YONEKURA Michio Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties, Department of Archives, 情報資料部, 文献資料研究室長 (70099927)
MIZUTANI Takeshi The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo Project and Reference Materials Departm, 企画資料課研究員 (50181889)
TAKUBO Naoki Nara National Museum, Research Center for Buddhist Art, Research Office for Info, 仏教美術資料研究センター, 資料管理研究室研究員 (40206925)
YOKOMIZO Hiroko Tokyo National Museum, Research and Information Center, Research Planning Sectio, 資料部, 情報調査研究室研究員 (90205229)
有川 治男 国立西洋美術館, 学芸課, 企画広報係長 (60133609)
高見沢 明雄 東京国立博物館, 資料部, 情報管理研究室長 (90150036)
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 the
upper 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.