background image
rent collections, which are using different
thesauri or coding systems'; `Interaction/
interfacing between digital archiving and
learning environment' or `A shared arts
laboratory providing real expert technical
help and expertise in the cultural sector'.
However, our readers seem to be aware
that DigiCULT.Info cannot cover all rele-
vant issues on a regular basis. Accordingly
some respondents stated, for example, `I
think it already covers a relevant group of
issues'; `All topics covered by DigiCULT
are very interesting'; `It is OK like it is' or
`Go on as you are doing. I will try to find
time to read all that (most of the) intere-
sting stuff.'
General comments on the
DigiCULT project/publications?
Finally, what really overwhelmed us were
the very favourable and encouraging gene-
ral comments on the DigiCULT
project/publications which we received
from almost all respondents.
We had a small number of comments
which indicated areas of improvement, but
even these were supportive of the project,
for example:`Welcome, although not always
easy for staff throughout the Library to
understand and benefit from'; `Professional
and communication-aware, maybe not
enough technical'; `Very nicely presented
although very business orientated'.
The other answers form an extensive
wish list, the entries of which stem from
the broad range of institutions that receive
the DigiCULT.Info newsletter and other
products (see table above).The list con-
tains issues that DigiCULT would very
much like to cover more frequently, but
for which there is a shortage of in-depth
studies, such as: `Market & business models
for cultural applications and services';
`Concrete implementation reports and
ROI analysis'; `Usability (user) studies' or
`Sector experience in digital media, parti-
cularly wireless and mobile delivery'.
The long list of more specific issues
illustrates the multitude of technical issues
cultural heritage institutions currently are
struggling to solve in mission-critical
areas. For example, for a National and
University Library this includes:
`Digitisation of old and rare books digi-
tisation of old newspapers harvesting
Web content protect integrity of elec-
tronic documents access to electronic
documents in our own archives long-
term preservation of optical media'.
Some other issues addressed were:`Docu-
ment management systems that encompass
paper and electronic records'; `Standards/
technologies for moving image and sound';
`Publication of complex archival material
on the Web'; `Developments in electronic
publishing (e.g. licensing agreements)';
`Ontology and method to combine diffe-
However, overall,
theDigiCULT project/publica-
tions were received very well.
To give just a few examples:
`Useful!'; `Very useful';
`Extremely useful'; `Efficient,
helpful'; `Very informative and
well done'; `Informative, acces-
sible, well presented'; `Very
high quality and relevant';
`Clear.To point.Well resear-
ched'; `Good overviews, state-
of-the-art, useful'; `Highly
professional, state of the art,
artistic design'; `Brilliant'; `It's
interesting to see best practice
and more abstract information
about technology next to each
other'; `Very impressed by the
range and particularly by the
strong base of case study';
`Good reference sources and
links'; `Very useful gives an
excellent overview of the current
situation'; `The publications
are of high quality, very infor-
mative and extremely well
publicised. Please continue';
`Keep up the good work'.
We thank all institutions and respon-
dents for participating in the survey,
and take the overall very positive feed-
back as a strong encouragement and
commitment for DigiCULT's work in
2004.
DigiCULT
.
Info
13