What is the Minimum Record Recommendation for Museums and Collections?
The Minimum Record Recommendation specifies the most important data elements for the online publication of object information from museums and collections and provides information on how these elements should be filled in. The "minimum record" represents the smallest possible intersection of important data elements across most disciplines and museum types. In-depth cataloguing can build on this if required. The Recommendation ensures a minimum level of data quality and added value for users of the object information through compatibility with relevant standards and a focus on controlled vocabularies.
Who is the Minimum Record Recommendation for Museums and Collections intended for?
The Minimum Record Recommendation is aimed directly at museum staff, as well as museum consultants and those involved in education and training, who are active in communicating standards for online publication of object information.
It is also explicitly aimed at database software providers. By incorporating the recommendation into their software products and services, they can ensure that the online publication of object data is technically supported in accordance with standards.
Who develops the Minimum Record Recommendation?
The Recommendation is being developed by the Minimum Record Working Group. It was initiated in 2022 by the Museum and Media Desks of the German Digital Library (DDB), the Working Group on Digitisation of the Konferenz der Museumsberatungsstellen in den Ländern (KMBL) and digiS Berlin. Members of the working group include representatives from the Institut für Museumsforschung - Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, the Fachgruppe Dokumentation of the German Museum Association (DMB), the Coordination Centre for Scientific University Collections in Germany, digiCULT-Verbund eG, museum-digital Deutschland e. V., NFDI4Culture, NFDI4Objects, NFDI4Memory, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin and Übersee-Museum Bremen.
Both during the development of the beta version (2023) and the finalisation of the first full version of the Minimum Record Recommendation, which was published in May 2024, representatives from various stakeholder groups, including museum staff, persons working in consultancy and education, software providers and representatives from various cultural heritage portals, were involved and asked for feedback.
What are the objectives of the Recommendation?
The Minimum Record Recommendation is intended to pave the way for smaller and larger museums and collections to publish their data online and to communicate relevant standards in an easy-to-understand, low-threshold approach. The aim is to raise awareness of data quality in cultural institutions and support them with online publication. The recommendation is intended for practical application in everyday museum work.
The Minimum Record Recommendation is intended to support museums in setting the course for more consistent and higher-quality data right from the start. It assists them in gradually integrating controlled vocabularies into their documentation and publication practice, thus preparing their valuable datasets for up-to-date Linked Open Data scenarios.
What is the vision behind it?
The vision of the Minimum Record Recommendation for Museums and Collections is that data from museums can be linked beyond individual institutions and can be found and reused online by the widest possible audience, within the limits of the law. In this way, more people should become aware of and benefit from the work of museums in their leisure, school, work and research.
What are the application scenarios for the Minimum Record Recommendation?
Application scenarios for the Minimum Record Recommendation include the online publication of object information from museums and collections in online collections of individual institutions, but also the provision via cultural portals such as the German Digital Library and Europeana, as well as via data interfaces. The Recommendation is also intended to facilitate future integration into the Culture Data Space and the Common European Data Space for Cultural Heritage. The Minimum Record Recommendation can support the preparation of object information for these scenarios.
What is new in version 1.0 compared to the beta version?
New features since the beta version include notes on digital accessibility, consideration of the needs of the natural history and numismatic communities, and advice on compliance with the CARE Principles. In addition, many examples have been added and, where appropriate, persistent URIs have been included. In addition to the LIDO v1.0 snippets, LIDO v1.1 snippets are now provided to explain the features of the data elements in the LIDO data exchange format.
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.
It has been shown that LIDO is not always easy to understand due to its language (XML-based) and structure (high degree of nesting, repeating element sets). In some cases, LIDO - a highly complex and flexible standard - exceeds the specific needs and capacities of museums and collections. The aim of the Minimum Record Recommendation is to take advantage of LIDO's benefits (structuring, controlled vocabulary integration, broad international acceptance) and to focus on the smallest possible intersection of data elements that are important for online publication across most disciplines and museum types. The explanation of the data elements in a generally comprehensible language and the integration of data element names from a large number of databases should make it easier to get started.
Why has the Minimum Record Recommendation not been mapped to EAD or MARC or METS/MODS?
The Minimum Record Recommendation focuses on the publication of object information from museums and collections. Objects from archives or libraries, even those affiliated with museums, are not included. Especially when publishing object information from museums, there is an increased need for guidance on standardised provision, which the Recommendation seeks to address.
Why is the Minimum Record Recommendation a LIDO application profile and what does it mean?
Application profiles define which components of LIDO must be included in a data record to meet the requirements of specific use cases (see also LIDO training). LIDO offers a large number of possible elements and attributes. In most use cases, some of these are not required and a selection is made as to which ones should be used.
Application profiles may be stricter than the LIDO specification, but not more relaxed. If an element is mandatory in LIDO, it must also be mandatory in the application profiles. This also applies to the Minimum Record Recommendation. For example, the object title is mandatory in the Minimum Record Recommendation, just as it is in LIDO. In contrast to LIDO, the inventory number of the object is mandatory in the Minimum Record Recommendation because it is listed as an important data element in the relevant guidelines for museum cataloguing.
What is the purpose of the tables at the end of the data element pages?
The Minimum Record Recommendation is based on a comparison of the relevant standards for digital cataloguing and online publication of objects from museums and collections (including DFG Basic Data Record, DFG Practical Guidelines on Digitisation: LIDO core metadata, Europeana Data Model). The data element catalogues of the two federated databases digiCULT and museum-digital were also included. The resulting concordance can be found on the individual data element pages of the Minimum Record Recommendation.
With regard to (digital) cataloguing, the guidelines of the German Museum Association for basic cataloguing were taken into account (Datenfeldkatalog zur Grundinventarisation [eng.: Data Element Catalogue for Basic Indexing] (1993), Leitfaden für die Dokumentation von Museumsobjekten [eng.: Guidelines for the Documentation of Museum Objects] (2011), Digitale Grunderfassung. 10 Grundsätze [eng.: Digital Basic Cataloguing. 10 Principles] (2022). As the data element mentioned therein are not formally specified, these guidelines are not listed in the concordance tables.
What is the purpose of the LIDO snippets on the data element pages ("Expression in LIDO")?
The LIDO snippets (excerpts from a complete LIDO data record, expressed in so-called code blocks in XML language) show how the respective data element is translated into LIDO. This helps all those - museum staff or external service providers - who export data from the local database. Exporting in LIDO XML format is more suitable than in Excel or CSV format for making data available to portals or via data interfaces.
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.
Why are the LIDO snippets shown in both LIDO v1.0 and LIDO v1.1?
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.
What is Linked Open Data? What is the role of controlled vocabularies here?
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.
How do the FAIR Principles relate to the Minimum Record Recommendation?
The FAIR Principles, published in 2016, promote making research data discoverable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. Object information from museums can be regarded as research data in that the recording and cataloguing of collection objects should follow scientifically standardised specifications and involves research activity. In addition, cataloguing information from museums provides important sources for research. As research is one of the pillars of museum work according to the ICOM Museum Definition, the FAIR Principles are also highly relevant to the work of museums in the context of digital transformation. The FAIR Principles should not be taken synonymous with the idea of open data. Rather, the FAIR Principles state that data should be made available as openly as possible and as closed as necessary (to meet legal requirements, for example). Nevertheless, the FAIR Principles provide important guidelines for the implementation of Linked Open Data. One aim of the Minimum Record Recommendation is to enable museums and collections to comply with the FAIR Principles in their publication practices and to make their object information available for Linked Open Data. Compatibility with the LIDO data format is an important step in this direction.
What role do the CARE Principles play in the Minimum Record Recommendation?
The CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) were formulated by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) for the management of indigenous data, as a necessary complementary framework to the FAIR Principles. GIDA aims to promote data sovereignty and governance. It aims to assert the rights and interests of people from communities of origin to the data for the purpose of self-determined well-being and to strengthen the right to participate in decision-making. The Minimum Record Recommendation provides cataloguing instructions for individual data elements with information on how to implement the CARE Principles. The notes are labelled 
on the following pages. The recommendations in the Minimum Record set refer to data on collection items from contexts of injustice, particularly colonial contexts. In order to ensure that the perspectives and positions of people from the countries where the objects originate are also taken into account, the CARE Principles should be followed. The most important thing is to involve people from the communities of origin in your own deliberations. More information can be found here.
What role does digital accessibility play in the Minimum Record Recommendation?
Digital accessibility means that IT services can be used by people with physical or mental disabilities. The European Standard for Digital Accessibility EN 301 549 is relevant here. Digital accessibility plays a role in the Minimum Record Recommendation because object datasets published online also represent IT content that must comply with the requirements of European and German legislation. It is also a declared aim of museums to reach as wide an audience as possible (see also the German Digital Library guidelines Das inklusive Museum [eng.: The inclusive museum] and Standards für Museen [eng.: Standards for museums] published by the German Museum Association, ICOM Germany and the KMBL). This includes museums' digital services. Information on digital accessibility is included in the Minimum Record Recommendation, for example in the Object description, Link to media file and Alternative texts data elements. Further information on the implementation of digital accessibility in museums can be found in Einführung in die digitale Barrierefreiheit [eng.: Introduction to digital accessibility] (video) or in the corresponding portal of the Landesstelle für die nichtstaatlichen Museen in Bayern [eng.: State Office for Non-Governmental Museums in Bavaria].
How is the Minimum Record Recommendation relevant to AI?
Thanks to LIDO compatibility, the Minimum Record Recommendation makes it possible to describe each museum object in a structured, contextual manner, using controlled vocabularies in a reliable and interoperable way. This improved data quality paves the way for appropriate subsequent use by AI applications in line with the curatorial needs of museums. Controlled cataloguing and comprehensive indexing is particularly helpful for the usability of cultural heritage data as datasets for training and improving large language models.
Does the Minimum Record Recommendation focus primarily on the cataloguing or publication of object information from museums and collections?
The Minimum Record Recommendation focuses on the online publication of object information from museums and collections. In order for object information to be findable, accessible, linkable and reusable according to the FAIR Principles, certain things need to be taken into account when it is recorded in local museum databases. In this respect, the data element pages of the Recommendation contain cataloguing instructions. However, the Minimum Record Recommendation is not primarily concerned with cataloguing, and certainly not with cataloguing for collection management purposes.
Why is the Data element set divided into "Data elements (cataloguing)" and "Data elements (export)"?
The data elements have been divided into two sections: Data elements that are usually filled in at the time of cataloguing ("Data elements (cataloguing)") and data elements that are usually filled in only when exporting from the database system used or when enriching the exported data ("Data elements (export)"). This is in line with museum workflows and is intended to separate contextual information, including media files, from formal information that does not normally require individual data entry but can be added at the point of export from the local system.
What about data elements that are important for digital collection management - why are they not included in the Minimum Record Recommendation?
Some of the data elements that are essential for good collection management, such as acquisition value or temporary location, must or should not be disclosed when object information is published online. The focus of the Minimum Record Recommendation is on the online publication of object information from museums and collections, so information used exclusively for collection management is excluded from the data element set.
Why so many data elements - shouldn't there be fewer for a Minimum Record?
A feature of the LIDO data exchange format is that descriptive object information is often provided both as a "human-readable" text element and as a "machine-readable" URI element containing unique identifiers in the form of persistent links. The Minimum Record Recommendation addresses this fact, which means that some data elements, such as the Person/corporate body element or the Repository of object element, actually represent multiple data elements, one text element and one URI element each. In addition, the Minimum Record Recommendation indicates when data elements or element sets should be repeatable. For best findability and reusability (FAIR Principles), not only well-structured object information with persistent URIs is required. In addition to the formal information about the object derived from cataloguing, a minimal amount of contextual information should be provided. For example, the Minimum Record Recommendation requires at least one event in the object's history and recommends the provision of a short, comprehensive object description text and subject keywords (if applicable). With regard to the description of the object, the Minimum Record Recommendation covers any information that users search for most frequently and that identifies the object in a relevant way. Finally, for provision in cultural heritage portals, certain information that is taken for granted in the local context and is part of common institutional knowledge needs to be made explicit.
Why are the requirements of the German Digital Library (DDB) and Europeana portals mentioned several times?
In addition to the consideration of standards and data element sets in the creation of the Minimum Record Recommendation, the coverage of the mandatory data elements for participation in the portals German Digital Library and Europeana was crucial. If the object data are prepared according to the Minimum Record Recommendation, all data-related requirements of these two portals are fulfilled and the way is paved for contributing. It is because of this requirement that some data elements are marked as *mandatory* in the Minimum Record Recommendation.
As the Recommendation aims to be as easily understandable and accessible as possible, it uses limited technical jargon and IT terminology. To ensure compatibility with LIDO (Lightweight Information Describing Objects), the data ingest format used by the German Digital Library, LIDO snippets are provided for each data element. It is not necessary to read these to understand the data elements.
What if I do not plan to submit data to the DDB and Europeana? Is the Minimum Record Recommendation still relevant for me/my institution?
The Minimum Record Recommendation is intended to meet the requirements of the German Digital Library and Europeana portals so that datasets that comply with the Minimum Record Recommendation can be delivered to these portals as smoothly as possible. However, this is not the only intended benefit of the Minimum Record Recommendation. In a broader sense, the Minimum Record Recommendation serves to improve the data quality of published object information from museums and collections, regardless of the platforms or interfaces used.
Other subject-specific portals or the online collections of individual institutions often set similar priorities to the German Digital Library and Europeana in terms of search access to the objects presented. Even when data is provided directly via interfaces, users benefit from the consistent provision of core object information in a well-documented format. The Minimum Record Recommendation is therefore a good starting point for any form of publication of these data.
Why is an event mandatory in the object history? What if my database is not event-based?
One of the claims of the Minimum Record Recommendation is that, in addition to strictly formal requirements for the online publication of object information from museums and collections, a minimal amount of contextualising information should be provided. For example, in order for users to make sense of the object data, the object needs to be located in space and time. As the Minimum Record Recommendation is LIDO-compliant, information about what happened to the object (event type), who was involved (person/corporate body), where (location) and when (date) it took place must be structured into events. If the institution does not know any of this information about an object, it should at least be possible to specify a time period for the creation of the object or its entry into the collection and thus create an event. Any number of events can be assigned to an object.
If the database does not support event-based recording, it is still possible to transfer information that belongs into a LIDO event. For example, when exporting data from the local database, event types are defined based on the role of the actor (creator, seller, etc.) and the information on the person/corporate body, location and date is assigned to a corresponding event.
My object information is only available in German. Why do I need to indicate the language of the record?
A feature of the LIDO data exchange format is that the language of the object information must be specified at least at the general record level. In order to achieve LIDO compatibility, the Record language element is mandatory in the Minimum Record Recommendation. The data element must be filled even if the object information is only available in one language, e. g. German.
In LIDO it is also possible to repeat data elements in order to publish the object information in different languages. To do this, the individual data element contents are labelled with their own language.
The objects I want to publish are to be catalogued within a specific discipline. Is the Minimum Record Recommendation still relevant to me?
The Minimum Record Recommendation aims to provide an intersection of important data elements for online publication across disciplines and museum types. For example, the requirements of cultural history collections have been considered alongside those of natural history collections. The Minimum Record is intended to provide a core of data elements on which more detailed cataloguing can be based if desired. For more detailed cataloguing, the LIDO data exchange format offers a wealth of additional data elements that are not included in the Minimum Record Recommendation or that are only referred to in a few places (for example, in the Date element, it is indicated that information on the period or epoch is permitted in a separate data element corresponding to the LIDO element <lido:periodName>). However, even very specific types of objects or works can often be processed well according to the Minimum Record Recommendation if you use the appropriate published specialist vocabularies. If you are missing basic requirements for cataloguing and online publication in your discipline in the Minimum Record Recommendation, please contact the Minimum Record Working Group.
Why does the Minimum Record Recommendation suggest that my museum's object information should appeal to a wide audience?
It is a declared aim of museums to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. In the ICOM 2022 museum definition, museums are described as "accessible and inclusive" (see the corresponding communication from ICOM Germany; see also the Standards for museums published by the German Museum Association, ICOM Germany and KMBL). This also means that the digital services provided by museums, including object data published online, should be presented as generally understandable as possible.
What does it mean when a software provider supports the Minimum Record Recommendation? Are there different levels?
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.
When I enter data into my museum database, will I receive information on which data elements are mandatory/recommended and how they should be filled in?
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.
Who can I contact if I have questions about using the Minimum Record Recommendation?
For further support in using the Minimum Record Recommendation, including filling in the data elements and using controlled vocabularies, please contact the Museumsberatungsstellen [eng.: museum advice centres] in your federal state, the Museum and Media Desks of the German Digital Library, the NFDI4Culture Helpdesk or your database provider. You can also send questions to the Minimum Record Working Group at info@minimaldatensatz.de.