...
Why is the Minimum Record Recommendation LIDO-compliant?
LIDO is a standard of the International Committee on Documentation of the International Council of Museums (ICOM CIDOC) for the publication of information on objects of material culture (see also LIDO for cultural objects). It is mainly developed by the German-speaking LIDO Working Group in the Documentation Section of the German Museums Association. LIDO is based on the CIDOC CRM ontology and allows objects to be described in a structured way using controlled vocabularies (see also LIDO Primer). Another feature of LIDO is that information about the history of an object is organised into individual events. As a data exchange format, LIDO is well suited for ensuring the interoperability or connectivity of object information, thus preparing datasets for Linked Open Data.
...
In addition to the LIDO snippets, the Resources and Links page provides a sample data record in Excel, CSV and XML formats that meets the requirements of the Minimum Record.
...
LIDO was released in version 1.0 in 2010 and in version 1.1 in 2021. LIDO is backwards compatible. This means that records created in v1.0 will always be valid LIDO records. Version 1.1 offers helpful new features compared to version 1.0, e. g. controlled vocabularies can be integrated in a more differentiated way via the SKOS namespace and can be better analysed automatically. In the future, the German Digital Library will also be able to accept LIDO v1.1 data contributions. Since this is not yet the case, and since an important requirement of the Minimum Record Recommendation is that datasets conforming to the Minimum Record meet the requirements of the German Digital Library and Europeana, v1.0 snippets will be offered alongside v1.1 snippets, to support data contributions to the German Digital Library.
What does "Other possible database element names" mean?
In addition to the data element names used in the Minimum Record Recommendation, other common data element names are listed for each data element to illustrate the applicability of the Recommendation to cataloguing practice across the spectrum of the museum and collections landscape. The Minimum Record Working Group would be grateful for information about other common data element names that have not yet been included.
...
Linked Open Data (LOD) describes a network of data that originates from different sources - sources can be museum databases, for example - and is linked together. The public provision of data is crucial for linking. The data can be made available through data interfaces (these interfaces can be provided by the institutions themselves; cultural portals also usually offer different interfaces, e.g. OAI interfaces or APIs). The data must be provided in a machine-interpretable format (e.g. XML). In addition, URIs should be used wherever possible to identify terms. For example, in an LOD-compliant dataset, the object type or object designation should be described via a persistent link from a published controlled vocabulary. Suitable controlled vocabularies in this case are the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, the Integrated Authority File, Wikidata or the Objektbezeichnungsdatei [eng.: Object Designation File]. As an XML-based data exchange format, LIDO is ideal for publishing data for Linked Open Data.
What principles are the vocabulary recommendations on the element pages based on?
The Minimum Record Recommendation almost exclusively recommends controlled vocabularies that are suitable for various cultural heritage objects across disciplines and museum types as far as possible. The recommended vocabularies themselves comply with the guidelines of the FAIR principles: They have persistent identifiers in the form of URIs, are well documented and editorially maintained. They also contain clearly defined terms. The terms of use are clearly regulated by law. The vocabulary is equipped with a license that is as open as possible for machine evaluation. Some technical requirements must also be met: The vocabulary is available in certain machine-evaluable formats and is addressable via interfaces that are openly accessible on the Internet. There is also a whole range of terminologies that provide good content coverage of the documented objects in a subject-specific context. Even if such vocabularies are not explicitly mentioned in the Minimum Record Recommendation, they can be used if the FAIR criteria mentioned (largely) apply to them.
How do the FAIR Principles relate to the Minimum Record Recommendation?
...
The leading providers of database software for museums and collections in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have been consulted several times (beta version 2023 and 1.0 version 2024) as part of the work on the Minimum Record Recommendation. Many of them have now declared their support for the Minimum Record Recommendation. This means that a data export compliant to the Minimum Record is possible with the database software they provide. In addition, there are nuances in the sense that, for example, some databases already inform their users at the time of cataloguing which data elements are mandatory and which are recommended for compliance with the Minimum Record Recommendation. A list of software providers that support the Minimum Record Recommendation can be found here. If you have any questions about the extent to which your database provider technically supports the Minimum Record Recommendation, please contact them directly.
...
Some providers of museum and collections database software that support the Minimum Record Recommendation (a list of software providers can be found here) already inform their users at the time of data entry which elements are mandatory and which are recommended in order to comply with the Recommendation. It would also be helpful if, in addition to the mandatory nature of the data elements, the databases included the data entry instructions of the Minimum Record Recommendation in their software products. If you would like to see this feature, please contact your database provider.
...