New Developments in Managing Information Based on Cultural Heritage Resources

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 4, 640 - 663, 01.10.2016

Özgür Külcü

Öz

Generally cultural heritage resources that have an information content include historical records, manuscripts, historical books, ephemeral documents and audio visual materials, every kind of printed or electronic content which provide evidence about the past are kept in libraries, archives, museums and research centers. In this view main focus of all these resources is to give the right information about the past, and create a selection for the decision. All cultural heritage resources which contain information traditionally were created in printed environment, nowadays some resource are created in electronic environment, too. Digitization and developing digital systems for the printed resources are still one of the major issues of the organizations. Especially after 1990s majority of the cultural organizations started or planned to start digitization and digital content management programs. In the beginning of 2000s good examples of digital libraries, archives and museums seemed to appear all around the world. In the past decade studies on new kind of digital content management focused on good examples, preparing international standards and integration. This study shows how the cultural heritage presented traditionally in libraries, archives, and museums in different formats by using different techniques with technological opportunities and new approaches the way it's being handled and effects of these developments on social and professional life, the developed systems, standards, platforms, and expectations are examined and evaluated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Managing cultural heritage, museums, archives, libraries, integration

Bilgi İçerikli Kültürel Mirasın Yönetiminde Yeni Gelişmeler

Öz

Bilgi içerikli taşınabilir kültürel miras genel olarak arşivlerde, kütüphanelerde ve müzelerde yer alan geçmişe ait bilgi veren ve algı yaratan basılı ve elektronik her türlü içerikten tarihi belgeler, yazmalar, kitaplar, efemeral dokümanlar, görsel ve işitsel malzemeler oluşmaktadır. Geniş bir çerçevede tanımlananın bilgi içerikli kültürel mirasın ortak noktası; geleceğe yönelik kararları, hareketleri ve algıları yönlendirebilecek geçmişe ait birinci elden bilgi içermesidir. Bu çerçevede bireysel ve toplumsal yaşamın doğal akışı içerisinde oluşan içerik, ekonomik ve hukuki değeri kadar araştırma değeri de göz önüne alınarak saklanmakta ve sistematik olarak yönetilmektedir. Bilgi içerikli kültürel miras geleneksel olarak basılı formlarda üretilmiş; bununla birlikte, özellikle 1990’lı yıllarla birlikte giderek daha fazla oranda elektronik ortamda oluşturulmaya ya da basılı ortamdan elektronik ortama aktarılmaya başlanmıştır. 2000’li yıllarla birlikte bilgi içeriğinin yönetimi ve entegrasyonu üzerine yeni gelişmeler eklenmiş; böylelikle kültürel mirasın yönetiminde yeni meydan okumalar söz konusu olmuştur. Bu çalışmada; geleneksel olarak arşivlerde, kütüphanelerde ve müzelerde birbirlerinden farklı ortamlarda, farklı tekniklerle hizmete sunulan kültürel mirasın, teknolojik olanaklar ve yeni yaklaşımlarla nasıl bir arada ele alınmaya başlandığı, bu gelişmelerin sosyal ve profesyonel yaşama etkileri, bu çerçevede geliştirilen sistemler, standartlar, platformlar, beklentiler incelenmekte ve değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kültürel mirasın yönetimi, müzeler, arşivler, kütüphaneler, entegrasyon

Kaynakça

• Abreu, A. Acker, A. ve Hank, C. (2012). New directions for 21st century digital collections. ASIS&T 2012 (conference proceedings), 30 Ekim 2012. Baltimore, MD, USA: ASIS&T Erişim adresi: https://www.asis.org/asist2012/proceedings/Submissions/148.pd
• Alexanderhof, W. (2011). A system for using national bibliographies in rights information infrastructures. Freire, N. ve Andreas J. A. (Ed). 13th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries Proceedings ICADL 2011 24-27 October içinde (ss. 88-97). Beijing, China.
• Anderson, K., Bastian, j., Harvey, R., Plum, T. ve Samuelsson, G. (2011). Teaching to trust: How a virtual archives and preservation curriculum laboratory creates a global education community? Archival Science, 11, DOI 10.1007/s10502-011-9157-y, 349-372.
• Antunes, G., J. Barateiro ve J. Borbinha. (2010). A reference architecture for digital preservation. Proc. iPRES2010 içinde (ss. 1-8). Vienna, Austria, 2010. Erişim adresi: http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/dp/ipres2010/papers/antunes-61.pdf
• Artini, M. Atzori, C., Bardi, A., Bruzzo, S., Manghi, P., Mikulicic M., Zopp, F.). (2013). The heritage of the people's europe project: an aggregative data infrastructure for cultural heritage. Bridging between cultural heritage institutions. A. Poggi (Ed.). 9th Italian Research Conference/ IRCDL içinde (ss. 77-90). Berlin: Springer.
• Askhoj, J., Sugimoto, S ve Nagamori, M. (2008). A metadata framework for cloud-based digital archives using METS with PREMIS. Digital libraries: for cultural heritage, knowledge dissemination, and future creation içinde (ss. 118-127). Xing,C.,Crestani,F. veRauber, A. (Ed.). New York: Springer.
• Asproth, V. (2005). Information technology challenges for long-term preservation of electronic information. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1(1), 27-37. Erişim adresi: http://www.ijpis.net/ojs/index.php/IJPIS/article/view/21/17
• Atzori, L., Iera, A. ve Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: a survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.
• Baker, D. (2007). Combining the best of both worlds: the hybrid library. Digital Convergence: Libraries of the Future içinde (ss. 95-105). London: Springer.
• Barcelo, J. A., Forte, M. ve Sanders, D. H. (2000). Virtual reality in archaeology. Oxford: Archaeo Press.
• Bates, M. J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045.
• Becker, C. Antunes, G, Barateiro, V. J. ve Borbinha, J. (2011). Modeling digital preservation capabilities in enterprise architecture. The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research Modeling Digital Preservation Capabilities in Enterprise Architecture içinde (ss. 84-93).
• Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. ve Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. ScientificAmerican, 284(5), 28-37.
• Rumsey, A.S. (2010). Blue ribbon task force on sustainable digital preservation and access. (2010). Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet San Diago: OCLC. Erişim adresi: http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf
• Buckland, M. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(5), 351-360.
• Buckland, M. (1997). What is a document? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(9), 804-809.
• Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences. London: Routledge.
• Chapman, H. P., Gaffney, V. L. ve Moulden, H. L. (2010). The Eton Myers collection virtual museum. International Journal of Humanities andArts Computing, 4(1), 81-93.
• Ching, E., Gaffney, V. ve Chapman H. (2013). Visual heritage in the digital age. Birmingham: Springer.
• Chong, E. (2013). Digital heritage tourism: reconfiguring the visitor experience in heritage sites, museums and architecture in the era of pervasive computing. Creative Paths of Urban Tourism Conference, Catania, 22-24 September 2011. Patron, Bologna. Keynote Paper. Erişim adresi: http://complexity.io/Publications/chng-PervasiveCompWeb3Tourism-echng.pdf
• Chong, E., Gaffney, V. L. ve Chapman, H. (2013). Digital heritage: concluding thoughts. Ching, E., Gaffney, V. ve Chapman H. (Ed.). Visual heritage in the digital age içinde (ss. 249-361). Birmingham: Springer.
• Cook. T. (2013). Evidence, memory, identity, and community: four shifting archival paradigms. Archival Science, 13, 95-120.
• Cornwell Management Consultants Plc. (2001). Model requirements for the management of electronic records. Luxembourg ve Bruxelles: Cornwell Management Consultants Plc.
• DataDig. (2013). Digging into data challenge. Erişim adresi: http://www.diggingintodata.org/
• DeLeon, V. (1999). VRND: Notre-Dame Cathedral-A globally accessible multi-user real-time virtual reconstruction. J. Terkheurst (Ed.). Proceedings of International Conference on Virtual Systems andMultiMedia (VSMM'99) içinde (ss. 484-491). Scotland: VSMM Society.
• Deren, A. S. (2006). Sanal ortamda kültürel miras enformasyon sistemlerinin kurulması ve Türkiye için durum analizi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi: Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Di Iorio, A., Schaerf, M., Bertazzo, M, Guercio, M. ve Ortolani, S. (2013). The sapienza digital library experience. A. Poggi (Eds.). Bridging between cultural heritage institutions. 9th Italian Research Conference/ IRCDL içinde (ss. 56-69). Berlin: Springer.
• DigCur, V. (2013). Call for contributions. Erişim adresi: http ://www.digcureducation.org/eng/International-Conference/Call-for-Contributions
• DLM Forum Foundation. (2010). MoReq2010 -Modelrequirementsforrecords systems. Draft - v0.92.
• Dooley, J. M, Rachel Beckett, R., Cullingford, A., Sambrook, K., Sheppard, C. ve Worrall S. (2013). Survey of special collections and archives in the United Kingdom and Ireland. University of Birmingham. Dublin: OCLC.
• Duranti, L. (2005). The long-term preservation of accurate and authentic digital data: the interpares project. Data Science Journal, 4(25), 106-118.
• Duranti, L. (2010). Concepts and principles for the management of electronic records, or records management theory is archival diplomatics. Records Management Journal, 20(1), 78-95.
• Dünya Kültürel ve Doğal Mirasın Korunması Sözleşmesi (1983). 2 Ağustos 2012 tarihinde http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,432 16/dunya-kulturel-ve-dogal-mirasin-korunmasisozlesmesi.html adresinden erişildi.
• Duranti, L, Rogers. C. (2011). Educating for trust. Archival Science, 11(3), 373-390.
• Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioral approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171-202.
• Evjen, S. ve Audunson, R. (2009). The complex library: do the public's attitudes represent a barrier to institutional change in public libraries? New Library World, 110(3), 161-174.
• Franks, P. C. (2014). Infusing digital curation competencies into the SLIS curriculum. School oflibrary and information science San Jose State University. Erişim adresi: http://www.slideshare.net/DigCurv/infusing-digital-curation-competencies-into-the-slis-curriculum
• Genoways, H. H. (Ed.). (2006a). Museum philosophy for the twenty-first century. Lanham: Altamira Press.
• Genoways, H. H. (2006b). To the members ofthe museum profession. H. H. Genoways (Ed.) Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-first Century içinde (ss. 221-234). Lanham: Altamira Press.
• Gilliland-Swetland, A. J. (2000). Enduring paradigm, new opportunities: the value of the archival perspective in the digital environment. Technical Report No: 89 Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR).
• Goldsmith, J., By, T. W. R. ve Sanfilippo, R. C. (2007). Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. Syracuse Science & Technology Law Reporter, 8-110.
• Gueguen, G., Fonseca, V.M.M., Pitti, D. ve Grimoüard, C. S. (2013). Toward an international conceptual model for archival description: a preliminary report from the International Council on Archives' Experts Group on archival description. The American Archivist, 76(2), 567-584.
• Guss, S. ve Gregory, L. (2011). Digital curation education in practice: catching up with two former fellows digital information management program. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 176-193.
• Hamit, F. (1998). A virtual Trajan's forum at the new Getty museum. Advanced Imaging, 4, 26-33.
• Haynes, D. (2004): Metadata for information management and retrieval. London: Facet Publishing.
• Higgins, S. (2007). PREMISIS Data Dictionary. Erişim adresi: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/standards-watch-papers/premis-data-dictionary
• Hofman, H. (2000). Metadata and the management of current records in digital form. ICA-committee on electronic and other current records. Erişim adresi: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQ FjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ica.org%2Fdownload.php%3Fid%3D2054&ei=kN_8U8qO KMTTiwLn8YDwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFCPscfMhQDVPKlqoH-dtWdfPnGA&sig2=wVrYsQGICRXh2aE94DGeRw&bvm=bv.73612305,d.cGE&cad=rjt
• Holland, J. H. (2012). Signals and boundaries: building blocks for complex adaptive systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M. ve Widen-Wulff, G. (2009). What is library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 668-681.
• Huvila, I. (2008). Participatory archive: towards decentralized curation, radical user orientation and broader contextualization ofrecords management. Archival Science, 8(1), 15-36.
• Hyland, B ve Wood. D. (2011). The joy of data - a cookbook for publishing. Springer: New York.
• IFLA. (1998). Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report. Munich: K.G. Saur.
• ISO 15489. (2001). Information and documentation: records management (ISO 15489-1:2001). Geneva: ISO
• İşçi, M. (2000). Sosyal Yaşam ve Sosyal Değişme, İstanbul: Der Yayınları.Johnston, G. P. ve Bowen, D. V. (2005). The benefits of electronic records management systems: a general review of published and some unpublished cases. Records Management Journal 15(3): 131-175.
• Jones, M. J ve N. Beagrie. (2008). Preservation management of digital materials: a handbook. London, UK: Digital Preservation Coalition.
• Julien, H. ve Genuis, S. K. (2011). Librarians' experiences of the teaching role: a national survey of librarians. Library and Information Science Research, 33(2), 103-111.
• Kalay, E., T. Kvan ve J. Affleck. (2008). New heritage: new media and cultural heritage. New York: Routledge.
• Kearns, J. ve Rinehart, R. (2011). Personal ontological information responsibility. Library Review, 60(3), 230-245.
• Kelly, B., Bevan, P., Akerman, R., Alcock, J. ve Fraser, J. (2009). Library 2.0: balancing the risks and benefits to maximize the dividends. Electronic Library and Information Systems, 43(3), 311-327.
• Keskin, İ. (2008). Bir disiplin olma sürecinde arşivcilik. Arşiv Dünyası, 11, 3-8.
• Keskin, İ. (2014). Arşivlerin Eğitim ve Kültür Hizmetleri. İstanbul: Türk Edebiyatı Vakfı, 2014.
• Khan, M. ve De Byl, P. (2011). Preserving our past with toys ofthe future .Williams, S. (Ed). Ascilite Conference 2011 Changing Demands, Changing Directions 4-7 December 2011 içinde (ss. 718­ 728). Wrest Point, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
• Külcü, Ö. (2010). Belge yönetiminde yeni fırsatlar: Dijitalleştirme ve içerik yönetimi uygulamaları. Bilgi Dünyası, 11(2), 290-331.
• Külcü, Özgür (2013). Dijitalleştirilen Kültürel Mirasın Arşivlenmesi Korunması ve Devamlılığı. Osmanlı Coğrafyası Kültürel Arşiv Mirasının Yönetimi ve Tapu Arşivlerinin Rolü Uluslararası Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı içinde (875- 891). M. Yıldırır ve S. Kadıoğlu (Ed.). Tabu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü: Ankara.
• Lankes, R. D., Silverstein, J. L., Nicholson, S. ve Marshall, T. (2007). Participatory networks: the library as conversation. Information Research, 12(4). Erişim adresi: http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis05.html
• Latham, K. F. (2012). Museum object as document: using Buckland's information concepts to understand museum experiences. Journal of Documentation, 68(1), 45-71.
• Lee, C. A. and Tibbo, H. (2011). Where's the archivist in digital curation? Exploring the possibilities through a matrix of knowledge and skills. Archivaria, 72, Fall: 123-168.
• Lim, S. ve Liew, C. L. (2011). Metadata quality and interoperability of glam digital images. Aslib Proceedings, 63(5), 484-498.
• Lohr, S. (2012). The age of big data. New York Times, 12 Şubat 2012. Erişim adresi: http://www.nytimes.com/20 12/02/12/sunday-review/big-datas-impact-in-the-world.html?_r=0
• Lyall, J. 1991. Developing education programs for library preservation in Australia. In Education and training for preservation and conservation: Papers of an international seminar on 'The teaching of preservation management for librarians, archivists and information scientists,' sponsored for IFLA, FID, and ICA, Vienna,April 11-13, 1986. IFLA Publications 54. edited by J.R. Fang and A. Russeii. Munich: K.G. Saur. 64-66.
• Manzuch, Z. (2009). Archives, libraries and museums as communicators ofmemory in the European Union projects. Information Research, 14(2). Erişim adresi: http://informationr.net/ir/14-2/paper400.html
• Meho, L. I. ve Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior ofsocial scientists: Ellis's study revisited. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science andTechnology, 54(6): 570-587.
• Miller, J. H. ve Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life (Princeton studies in complexity). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: a guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Müller, N. (2010). Change management on semi-structured documents. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Jacobs University Bremen School ofEngineering and Science: Bremen.
• Nash, J., Sterkenburg, S. ve Wentzell, P. (2011). Project plan for digitization. A structural manual for policy development at the Greater West Bloomfield Historical Society. Michigan: University of Michigan, School ofInformation.
• 4Nik, B. N. ve Dobre, C. (2014). Big data and internet of things: a roadmap for smart environments. Springer: New York.
• Niu, J. (2013). Recordkeeping metadata and archival description: a revisit. Archives andManuscripts, 41(3), 203-215.
• O'Connor, L. (2009). Information literacy as professional legitimation: the quest for a newjurisdiction. Library Review, 58(7), 493-508.
• OAC best practice guidelines for EAD (OAC BFG EAD). (2005). California Digital Library. Erişim adresi: http://www.cdlib.org/services/access_publishing/dsc/contribute/docs/oacbpgead_v2-0.pdf
• Oğuz, E. S. (2005). UNESCO Dünya Belleği Programı ve Türkiye'nin Belgesel Mirasları.Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 19(3), 321-331.
• Oomen, J. ve Aroyo, L. (2013). Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. A. Poggi (Eds.). Bridging between cultural heritage institutions. 9th Italian Research Conference (IRCDL) içinde (ss.138-149). Berlin: Springer.
• Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Pastore, E. (2009). The future of museums and libraries: a discussion guide. Technical Report No: IMLS-2009-RES-02. Washington, D.C.: Institute ofMuseum and Library Services.
• Paterson, L., ve Low, B. (2011). Student attitudes towards mobile library services for smartphones. Library Hi Tech, 29(3), 412-423.
• Pickles, J. (1995). Ground truth: the social implications ofgeographic information systems. New York: The Guilford Press.
• PREMIS Editorial Committee. (2011). PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata version 2.1. Washington D.C.: library of Congress
• Rahaman, H., ve Tan, Beng-Kiang. (2011). Interpreting digital heritage: a conceptual model with endusers' perspective. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9(1), 99-114.
• Rayward, W. B. ve Jenkins, C. (2007). Libraries in times ofwar, revolution, and social change. Library Trends, 55(3), 361-369.
• Ridolfo, J., Hart-Davidson, W. ve McLeod, M. (2010). Balancing stakeholder needs: archive 2.0 as community-centered design. Ariadne, (63). Erişim adresi: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue63/ridolfo-et-al
• Rumschöttel, H. (2008). Bilimsel Bir disiplin olarak arşivciliğin gelişim. ArşivcilikMetinleri içinde )ss. 11-29). Keskin, İ. (Çev.), Keskin, i. (Yay. Haz.), İstanbul: Yeditepe.
• Rusbridge, C., Burnhill, P., Ross, S., Buneman, P., Giaretta, D., Lyon, L., and Atkinson, M. (2005). The Digital Curation Centre: a vision for digital curation. Paper for from local to global data interoperability-challenges and technologies: 20-24 June 2005, Sardinia, Italy. IEEE Piscataway içinde (ss. 31-41). NJ, USA. Erişim adresi: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/33612/
• Scime. E. (2009). The content strategist as digital curator. Content Strategy. Erişim adresi: http://alistapart.com/article/content-strategist-as-digital-curator
• Silberman, N. (2008). Chasing the unicorn? The quest for ‘‘essence'' in digital heritage. Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T., Afflect J. (Ed.). New heritage: new media and new cultural heritage içinde (ss.81-91). New York: Routledge
• Simo, A., Chiles, P. ve Ojika, T. (1999). Amodel for butrint, UNESCO, World Heritage, Albania. Proceedings of the VSMM'99 InternationalConference içinde (ss. 23-35). Edinburg: University ofAbertay.
• Singh, P., Klobas, J. E. ve Anderson. K. (2007). Information seeking behaviour of electronic records management systems (ERMS) users: implications for records management practices. Human IT, 9(1), 135-181.
• Smith-Yoshimura, K. (2012). Social metadata for libraries, archives, and museums. Dublin: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
• Sole, R. ve Goodwin, B. C. (2002). Signs of life: how complexity pervades biology. New York: The Perseus Books Group.
• Stone, R. J. (1999). Virtual heritage. UNESCO's World Heritage Magazine. November 18-20.
• Styliani, S., Fotis, L., Kostas, K., Petros, P. (2009). Virtual museums, a survey and some issues for consideration. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(4), 520-528.
• Şahin-Darçın, İ. (2010). Yerel Kültür Mirasının Dijitalleştirilmesi ve Halk Kütüphaneleri: Yalova Örneği. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
• Tammaro, A. M., Casarosa, V. ve Madrid. M. (2013). Digital curator education: professional identity vs. convergence of LAM (Libraries, Archives Museums). Slideshare. Erişim adresi: http://www.slideshare.net/tammaroster/digital-curator-education-professional-identity-vs-convergence
• Thwaites, H. (2013). Digital heritage: what happens when we digitize everything? Ching, E., Gaffney, V., Chapman H. (Ed.). içinde (ss. 327-348). Visual Heritage in the DigitalAge. Springer: Birmingham.
• Trant, J. (2009). Emerging convergence? Thoughts on museums, archives, libraries, and professional training. Museum Management and Curatorship, 24(4), 369-387.
• Usherwood, B., Wilson, K. ve Bryson, J. (2005a). Relevant repositories ofpublic knowledge?: libraries, museums and archives in ‘the information age'. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(2), 89-98.
• Usherwood, B., Wilson, K. ve Bryson, J. (2005b). Relevant repositories ofpublic knowledge? Perceptions of archives libraries and museums in modern Britain. TechnicalReport. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, The Centre for the Public Library and Information in Society, Department ofInformation Studies.
• VanderBerg, R. (2012). Converging libraries, archives and museums: overcoming distinctions, but for what gain? Archives andManuscripts, 40(3), 136-146.
• Watry, P. (2007). Digital preservation theory and application: transcontinental persistent archives testbed activity. The International Journal of Digital Curation, 2(2), 41-68
• Weaver, W. (1949). Problems of organized complexity. American Scientist, 36(1), 143-156.
• World Wide Web Consortium. (2011). Government Linked Data Working Group Charter. Erişim adresi: http://www.w3 .org/20 1 1/gld/charter.html
• Wood, D. (2011). Linked government data. New York: Springer.
• Yakel, E. (2007). Digital curation. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(4), 335-340.
• Zhang, A. B. (2011). The world digital library. Xing, C., Crestani, F., Rauber, A. (Ed.). Digital libraries: for cultural heritage, knowledge dissemination, and future creation içinde (ss. 374­ 377). Springer: New York.
• Zhang, J. ve Mauney, D. (2013). When archival description meets digital object metadata: a typological study of digital archival representation. The American Archivist, 76(1), 174-195.