Comparative analysis identifies key challenges in metadata and data structures for museum collections, highlighting implications for interoperability.
This article examines the “semantic gap” in the digitisation of museum collections—the divide between human-comprehensible representations of artefacts and machine-readable data structures. Drawing on a comparative analysis of national museum databases from Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, the study explores how material objects are transformed into digital surrogates and the challenges of creating interoperable, searchable, and meaningful datasets. Key obstacles include inconsistent metadata standards, linguistic variability, and differences in classification systems, which hinder aggregation and transnational analysis. Case studies of temporal, material, and image-based metadata reveal how human-oriented descriptions—rich in nuance, context, and uncertainty—often resist direct computational translation. The research shows that while digital formats offer powerful opportunities for aggregation, search, and reinterpretation of heritage at scale, this flexibility comes at the cost of reducing object-specific richness. The paper argues that the value, or “aura,” of digitised objects lies in their potential for connectivity and cross-institutional integration, achievable only through metadata standardisation and thoughtful design. Understanding digitisation as a culturally embedded process can help bridge disciplinary perspectives and improve future museum data infrastructures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maija Spuriņa (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: