Research on Protocols for Information Exchange of Museum Data

通过比较博物馆物品和资源的理想数据项与实际使用的数据项的差异，可以确定有几个数据项的概念是一般的，而其他的数据项则更细分，并且差异主要发生在细分的过程中。对于信息交换所需的数据结构协议，一个“标准项图”似乎就足够了，在这个“标准项图”中，分层地定义了大量的数据项，使低层数据项的内容包含在上层数据项中。为了交换信息，每个数据库管理员都应该参考这个图表，选择他需要的项目，或者通过在图表中定义相应的关系来添加他计划使用的项目。通过将图表中未列出的项目定位在一个标准项目下，它们可以通过在上层项目中反映其内容来间接交换。从协议的目的来看，标准项目越多（增加的项目越少）越好。此外，通过选择几个上层项目作为“基本项目”，可以保证交换的最小潜力。报告中给出了一个标准项目图表的例子，以及对上述概念的解释。在定义物品之间的关系时，策略设置是在考虑博物馆和艺术史内的习俗的同时强调逻辑，并考虑到广泛的用户。该图表是通过创建大约1200个调查项目的数据库，然后设置几个逻辑框架来制作的。10个试验案例的分类相互比较、强化，成为最终的标准项目图。

After comparing the difference between ideal data items and actually used data items for museum objects and resources, it was confirmed that several items are of a general concept and others more subdivided, and the difference occurs mainly during the process of subdividing. For data structure protocols required for information interchange, a "standard items chart" in which a large number of data items are defined hierarchically, arranged so that the contents of the lower items are included within the upper items, seems sufficient. In order to exchange information, each individual database manager should refer to this chart and either select the items he needs, or add items he plans to use by defining their corresponding relation within the chart. By positioning items unlisted in the chart under one of the standard items, they can be indirectly exchanged by reflecting its content in theupper level item. From the view of the purpose of protocols, the more the standard items are (the fewer the added items are), the better. Furthermore, by selecting several upper level items as "essential items", the minimum potentialities of interchange will be guaranteed.An example of the standard items chart is given in the report, along with an explanation of the above concept. The policy set when defining the relations between items, was to emphasize logic while considering the customs within museums and art history, keeping in mind a wide range of users. The chart was made by creating a database of the approximately 1200 items surveyed, and then setting several logical frameworks. As a result, 10 trial cases of classifications mutually compared and intensified became the final standard item chart.