can place a large proportion of objects with reasonable accuracy from existing data. Of course we need to distinguish what our geo-referents actually refer to a place of creation, discovery, ownership, use, subject matter or sighting and will find that for different cultural objects our data is better on some of these dimensions than others. For books, as an example, we frequently have a concrete geographical location of publication, but it is fairly meaningless data. Less often, we have geo-graphical data about the subject of the book, which will typically be more culturally meaningful. In archives, the place of creation locates the record in its juridical and functional provenance which is crucial for understanding its subject (Bearman and Lytle, 1985; Bearman, 1986). For museum artifacts and specimens, we would like to always have geo-graphical data about creation or discovery, though we sometimes lack the detail we wish for. It is noteworthy that but often have significant information about intervening provenance and ownership which in some circumstances is less important but can frequently be revealing, not the least as the current ownership tells us where the object can now be found. The challenges of historical geo-location are considerable (buildings and even towns move from place to place), but they can be modeled in data and the facilities for geo-location we currently have at our disposal make it much easier than previously to place them where they ought to be (Bearman,1989; Liberge and Gerlings, 2008). But even if we have no information, an image of the object is likely to be recognized by numerous individuals living in the place that it was created or captured, and all we require is for one of them to tell us its here, where I am. It would be nice to have a bit of sophistication in our data collecting interface, so the person identifying an object could tell us I mean within a foot of where Im standing or I mean around here within a few miles in all directions. It would be nice to know that I know this because I made/found it, or I know this because my culture tells me so, etc. In addition, it might be good to get some further input from the contributor this one is as old as my grandfather, but we still make them now, or its getting rarer and rarer because the plant which it eats is disappearing. But even without these sophisticated applications, we could slowly plot the region in which an object was found merely from the scatter of individual locations recorded for it, and in other ways obtain subjective information from the potential informants. Some of the most exciting early application of Web technologies excited us specifically because they could engage average citizens in mapping the migration of butterflies (Monarch Watch) or Kalahari tribesmen in identifying living species represented in our museums (Komen, 1998), using a simple hybrid systems comprised of telephones for reporting and the Web for visualization. Now, because the exact geographical coordinates are being supplied by a satellite communicating with a ubiquitous consumer device like a cell-phone, the individual contributing the data need not know anything about geo-location metadata, indexing or the system. Most of the information we have about cultural collections cannot be easily explained to potential users. Again, geo-positional metadata (and date) is an exception. We do not even have to develop a search system to provide worldwide, multi-lingual, access, because the users position supplies the coordinates that, with the parameters of the location-aware service, filters our content, and integrates it seamlessly with content from thousands of other repositories containing related information worldwide. All we need to do is publish our data on the web in a format that supports mash-ups created by others. For those objects for which date can be provided as well, we can overlay the map of the earth with a four-dimensional virtual reality and collocate cultural objects both in time and in space. A challenge for the community over the next several decades will be to construct the kind of scholarly historical geo-database that will support representation of places as they have been culturally constructed over time and natural environments as the ecology of the area was in the past (Bearman, 1988). This process can go hand in hand with the population of these times and spaces by artifacts and specimens from museums; indeed by doing so we can substantiate some o the data about human and natural habitation on which these temporal mapping data will be based. The part of the system we envision here that requires the least investment or involvement by cultural institutions is that which enables the user to receive data, because the geo-positioning infrastructure is wireless, always on, and everywhere present and the commercial opportunities for geo-aware delivery of information will assure us of an application platform. All users will need to do is tune their receivers to get the information they want and whether it is the location of the nearest pizza restaurant or what could be found where they are currently standing in 1830. Users could subscribe to value added services, when these are created, or use our data and the mapping interfaces for free if we can provide them as open services. If commercial providers did not create an option within their services to be notified of geo-tagged cultural content, tourist boards and school systems would certainly have incentives to create that interface. Although we now routinely use maps, satellite data, and hybrid overlays of these on Google maps and other services, we should not trivialize the problem the cultural heritage community will face in developing culturally appropriate geo-visualization interfaces (Breure et.al., 2008). The entire infrastructure is a two-way, interactive, communication system. Geo-metadata can be used to deliver content from the cultural repository to us such as an image of the object to display on our cell-phone monitor, or the sound of a voice narration, or recording of music. But the phone, for instance, can also send the sound of our response the object back to the museum, or the image of the surroundings as they appear today, all geo-tagged and time stamped. An exciting feature of seeing the content of many institutions aggregated by a geo-location system is that the fact that the user collated all these different sources can be resupplied to the institutions that hold individual items creating a kind of interactive, instantaneous, union listing. And these object-to-object relations that are generated by users can be annotated by them, and/or by others, including museum experts. V. A Four Step Program for Geo-Aware Heritage The most surprising aspect of the geo-aware heritage opportunity is that even though it will have its greatest payoff over time, when large portions of the collected heritage have been geo-located by many cultural repositories, it can begin instantly, with little investment, and without a need for critical mass to be achieved or other museums to take part. And it will have an immediate impact, because geo-located museum objects can be received by those who are aware of them, as well as by those who have no idea prior to receiving information from them that they exist. First, museums, libraries and archives need to start to put a representation of the objects or specimens in the collections online with its own unique url. Although a non-annotated image is sufficient, the more metadata that is associated with the object and its url, the greater the chance someone will find it and be able to add a geo-location. The architectural significance and implications of this proposal need to be examined more fully and explained to the community much as is being done now in the OpenLibrary community where the same architectural choice has been made. In addition, cultural institutions will need to rigorously enforce the 1:1 metadata record principle for the same architectural reasons. Second, cultural institutions need to invite people to geo-tag these objects. They might simply link their location to the object url, or they might allow the geo-tagger to identify the tag with a specific relations. For example, distinguishing where where the object was made, lived, found, or exhibited. Much interface research and trial will be required to get these contribution services to work. Third, the institutions need to make all the digital representations of their collections open to the location-aware delivery infrastructure by using open-APIs and geo-syndication standards and promoting value-added cultural and natural heritage information delivery service providers. Since the added requirements of delivering services that permit filtering by temporal dimensions are unlikely to be provided by the commercial sphere, the cultural community will need to lead in their development. Finally, the cultural sector needs to encourage the feedback loop and truly engage its potential audiences by publishing attributed user comments thus giving a role in cultural documentation and interpretation to those outside the museum. It is crucial for us to appreciate that the knowledge others have of our collections is not only sometimes different from our own, but often superior to our knowledge and occasionally, its only possible source. (Greenhorn, 2005) VI. Collected culture, online and richly interpenetrating reality The virtues of geo-location and temporal-location are that they offer precision, simplicity and universality. Any object may be virtually re-located exactly where it was created or discovered, owned, used, sold, etc. though some of these actions will have been performed at one spot and others over a larger, but still precisely identifiable, area. Similarly any object can be virtually re-placed in history exactly when it was acted upon, though again these actions may have occurred over time, indeed over millennia in some cases. The time-space axis provides a skeletal grid with concrete dimensions on which to situate the objects in our museums collections, and by so doing to contextualize them, albeit thinly. Rich contextualization will require us to move beyond the identification and situation of objects (and the assignment of unique object urls) to the identification of more complex cultural entities. For example, we need to identify and be able to link human collectivities (linguistic groups, tribes, and villages; religious, kin and business associations; trade routes, expeditions, corporations, and fraternal associations) to objects in order to assign objects otherwise unassociated to each other the provenance that gives them cultural meaning. We need to be able to link them also to ideas, beliefs and cultural significations that have no physical manifestations at all. Two additional dimension will provide this rich documentary context. The first is to name the action by which humans make objects and specimens cultural objects and cultural specimens. These actions are, for example, creating and discovering, collecting, buying and selling, cleaning, preserving, labeling and displaying. Each of these actions takes place at an historical time and place, and can thus be independently situated on the time-space grid for each object, providing a kind of cultural trajectory that gives the object its meaning and history. The second dimension is the association of the object with nouns. Proper nouns people, places, groups, buildings, ships name the actors and their human situations and answer questions about who provided the context for understanding a collection object. Common nouns tell us what the object is, is made of, or its species. They may tell us generally where something lived (forest), was created (volcano), was used (at sea), or was kept (desk). Proper nouns are highly specific and locate the objects as precisely as do the time-space coordinates, while common nouns are loose associations linking us to many other objects that have some shared characteristic but may otherwise have no contextual linkages. While the same person or place may have many different names, all refer to it specifically and there are many sources to which we may refer to identify all these names and make the specific linkage to context that they imply. Rich contexts will be populated by human agents and actions, which can be mined relatively easily from museum metadata and narratives because they are marked by Capitalization in one case and by data names or categories in the other. With these four dimensions, time, space, action and actors we can answer most of the basic questions that make up a dialogue about the world where, when, who, what, how? This leaves only the subjective and interpretive question, why?, which the curators, members of the creating culture, past owners, or visitors at the site that the object has been geo-located, can each answer in their own way. This is, of course, the reason we engage in delivering representation of our collections objects so that as many people as possible may interact with them, situate them on a shared grid of knowledge, and then respond to them in their own way. Bibliography Bearman, David, "Buildings as Structures, as Art and as Dwellings: Data Exchange issues in an Architectural Information Network", in Lawrence McCrank, ed., Databases in the Humanities and Social Sciences, vol..4 (Medford NJ, Learned Information, 1989) p.41-48 Bearman, David, "Considerations in the Design of Art Scholarly Databases", Library Trends, vol.37#2 (1988) p.206-219 Bearman, David, "Who about What' or 'From Whence, Why and How': Intellectual Access Approaches to Archives and their Implications for National Archival Information Systems", in Peter Baskerville and Chad M. Gaffield eds, Archives, Automation and Access (Victoria BC, University of Victoria, 1986) p.39-47 Bearman, David and Richard H. Lytle, "The Power of the Principle of Provenance", Archivaria, #21, p.14-27 Breure, L., et al., Modeling Portals for Cultural Landscapes, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2008: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 5, 2008. Consulted March 16, 2008. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/papers/breure/breure.html Charlie, S. and E. Krahn, Searching For Our Heritage, in International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting (ICHIM07): Proceedings, J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. 2007. Published September 30, 2007 at  HYPERLINK "http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/charlie/charlie.html" http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/charlie/charlie.html Chen, Y, X.Y.Chen, F.Y. Rao, X.L.Yu, Y Li, D Liu, LORE: An infrastructure to support location-aware services, IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 48. No5/6 Sept/Nov 2004 p. 601-615 Fine-Dare, Kathleen S., Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA, University of Nebraska Press, 2002 Komen, Joris, Insect@thon: Schools, Museums and Biodiversity, Fifth International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, ichim99 in Washington DC ,  HYPERLINK "http://www.archimuse.com/ichim99/abstracts/prg_60000141.html" http://www.archimuse.com/ichim99/abstracts/prg_60000141.html Greenhorn, B., Project Naming: Always On Our Minds, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 31, 2005 at  HYPERLINK "http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/greenhorn/greenhorn.html" http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/greenhorn/greenhorn.html Liberge, Leila and Job Gerlings, Cultural Heritage on the (Geographical) Map in , in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2008: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 5, 2008. Consulted March 16, 2008. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/papers/liberge/liberge.html Opperman, Leif, Gregor Broll, Mauricio Capra, Steve Benford, Extending Authoring Tools for Location-Aware Applications with an Infrastructure Visualization Layer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v.4206, 2006, p.52-68 Tolva, J., Recontextualizing the Collection: Virtual Reconstruction, Replacement, and Repatriation, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 31, 2005 at  HYPERLINK "http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/tolva/tolva.html" http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/tolva/tolva.html Taylor, Paul Michael, By Aeroplane to Pygmyland: Repatriating and Interpreting Multiple Voices, Sources and Media from a historic New Guinea Expedition at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/abstracts/prg_325001110.html Walsh, Peter, The Web and the Unassailable Voice, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 1997: Proceedings, Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics, published April 1997 at http://www.archimuse.com/mw97/speak/walsh.htm  Nazi Era Provenance Internet Portal  HYPERLINK "http://www.nepip.org/public/info/about.cfm?menu_type=info" http://www.nepip.org/public/info/about.cfm?menu_type=info  Getty Museum returning treasures to Italy and Greece, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6927110.stm; http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/05/17/getty-greece.html.  We will need to move beyond place names however, to include named places text strings naming places in general ways and by associations with evnts, just as we will need to move from time periods to named times which similar reference temporal spaces by colloquially understood terms that are not their proper names.  The Electronic Cultural Atlas Project has begun some of the collective work that will be required to construct a rich historically sensitive knowledge-base of named places and place names with temporal associations, see http://www.ecai.org/  While giving every object in museum collections worldwide (c.5B) a unique url is a bigger undertaking than assigning a unique url to every published book (c.50M) as will soon be completed through the OpenLibrary project ( HYPERLINK "http://demo.openlibrary.org" http://demo.openlibrary.org) or every living species (c.1.8M) as is being done in the Encyclopedia of Life ( HYPERLINK "http://www.eol.org/" http://www.eol.org/), the rationale of making the content accessible and available for commentary and use is the same. Fortunately, each museum has a manageable subset of the huge worldwide collection and (theoretically at least) maintains existing unique ids for each object in its care, and could therefore create urls that were unique with a relatively small effort.  See http://www.openlibrary.org/  see: www.dublincore.org/groups/tools/dctools2006/2MetadataGlossary.pdf Unpublished draft 21/3/2008 please do not cite without permission il ofgNjC6~6>6?A%A&AZA[A\AAAACBcBBBC%CqCCFFI}tih-0hG(kB*phh8PhG(k0J,jh8PhG(kB*OJQJUph&jh./hG(kB*OJQJUphh./hG(kB*OJQJphh<hG(kB*phh-0hG(k>*jh-0hG(k0J*U h-0hG(kh<hG(kH*h/1hG(kH*h x hG(kB*ph h x hG(k)$2Pijklu OPopYZ;gdG(kgdG(k%gdG(kgdG(k5gdG(kgdG(k#gdG(k=>;<jk!!##%%((v,w,U1V13355C6D6~66 9"9;;  gdG(kgdG(kgdG(k;7?8?AAEESFTFIIII4K5KGMHMXPYPVV\\__4b5b ggdG(kgdG(k  gdG(kIITPUP2b3b gmmFoGoooodqeq~~ABV˅>HWghNjȋPQbȽ}jzh-0hG(kUh-0hG(k0JOJQJjh-0hG(kUjh-0hG(kU hG(k6 h-0hG(khG(k hhG(k hehG(kjh/1hG(k0J*U"jh x hG(k0J*B*Uphh x hG(kB*ph h/1hG(k. ggjjjjmmoodqfq[s\s0u1utuuuBxCxzz}}34A+gdG(kgdG(kgdG(kABFXu3R؎(G|;<=>+2gdG(k bcd&']^_EFGH{|}[\Һҫ涺ҤsjhhG(kUjhhG(kU hhG(khG(khG(k0J*H* hG(khG(k h x hG(kjhG(kUhG(kjhG(k0J*UjXh-0hG(kU h-0hG(kh-0hG(k0JOJQJjh-0hG(kUjh-0hG(kU)+,>?ƳѦ᜘yr h-0hG(kjhG(khG(k0J*UhG(khG(kB*ph hG(khG(khG(kjhG(k0J*UhhG(k0JOJQJ$jwhhG(kB*UphhhG(kB*phjhhG(kB*Uph hhG(kjhhG(kUhhG(k0JOJQJ>?2gdG(k":pG(k/ =!"#$%DyK 'http://www.schmap.com/publish-a-schmapyK Nhttp://www.schmap.com/publish-a-schmapiDyK =http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/charlie/charlie.htmlyK zhttp://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/charlie/charlie.htmliDyK =http://www.archimuse.com/ichim99/abstracts/prg_60000141.htmlyK zhttp://www.archimuse.com/ichim99/abstracts/prg_60000141.htmluDyK @http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/greenhorn/greenhorn.htmlyK http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/greenhorn/greenhorn.htmlUDyK 8http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/tolva/tolva.htmlyK phttp://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/tolva/tolva.htmlDyK yK thttp://www.nepip.org/public/info/about.cfm?menu_type=infoDyK http://demo.openlibrary.orgyK 8http://demo.openlibrary.orgDyK http://www.eol.org/yK (http://www.eol.org/7D`D G(kNormalxCJOJQJmH sH tH X`X G(kHeading 1,Heading$<@& CJOJQJZ`Z G(kHeading 2,Subheading$<@&OJQJX`X G(k Heading 3 $Z<@&^Z` CJOJQJH`H G(k Heading 4$<@& CJOJQJN`N G(k Heading 5 <@& CJOJQJV`V G(k Heading 60<@&^`0 6OJQJR`R G(k Heading 70<@&^`0OJQJV`V G(k Heading 80<@&^`0 6OJQJZ `Z G(k Heading 9 P0<@&^P`06CJOJQJDA`D G(kDefault Paragraph FontZi`Z G(k Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k`(G(kNo List HOH Abstract8x^8CJOJQJ_HNON  Abstract CharOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH NoAN G(k Abstract Text]^OJQJ2o!"2 G(kAuthor$a$CJ<O2< Placegda{CJOJQJ_H&O1B& booth&O!R& chair*Ob* contact:L@: Dategda{CJOJQJ_H<O< Eventgd`CJOJQJ_H@o@ G(k Paper Title$a$CJ KH<O<  exhibitor^gd`\O\ exhibitor address8^8gdPCJOJQJ_H@V`@ G(kFollowedHyperlink>*B* < `< G(kFooter  !OJQJ<`< G(kHeader  !OJQJ>U`> G(k Hyperlink>*B*OJQJph4+@4 < Endnote Text >*> <Endnote ReferenceH*:B`": G(k Body Text"xOJQJP>@2P Title#$<@&a$5CJ KHOJQJaJ Jo!BJ G(k Block Quote$]^OJQJZoARZ G(kAbstract Title%$]^a$ 5OJQJHobH G(kAcknowedgements Text&CJDoArD G(kBlock Quote Author'6jC`j G(kBody Text Indent( p@ hx^hOJQJmH sH <"`< G(kCaption )$xa$OJQJ@&`@ G(kFootnote ReferenceH*R`R G(k Footnote Text+0^`0 CJOJQJ,o, G(kkeywords,dD`d G(k List Continue- p@ hx^hOJQJmH sH NoAN G(klist with bullets. & FNoAN G(klist with numbers/ & F>`> G(k Normal Indent 0^.)`. G(k Page NumberNoA"N G(kReferences Text2h^h`CJPo2P G(k TableHeader3CJOJQJfHq 8oB8 G(k TableText4$a$CJDoARD G(kURL5$]^a$ 6OJQJ<ob< G(kcode6hh]h^hOJ QJ f TJ2\gFii?Y       YYYYY  ?       ? !z!z z z z z z z z z z z z*5BXMN[rf0oz\?$`  s | $2Pijklu OPopYZ;<jk""v&w&U+V+--//C0D0~00 3"3557989;;??S@T@CCCC4E5EGGHGXJYJPPVVYY4\5\ aaddddggiidkfk[m\m0o1otouoBrCrttwwzz3~4~A~B~FXu3R؈(G|;@#0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ50p2ƀ0p2ƀ0p20p2%0p2ƀ0p20p2ƀ0p2ƀ#0p0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0p0p0p0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0p0p0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0p0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ00pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0p0p0p0p]0P0p0p0pƀ0pƀ+0p0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ0pƀ 0pt20p20p20p20p20p20p20ptƀ20pt20pt20pt20ptƀ20pt20pt20ptƀ20pƀ+0p+0p+0p+0p+0p+0p+0p0p0pP0p$2Pijklu"3dkfkwwzz3~4~A~B~Xu3R؈(G|@00000000000000000000000000@0@0 \0h \0h \0h@0t@0@0@0@0t@z0&0&0&0&00y0&00y0&0&0&0&0>* 0I8o 0I8o 0I8o 0I8o0H0H0I0EEEEEHIb?PUXY;; gA>?QSTVWZ>R%;[;;gDžPc&?XXXXX'pm)= XXX OLE_LINK1 OLE_LINK2WW@/o/o@%%h ijjOT>H؎ݎFQUY=@EK{}LLOOaadvdgg h htu F=@::::::::::::::::E&.MV!/|NqG" w~p}hh^h`B*OJQJo(hh^h`o(.88^8`OJPJQJo(- ^`OJ QJ o(opp^p`OJPJQJo(- @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o PP^P`OJ QJ o(h88^8`OJPJQJo(-h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(-  ^ `OJ QJ o(hHo  ^ `OJQJo(hHxx^x`OJQJo(hHHH^H`OJ QJ o(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJ QJ o(hHo^`OJQJo(hHp}|G" w                 @@UUUU,?P @Unknown GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial; Gill Sans9GillSans3TimesCGillSans BoldOo GillSans BoldItalic;Helvetica7oCourier?oCourier New;Wingdings qHh&fdVq C&@gZ %>4d`B2SHARED:MW:mw2008:proceedings:mw2008paperstyles.dot#Geo-Aware Digital Cultural Heritage David Bearman David Bearman$       Oh+'0< ,8 X d p|'$Geo-Aware Digital Cultural HeritageDavid Bearmanmw2008paperstyles.dotDavid Bearman25Microsoft Word 11.3.8@X~U@gB\@| VqG:PICT:d ,, MSWD ,Times 2.(wUnpublished draft 21/-(/3-)/2008- Q)r -) -) please do not cit-(2e -)!without- Q) -) permission-) ,Arial B-(G->)3e-)&o->)(--)Aware->) -)D->)0i-)g->)(i-)ta->);l-) ->)C-)1ul->):t-)ura->)gl-) He->)gr-)i->)t-)age- )r , GillSans Bold :-Y( *Dg-f`).avih-e)Kd -)2B&-% }))e-) ag-f`)r-)m-@)6a&-$@ )n-C)" {U-y(|IArc&-$@ )dh-)"i_U-_ )ves-)W -0)&-)+ - e)M&-$@ )3uF-E)"se&-")9u-p)!m-ɠ)8 I-`)#nf-)3og-f`)!r-))m-)7aticg-f`)ds-) ,  Helvetica 2-(http://www.arch-(/i-) muse.-)c-)om-@ )F , GillSansm-l-($w *O *O -(Abstract-@ ) ,  Gill Sans-(iMuseums face nume-(i>r-)ous- Q)H -) challenges-) -)in- Q)$ -)the-)B -)21 (T4st 2+ ce-)<n-)tury. (#Among these are providing access to-( -) their- Q)a -)c-)ollect-)qi-) ons- Q)H -)at-)& -)all- Q)+ -(times and in many langua(ges, interpreting the co-(tnt-)(ext- Q)B -)o-)f -( their coll-)e-)ctions,- Q) -)r-)esisting- Q) -)demands-) -)from- Q)d -)t-)h-)ose- Q)G -)w-)#ho (Ocreated or once-(O -) owned- Q) -)their-)a c-)#ollec-)`t-)ions- Q)S -)t-)o- Q) -)ret-)=u-)r-)n-) them- Q)w -)t-)o (their original own-( e-)rs,- Q)2 -)and-)G -)engaging- Q) -)the-)B -)a- Q)u-)diences-) -)that- Q)P -)they-\)X -( reach. An emerging technical in-(-f-) rastructure of- Q(U -)-)s-)mar)Pt (1objects and location aware devices can play a rol-(e-) in- Q)2 -(5$enabling museums to succeed in these-(5 -) tasks.- Q)o -)If-) t-)h-)e-) (n7museum adds geographical coordinates to the description-(n8 -(of th-)ae-) obje-)fc-)ts- Q)$ -)in-)$ -)its- Q)/ -)coll-)He-)ctions,- Q) -)p-)e-)ople- Q)X -)wh-)=o-) are- Q)O -)i-) n-) the ( vicinity -)o-)f- Q)  -)t-)h-)ose- Q)G -)locat-)ci-) ons- Q)H -)can-)D -)be- Q)1 -)in-)$f-) ormed- Q) -)about-\)t -) t-)he- Q)1 -(#holdings of the (distant) museum, 2-(o4-) hrs- Q)N -)a-) -)day.- Q)O -)These-)z -(Tpeople include those-(TH -) fr-)!o-)m- Q)' -)whose-) -)cu-)/l-) tures- Q)i -)the-\)B -) ob-)5j-) ects- Q)R -( were once-) -) taken- Q)o -)and-)G -)people- Q) -)visiting-) -)as- Q)( -) tourists;-) -)t-)h-)ese- Q)C -)two-\)Q -(1audiences are especially interested in understand- Q(i-) ng-). -)the- Q)B -(museums colle-(c-)tion,- Q)\ -)b-)e-)cause- Q)o -)it-) -)is- Q) -)relevant-) t-)o- Q) -)th-)*e-)m, (9literally where-(9 -) they- Q)X -)stand.-) -) Having- Q) -)access-) -)to- Q)- -)the-)B -) cultural (sobjects that have been-(sm -) re-),m-)&oved- Q)c -)f-) r-)om- Q)C -)t-)h-)eir- Q)7 -)o-)r-)iginal- Q)d -((contexts can reduce demands that they be-( -) repatr-)i-) ated,- Q)b -(especially if the-( -) museum- Q) -)can-)D -)engage- Q) -)locals-)p -)to- Q)- -)c-)on-)5t-)r)ibute-)f -( their knowledge -( o-)f- Q)  -)the-\)B -) objects,-`) -)and-\)G -)touri-)es-)ts- Q)$ -)to-)- -)s-)u-)pply- Q)S -( Y terms in t-)h-)eir- Q)7 -)native-)x -)language- Q) -)that-)P -)would- Q)} -)help-)U -)the-)Bi-) r- Q) -( compatr-)i-) ots- Q)@ -)find-)J -)th-)*e-) obje-)fc-)t.- Q) -)In-\)& -) this-`)H -)way,-\)Z -)geo)I-) aware objects-( I -( could help museum-( . -) fulfil-)Tl-)  nume-)r-)ous- Q)H -)demands-) -) currently ( being made of th-( e-)m- Q)' -)and-)G -)usher- Q)q -) in an extra)-)institut-)i-) onal- Q)U -( >dimension to cu-( >l-) tural- Q)^ -)inter-)ap-)retat-)ci-) on.- Q)@ -)This-)U -)paper- Q)s -)e-)xamines- Q) -( x the requir-)e-)ments- Q)| -)f-) or museum- Q) -)success-) -)in- Q)$ -)a-) -)geo)I-)aware ( future. -@ ) m-l-( w *P  ! ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! ! ՜.+,D՜.+,L `hpx  'C $Geo-Aware Digital Cultural Heritage$Geo-Aware Digital Cultural Heritage David Bearman" Archives & Museum Informatics$Geo-Aware Digital Cultural Heritage)I. Challenges Facing Contemporary Museum.II. The Potential of Location-Aware Computing:III. The Architecture of Location-Aware Cultural Services"IV. Making Collections Geo-Aware .V. A Four Step Program for Geo-Aware HeritageCVI. Collected culture, online and richly interpenetrating reality Bibliography Title Headings 8@ _PID_HLINKS'A0l  8http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/tolva/tolva.htmll  @http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/greenhorn/greenhorn.htmlX"=http://www.archimuse.com/ichim99/abstracts/prg_60000141.htmlA]=http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/charlie/charlie.html+('http://www.schmap.com/publish-a-schmap*Lhttp://www.eol.org/'http://demo.openlibrary.org#=:http://www.nepip.org/public/info/about.cfm?menu_type=info  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]^_`abcefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FhData \1Tabled?WordDocument$SummaryInformation(<DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjX FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8