How to open up data, improve metadata and create linked open data – tools online

Open data, as defined by European Data Portal, is data that anyone can access, use and share. Linked open data means that data is not only open so anyone can use it, but also published in a machine-readable format, and linked to other datasets. Open data can be used in a lot of different, innovative and unexpected ways. However, we also need to understand users of data and what is important to think of when publishing data online so users are able to search, find, and potentially develop services and products out of data. Which training materials, tools and services can be used to publish data as open or linked open data?

Opening up data

DCAT-AP is a cataloguing specification used as a common vocabulary for describing public sector datasets in Europe. European Union Open Data Portal  shows open data that has been made available in DCAT-AP and provides API for developers, information and tools. To learn more about open data there is also a training material “Open Data Support” available from EU Commission, In order to facilitate the implementation of DCAT-AP, a list of tools such as validators, harvesters and exporters of DCAT-AP metadata is published here, with tools such as open source DCAT-AP validator.

"Metadata is a love note to the future", Flickr, by cea+, Licens: CC-BY 2.0.

“Metadata is a love note to the future”, Flickr, by cea+, Licens: CC-BY 2.0.

Improving metadata

Access to more open data is a first requirement in creating a better understanding of the collections and helping people to engage in different ways, by searching, using, re-using or developing products. However, data do not speak for itself, and there is a need to describe information so it can be interpreted in a correct and proper way and accordingly increase the quality and usefulness.

Structuring of cultural heritage information is done according to metadata standards and formats. Metadata is “data about data”, data that provides the information about digital collections and enable us to structure information to be as qualitative, identifiable and usable as possible. There are different types of metadata standards used by cultural heritage institutions, such as technical, descriptive, conceptual, and preservation standards. Those standards can be specifically developed for a certain kind of information or compatible between different domains.

Sometime, we need to re-structure metadata in order to adapt to an international standard. Often, this work is done when digital information is to be published online or in connection to a migration of a information management system. This process often requires a lot of resources, as well as technological development at the institutions. How can those processes be made more effective with use of open online resources? Which tools can be used to improve metadata and make it as usable for anyone as possible?

There are currently several open source tools for re-structuring metadata from one to another metadata standard or format. When aggregating metadata for publishing in a European or international online portal, metadata needs to be re-definied, often through national common aggregation services. So in order to publish metadata in Europeana you are probably using a national aggregation service or a tool developed in a domain specific project connected to Europeana. Through those services and tools you need to create metadata element mappings between two different metadata schema. At Europeana there is currently work towards possibilities for institutions to improve this process by publishing metadata directly on Europeana with no need for intermediary services and a pilot study has been done to look at the effects of this new kind of aggregation.

To support the structuring of metadata according to other formats and standards, today there are also open source tools developed, that are available at Github. These tools often also contains functionalities for making it possible to create linked open data.

Mapping Tools

3M is a mapping tool with open source, available on Github. With 3M it is possible to re-define data from databases and other associated contextual information to other schedules. Fields or elements from a database (source node) are mapped to one or more units described in source schema so that data from an entire system can be transformed.

B2SHARE is a service that has been developed within the framework of EUDAT project ( and which aims to support the visibility and searchability of information stored digitally. B2SHARE include mapping functions adapted to international standards, as well as persistent identifiers. It is possible to manage information during the mapping process or afterwards. Service can be accessed online.

MINT is a mapping function which has been developed in European projects Athena, Linked Heritage and Athena Plus. It supports harvesting and mapping metadata from content providers to LIDO format and transformation of items to Europeana Data Model (EDM).

Europeana Connection Kit (ECK) is a tool developed in a framework of Europeana Inside project which identifies existing workflows, standards and tools that can simplify the aggregation process for institutions.

Tools for Linked Open Data

The semantic web can simplify the processes that make information searchable and usable. There are currently several initiatives relating to publish data as open data, and to do it in a machine-readable format (eg RDF), with open licences and linked to other data sources. Linked open data creates many more opportunities to use and re-use cultural heritage collections. To learn more about linked open data there is a training material “Using Linked Data Effectively” from EUCLID-project, even downloadable as an e-book.

OpenRefine, is an open source tool that and has been used in a different projects on linked open data within the cultural heritage sector. It can also be used to “clean” metadata, transform it from one format into another; and extend it with web services and external data.

Karma is a tool with open source software that allows users to quickly and easily integrate data from various data sources, including databases, spreadsheets, delimited text files, XML, JSON, KML and Web APIs. Users can integrate information by modelling it according to ontology, with automated processes. The tool can also automatically generate an ontology model which users can then adjust, and then publish as RDF and/or store in a database.

The Data Tank is an open source tool available at Github, With Data Tank it is possible to transform datasets into an HTTP API and describe them with DCAT-AP.

Recogito is an open source tool, developed as an initiative of Pelagios Commons. It is currently available for beta-testing, and scheduled to official opening in December 2016. Recogito includes open data and linked data annotation functionality.

All those common resources, services and tools make process more efficient: need for technological development at the institutions is reduced while information managers get greater expertise in issues concerning standards and management of digital cultural heritage information. Today, digital collections are managed mostly in the domain-specific standards connected to information management system in use. Therefore, use of common tools can be an advantage in managing different kind of information. Both materials specific to an institution (such as documents at the archives) and not (for example, objects that are part of the archival holdings, linked to documents) can be managed through the use of the most appropriate standard, while interoperability of these standards can be implemented using the same tool.

Some tools are more developed than others and there is probably need for adjustments to adapt those tools to specific needs of cultural heritage institutions, but they are a valuable basis for collaboration between several institutions!

Sanja Halling


Hack4Heritage – new perspectives on creative innovation with cultural heritage!

On October 14-16,  Hack4Heritage was held at the Stockholm City Archives. Hack4Heritage is an event which is a part of the Nordic cooperation on the use and re-use of open data from cultural heritage institutions. The event was organised by Digisam together with Stockholm City Archives.

Open digital cultural heritage information can be used in a lot of different, innovative and unexpected ways. The aim of the event was to bring people together from culture heritage institutions to present their open data, and to engage the participants in creative use and re-use of cultural heritage data and other open resources. The participants came from a number of different organisations, sectors and companies. There were developer, artists and crafters in a good mix.

Participants at Hack4Heritage. Public Domain.

Participants at Hack4Heritage. Photo: Fredrik Enoksson CC BY.

The participants worked together for three days to unlock new opportunities in the open digital cultural heritage collections. They were defining the concepts, encoding applications, drafting games and combining different aspects of the cultural heritage data to create something completely new out of the collections, something that could be for use in research, education, tourism, entertainment, or simply to give a new perspective on how people could benefit from the collections.

The event started on Friday afternoon and during the two days that followed, participants were working intensively in teams with their innovative ideas and encoding and drafting out products. The atmosphere was good and the teams were working hard, not only to develop concepts, codes and games, but also to pitch them to the audience. You can read more about ideas and pitches from the event in a HackDash.

Hack4Heritage. Photo: Public Domain.

Hack4Heritage. Photo: Public Domain.

On Sunday, the winners of the Hack4Sweden were presented, and they are:

Winner of “best creation”: Voice of Technical Heritage” – an innovative “multimodal interaction ” experience for museum visitors. (Description).

Winner of “best concept”: Museum Go – a concept of creating a mobile game, with a goal to complete the missions related to the collections in museums. (Description and prototype).

Winner of “best code”: ChurchSearch – a web based app which combines church sites and users geolocation. (Description and demo).

A jury for Hack4Heritage selected a winner of the Nordic Slush-prize, from Nordic Innovation, MyMuseum, a concept of a personalised visit to a museum. (Description and a video)
We are looking forward to explore how all those projects and ideas will develop further. We will investigate how we can use the results in the best way, and to discuss a continuation of the Nordic collaboration and of Hack4Heritage. We welcome any feedback on the issue!

From Digisam, we would like to express our warmest thanks to everybody involved in Hack4Heritage, all data providers, participants, collaboration partners and sponsors – thank you for all your engagement, and for making those days an outstanding and memorable event!

Sanja Halling


Memory of the future

Digisams pilot project on storage for long-term usability is now entering a sharper test phase. The project is a part of the ongoing work on a scalable and flexible infrastructure that is carried out in collaboration with SUNET, Swedish University Computer Network and e-infrastructure. The project aims to develop an effective infrastructure common storage solution in order to increase usability of digital cultural heritage information. The project is based on results from Digisams earlier work on digital preservation, including a pilot study in which a common storage, either centralized or distributed, is pointed out as desirable technical solution, together with services and tools for preservation. The short-version of the report is available in English here, and the full-length report in Swedish here

Test phase

The pilot project has had a preparatory phase during 2015 and is scheduled to run until the end of October 2016. In the next phase of the project, a model based on common storage, as opposite to each institution investing resources in expertise, staff and building of their own solution, will be tested and evaluated. This evaluation will take into account factors including the potential benefit of scalability, and the specification for the model will also include proposals on solutions for persistent identifiers. The hope is that the solution can contribute to more efficient management of information and a greater degree of interoperability and persistence. All digital information is not to be preserved “forever” but the preservation aspect needs to be there already in the digitisation and storage processes.

Persistent identifiers

One of the priorities for the tools connected to storage and preservation are tools for persistent identifiers (PID), providing reference to different items online or in a data network. They can refer to any information about an object – digital photographs, the museum collection that the object is part of, documents that are referring to the object, and more.

In the preparatory phase a workshop on persistent identifiers and platforms for authority files has been organised, with 40 participants, mainly from cultural heritage institutions and universities. At the workshop it became clear that only a small part is really about technology. At a higher level, there is a need for policy on identifiers, to guarantee long-term management. Common system could, however, provide a technical solution available for many institutions, particularly if it could be offered as open source software. Interoperability between different systems for publishing authority files (including identifiers) also needs to be created.

As a support for cultural heritage institutions, Digisam has published a checklist of what to think about when working with persistent identifiers.

Common management interface

Administrators of collection management systems at the institutions expressed desire to be able to manage storage directly through their system management interface. Therefore Digisam organised a seminar together with SUNET, where system vendors and representatives for collection management systems participated. During the seminar it became clear that some specific use cases need to be tested to see what common benefits that can be provided at a common solution, in addition, for example, financial gain. Currently, we design some such scenarios, along with several cultural institutions.


The illustration shows how the institutions could work in a common management interface (or directly in its own collection management system for those who prefer that) and they can use quality support services to store information in standardised information packages. A user interface can also make the information easier to use for end-users.

We will continue to write about this project, as it progresses, and to share the results.

Storage and preservation are cornerstones in securing digital cultural heritage resources for the future. How digital cultural heritage memory will look like in the future depends on how we produce, describe and manage those resources today.

Sanja Halling


Hack4Heritage – Welcome!


Hack4Heritage is a creative event and hack with a focus on open cultural heritage data or content. Between the 14th and the 16th of October, the Stockholm City Archives turns into a meeting place where cultural heritage is given new life through new connections, solutions or art forms. Everyone is welcome!

Hack4Heritage is arranged by Digisam in cooperation with the Stockholm City Archives.

YOU are welcome!

We have now published an English version of the event website, and you are welcome to sign up here!

Who can participate?

We welcome everyone who is interested in digital cultural heritage and open data or open content. You may for example be a programmer, a developer, a designer, an academic, a student, a professional from the cultural heritage sector, someone who wants to explore how something digital can be translated into something material or vice versa… We believe that when different people having different perspectives come together, the most exciting things happen. All participants will together show what is possible, which is why we need you and your ideas!

What is Hack4Heritage about?

During Hack4Heritage, participants will be working and developing based on three themes: Code, Creation and Concept. If you prefer coding, you may for example make creative use of open cultural heritage data or content in the shape of mobile apps or web services, or dig deeper into the field of linked open data. If you prefer to make a creation, you may let yourself be inspired by digital cultural heritage in order to let it be manifested in physical form. If you prefer to think further regarding concepts, you may spend time combining different sources or engage in storytelling, e-learning, school resources or research questions. You choose!

Hack4Heritage is one out of four national events and hacks (one Finnish, one Danish, one Swedish and one Norwegian) being held in 2016 through a Nordic cooperation on open cultural data, with support from Nordic Innovation. Therefore, open cultural heritage content from other Nordic countries will also be connected to the event. A special price for solutions with Nordic connections is awarded by Nordic Innovation. Winners will receive support in developing their idea and be sent to Europe´s leading start-up event SLUSH in Helsinki. Read more about the price and competition criteria here. Prices will also be awarded for each theme (code, creation, concept) and we will return with more information and criteria for them.


Slöjd Stockholm will be present at Hack4Heritage in order to provide participants with different kinds of material such as fabrics, paper, embroidery yarn and more. Slöjd Stockholm have qualified knowledge of craft techniques and creative processes and will contribute to making Hack4Heritage a creative space. Different materials and equipment make it possible for you as a participant to work with your hands in order to get ideas regarding digital solutions or to make creations built upon digital material.

Contribute data or content

During Hack4Heritage, open cultural heritage data or content with a Swedish or Nordic origin will be used. Here you can read more about why your organisation should contribute with open data or content and how to do it.

Questions or ideas?

Please contact project manager


Hack4Heritage – Save the date!


Between the 14th and the 16th of October, Digisam in cooperation with the Stockholm City Archives will arrange a creative hackathon – Hack4Heritage. Focus will lie on open Swedish/Nordic cultural heritage data and other open Swedish/Nordic cultural heritage resources. During Friday evening and throughout the weekend, the Stockholm City Archives will turn into a meeting place where cultural heritage is given new life through new connections, solutions or art forms. Participants will get the opportunity to meet new people, compete and create, and those who contribute to the event by sharing cultural heritage data or other resources will see the resources develop in exciting and unexpected ways.

Hack4Heritage is one of four national hackathons (one Finnish, one Danish, one Swedish and one Norwegian) that will be held in 2016 through a Nordic cooperation on open cultural data. Finland was the first to organise their hackathon, see Hack4FI.

We will return with more information, so stay tuned!

Do you have questions, ideas, or want to contribute? Perhaps you even have a dataset or other open cultural heritage resources just waiting to be shared? Please contact the Project manager


Archival Information + CIDOC CRM = true?

Today there is a strong need for increased quality in the metadata descriptions of digital cultural heritage information, harmonisation of information between different domains and making collections available as machine-readable and linked data. Linked open data, in combination with accepted international standards and support for those standards, is a first step towards increased use of qualitative cultural heritage data and the possibility of the interconnection of different data sets.

Digisam has been participating in a project coordinated by the National Archives of Sweden, involving, among others, British Museum as a partner. The aim of the project was to examine whether the harmonisation of archival information and CIDOC CRM is possible, what the conditions for making data interoperable with this model look like when applied to data from archives and museums, and how those processes could be facilitated by a support service. The project has primarily tested the service 3M (Mapping Memory Manager),  developed by FORTH.

The aim of the project was also to discuss various alternatives for the design of persistent identifiers (PID), the unique code strings for identification of digital objects. A workshop on persistent identifiers was organised to identify and discuss current routines and systems in the LAM sector.

Archives & Collections

Challenges we faced in describing archival information with the CIDOC CRM RDF model  included defining the role of “archives creator”, the description of “volume” and object-based descriptions.

In CIDOC-CRM  a person or organisation can be assigned different roles. An information object can be created by a “creator”. But creator in the archival context does not necessarily need to be the same person as the one who created the information. A person or organisation can, in the role of records- or archive creator, receive information created by others. This means that in the archival context there is a difference between “archive” and “collection”. A collection is a selection of items collected on the basis of a specific theme or choice, which could form an archive, but do not necessarily need to. A collection requires creators, but may have been acquired in several independent collectors activities.

Another challenge is the concept of “volume” which goes back to a time when the archives were usually paper documents, which means that the volume represented both the physical object (cardboard box) and the logical object (information content of the documents in the box). This complicates the use of CIDOC-CRM as it requires a clear distinction between the physical and the logical nature (for example for updates) – though in the real archive world, much of the information on a volume is related to either the physical or the logical description of the object.

On the other hand, additional information could be added during the adaptation to a more object-oriented description. A letter might have a completely different value for researchers and users, and would be interesting as more than a document. It may have to do with, for example, specific material, special ink, etc.

The results of the mappings between archival data and CIDOC-CRM indicates that today there are challenges with regard to the specific requirements for the description of archival information. While there is great potential in the ability to link information descriptions, it has also been obvious that an initiative to harmonisation of the descriptions should be taken on a more general level.

Linking archival information and museum information

Given the challenges that we met when mapping archival information to the CIDOC CRM, we decided to test how it would be to create links between archival and museum information using the CIDOC CRM model. After a few searches in the material we decided to make a test with some photographs by the photographer Victor Lundgren. In the collection system of the museum Murberget, we found a lot of photographs by Viktor Lundgren, including some showing horses.


Photo: Viktor Lundgren CC BY

The photographs were described at the object level, and it was quite straightforward to do a mapping of the information that was included.


To find a basic common level based on the metadata that was available in both the museum system and the archival system, and with using CIDOC CRM as a starting point, we drew up the following model that includes information from both the archival information system and the collection system:


In the archival system NAD (National Archive Database)  we found a photography collection by Janrik Bromé where we got a hit on the same photographer, Viktor Lundgren, however not as a photographer but as a subject in a photograph, probably a self-portrait that he has made to be sent out as Christmas cards, with the text on the back of the card: “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Best wishes Viktor Lundgr “(the rest is missing).


The image below shows the result of the mapping on the basis of archival information, a graphic representation of the hierarchical structures, expressed through relationships in the CIDOC CRM.


When we found out the basic information about Viktor Lundgren we could easily find much more information about him in NAD, including church records (birth records, parish book and county judicial archives (probate). We could even find information about Lundgren as a writer, and information (and authority file) on him as a writer in National Library database, Libris  and VIAF (Virtual International Authority File)

However, our search for photographer Viktor Lundgren in the national photographer register available in web platform for authority files, Kulturnav  did not give any match, even if there was an authority record of him as photographer embedded in a metadata record from Sundsvall museum . In Kulturnav it is possible to cooperate on the authority lists, and in our working group the question came up on how to add a single authority record in the national photographer database. We made contact with Kulturnav/Nordic Museum and they published an authority record for a photographer Viktor Lundgren  in the register, so we could link to it. Now the interesting question about identifiers came up. Generally, authority files should not be duplicated, but here there are two different authority lists, one list for writers pointing to Lundgren in his role as a writer, and the other one, the national photographer register, pointing at his role as photographer. There is no doubt that the authority post about Lundgren should be a part of both lists, regarding his different roles, but is there a need for two separate persistent identifiers (with “SameAs”-connection) or should an identifier from Libris/VIAF be re-used? Technically, there are two ways to go, and we are looking forward to deal with this question in our future work.

Concerning other authority files (for example terms like ‘photographer’) we used TMP2 (ThesaurusManagement Platform),  a web platform to collaborate on and to publish thesaurus and authority files. There, we could link information in metadata with terms like “photographer“,  “Professional photography” , “Black-and-white photograph,”  to name a few.


Regarding the interoperability between archives, museums and information that could be harmonised by use of CIDOC CRM, there are both opportunities and challenges. Results of the mappings between archival data and CIDOC-CRM RDF show that there are challenges with regard to the specific requirements in description of archival information. Based on current limitations, it is primarily about the difficulties in the description of the material itself because the information is not mapped on the same level, but also in finding a way to express some specific terms, as for example “archival volume”.

Today, in order to link information between different metadata models, the focus is on the linking information with authority files. There is also a great potential in the possibility to link information by creating interoperability between data models, which was what we explored with the help of CIDOC CRM in the tests carried out. It is also clear that a comprehensive initiative should be taken on a more general level. In the library domain, similar issues have been handled to overcome similar challenges and adjustments have been made on a global level in cooperation with ICOM / CIDOC by developing adaptations of CIDOC for library materials, including the authority of the data; FRBR, FRAD and FRSAD models and FRBRoo. This means that the library and museum data today have a common conceptual model for the description of the information.

Do you have personal experience of the linking of information from archives and museums? Have you been working on harmonisation of these data models? We are grateful for your comments and views on the project, either directly here on the blog or by email to (note: deadline for feedback is May 23).

Lina Marklund and Sanja Halling


What are the implications of the Swedish Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Swedish Copyright Act?

Golden Lady Justice Photo: Emmanuel Huybrechts CC-BY

Few people have by now missed the decision by the Swedish Supreme Court that came on 4th of April. The decision is about Wikimedia Sweden’s open database The Supreme Court found that the website constitutes an unauthorized transmission to the public of the images on protected public artwork because it is not considered to be covered by the specific provision in the Swedish Copyright Act. The Supreme Court argue that this type of use of the artworks typically can not be considered to have a minimal commercial value for the database owner or the person making the database available to the public, even if they have no commercial purpose. The Supreme Court considers that a commercial value shall be reserved for the Artists, and they are entitled to compensation for such exploitation. The Supreme Court also believes that the use of Wikimedia’s open database entails a much greater restriction of the artist’s exclusive rights than what the legislature had in mind.

The Supreme Court’s decision is, in fact, answers to two questions that the District Court referred to them for assessment in the pending case between Wikimedia Sweden and the Visual Copyright Society in Sweden, called Bildupphovsrätt. The Supreme Court has thus interpreted the current provision in § 24 article 1 of the Copyright Act, but is careful to indicate that the interpretation has been made with the particular object in mind, i.e. Wikimedia’s database The Supreme Court writes in their decision “the right to exploit works in new technology in this way remains, according to the present law, with the Artists.”. In other words, the Supreme Court argues that current Copyright Act is not designed in such a way that a database like Wikimedia’s is covered by the actual provision. A finding that easily brings to mind the gap that exists between copyright and the digital habits of most people. With the Supreme Court’s interpretation as a starting point, the District Court has got the answers to their two questions of principle and will now be able to adjudicate between Wikimedia and Bildupphovsrätt.

What consequences can the Supreme Court interpretation otherwise get? The Supreme Court has determined that an open accessible database of the kind that Wikimedia’s is too intervention in the artist’s exclusive rights. However, what the Supreme Court do not mention is the limit to what can be considered a database of “not insignificant commercial value”, when a database is considered “open”, when it is considered to infringe the Artist’s legitimate interests or when it is a question of a much larger restriction of the Artist’s exclusive rights than was the intention of the legislature. The two questions from the District Court were responded by the Supreme Court explicitly with Wikimedia’s database as a starting point. It is, therefore, a reason to limit the Supreme Court’s interpretation to that particular type of database. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s interpretation does not exclude other forms of digital publishing of protected public artwork on the web to be incompatible with § 24 Article 1 of the Swedish Copyright Act.

For Digisams participating heritage authorities and institutions, there is nowadays a possibility to sign an agreement with Bildupphovsrätt in accordance with the recommendation that was negotiated in 2015. The agreement also includes the kind of exploitation that are subject to the present case. The purpose of the agreement is to give the individual institution the possibility to make its image database available to the public on a website that the institution has the authority over and to publish maximum 120 individual images from the database to show examples of its content. Learn more about the image agreement here.

Catharina Ekdahl
Digisam/Swedish National Archives
Legal advisor


A checklist for persistent identifiers


Image: S. Danelius CC-BY

A Persistent Identifier (PID) is a unique code string attached to a digital resource. PIDs are needed for creating links between different items online or in a data network. They can refer to any information about an object – digital photographs, the museum collection that the object is part of, documents that are referring to the object, and more.

Digisam has now published a checklist of what you should think about when working with persistent identifiers. The checklist has been developed in collaboration with a number of experts and is meant to serve as a support for cultural heritage institutions. We would like to thank all those who have sent us their views and comments! The checklist can be found here.

Sanja Halling


The 1st international conference for the RICHES project – Registration is open


The tourist pose at Pisa. Photo: Suedehead CC-BY-SA

On 4-5 December this year, the conference Cultural Heritage: Recalibrating relationships will be held in the city with the Leaning Tower – Pisa. During the conference, the first results of the RICHES (Renewal, Innovation and Change: Heritage and European Society) project will be presented. RICHES is a research project funded by the European Commission, and has the following main objective according to the project’s own website:

  • Reduce the distance between people and culture.
  • Recalibrate the relationship between heritage professionals and heritage users in order to maximise cultural creativity.
  • Ensure that the whole European community can benefit from the social and economic potential of Cultural Heritage.

The conference is organised around certain themes, such as living media and co-creation, processes of innovation, legal framework for the digital economy, and more. Several key-note speakers will hold presentations around the following subjects:

  • Assessing value in cultural heritage.
  • Digital cultural heritage in China.
  • Broadcast archives as Cultural Heritage.
  • Digital humanities and theatrical culture.

Digisam will be represented at the conference – Hope to meet you there!

Read more and register here (registration deadline 2 December). Attendance to the conference is free.

Moa Ranung


Digisam’s guiding principles – Now translated into English


Young woman steering a yacht under sail. Harold Nossiter/Harold Nossiter Junior. 1920’s/1930’s. Australian National Maritime’s Museum. No known copyright restrictions.

Digisam works, in collaboration with other actors involved in the field of cultural heritage, towards a vision where:

  • Cultural heritage is digitised, accessible and usable for everyone.
  • There is a coordinated, cost-effective infrastructure to support digitisation, use and preservation of high quality.

In order to move towards this vision, and enable effective cooperation between a large number of actors regarding digitisation and its related processes, fourteen principles for digitisation, preservation and digital access to cultural heritage have been formulated by Digisam. The principles are intended to support align strategic decisions and to help coordinate digital information in an efficient manner.

Since the principles should be used over the long-term, the ways to adapt the principles will vary over time. We hope that the principles will lead to a discussion about the need for more detailed support in the form of guidelines and instructions.

The principles are following the TOGAF model and are divided based on the following four areas: Govern, Produce, Use and Preserve.

Download the guiding principles here.