Labours of Love and Convenience: Dealing with Community-Supported Knowledge in Museums

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is a very interesting user case report, aimed to a type of audience of collections curators/IT managers of heritage institutions that are planning the adoption of a DAMS. The paper describes the issues – the pros and cons - of working together with a pool of IT teams of many institutions.

A suggestion is that author provides a short description and links to the products analysed or adopted.

Author Response

Thanks for taking the time reviewing the paper. The following issue has been addressed:

> A suggestion is that author provides a short description and links to the products analysed or adopted.

Added footnotes with links and a brief description of each project adopted in LAKE. Some of the components more relevant to the topic are described more in detail in other parts of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary:

The paper presents the reader with a case study undertook by the Collection IT team at the Art Institute of Chicago and a reflection of this process in relation to linked open data. In the first part the author describes the project management process of implementing a digital asset management system which communicates with the in-house built collection management system. Combining open source and proprietary software the author observed a cultural shift when starting to work with open source communities. This anecdotal narration of the author’s personal experience is followed by a section of broader reflection on museums and linked open data. Here, the author presents further examples of linked open data collaborations across museums as well as a conducted interview with a curator for digital experience. In conclusion, the author advocates for investment in technology and support for small-sized museums to take part in the “Digital Heritage community”.

Broad comments:

While the descriptive part of the software implementation is very detailed, the theoretical reflection of this process and its implications for the cultural heritage sector in general is lacking a clear structure of arguments. Identifying the need for better understanding of linked open data and exchange with open source communities within museums is a valid point and the examples provided are interesting projects of collaboration. However, the argumentative transition between participatory museum developments and linked open data is less comprehensible and lacks evidence as the added sources would need more elaboration and interpretation. Moderate changes in language and style should be considered as well as further academic literature to support the argument. Overall the structure needs to be reshaped to connect the case study, other sources and the conclusion in a more coherent way.

Specific comments:

·       Line 225: subjective comment of no relevance for the argument

·       Line 256-7: no need to raise the question, if it cannot be answered

·       Line 255 ff.: style of language is polemic and casual

·       Line 270: bold statement which is not sufficiently backed by evidence in this text

·       Line 276: claim without further evidence – what are the misunderstandings?

·       Line 284: over-stated and not further elaborated why examples are “excellent”

·       All examples should be summarized and interpreted rather than using copied-in descriptions from the projects’ websites

·       Line 345: overstated claim without reference or evidence

·       Line 355: reason for including this general paragraph is unclear

·       interview should be summarized and interpreted with focus on the argument

·       conclusion is vague and uses terms that have not been defined in the text before (e.g. Digital Heritage community)

Author Response

Thank you for your patience in reviewing my first academic paper so thoroughly. I have done my best to address your points.

The structure of the paper has been reworked as advised, in order to better tie in the experience part with the theoretical part that follows, and summarized more clearly in the conclusion.

The following specific points have been addressed:

> ·       Line 225: subjective comment of no relevance for the argument

Reshaped statement to make it more descriptive.

> ·       Line 256-7: no need to raise the question, if it cannot be answered

The fact that the paper does not have a definitive answer to the question should not make the question less valid. I have reformulated the question and its context in the hope that they make more sense.

> ·       Line 255 ff.: style of language is polemic and casual

Reworked entire introduction to the section. My intention was not being polemic, however I find that it is important to raise some constructive criticism of the museum's position here.

> ·       Line 270: bold statement which is not sufficiently backed by evidence in this text

I assume that this refers to the sentence about "scaring away managers". This statement has been amended and introduced by the previous paragraph, which relates it to the specific AIC environment.

> ·       Line 276: claim without further evidence – what are the misunderstandings?

Not enough documentation to support these statements and not critical to the topic. Removed paragraph.

> ·       Line 284: over-stated and not further elaborated why examples are “excellent”

Reworded whole introduction to the chapter and focused on relevance rather than "excellence".

> ·       All examples should be summarized and interpreted rather than using copied-in descriptions from the projects’ websites

All examples have an introductory part summarizing the aspects of main interest for the topic, followed by a significant quote from their website, and a motivation for its adoption by AIC. I have tried my best to improve the clarity and the context, however I feel that the quotes from the programs' websites best describe their purpose.

> ·       Line 345: overstated claim without reference or evidence

Reworded to be more neutral.

> ·       Line 355: reason for including this general paragraph is unclear

The original intention was to offer an additional example of cross-institutional collaboration, but I agree that it distracts from the technology focus. Removed.

> ·       interview should be summarized and interpreted with focus on the argument

Added a summary of the interview at the beginning of the chapter; tied with the debate about small institutions' challenges to contribute to LOD projects.

> ·       conclusion is vague

Expanded the conclusion by adding more firm points and an initial paragraph that ties the narrative section with the theoretical section. 

> uses terms that have not been defined in the text before (e.g. Digital Heritage community)

Removed term.

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

Broad comments:

The revised version of the paper offers a clearer structure and more profound evidence. The improved used of literature supports the arguments and offers a helpful base to contextualise the author’s thoughts. However, some minor alterations would be needed, such as: framing and quoting literature in a consistent way, a steady numbering of the section titles, and a thorough spell check. In general, it would be recommended to mention Linked Data in title and abstract of the paper as it would help future readers to understand the article’s impact direction immediately.

Specific comments:

Line 10: it would be helpful to mention Linked Open Data or Linked Data in the abstract and/or title 

Line 26: typo (2000's)

Line 197 ff (comparison with Samvera community): recommendation to focus more on "cultural shift" as the section title suggest and less on process description

Line 240: typo (infrastructureis)

Line 281: revise section title

Line 298: recommendation to revise, e.g. "the outward-facing goals may seem irrational in first sight, but they have to be judged within the broader picture of memory institutions’ missions" 

Line 304: please introduce the study

Line 403: recommendation to replace “excellent” with “pioneering”?

Line 469: recommendation to summarise the interview and use quotes only to highlight your argumentation

·         Line 475: typo (geograpically)

·         Line 565/568: check consistency "Open Source Software" or "open source software"?

Author Response

Thank you for this second round of reviews. The following points have been addressed:

> framing and quoting literature in a consistent way

Reworked all footnotes and references to be more consistent with guidelines.

> a steady numbering of the section titles

Added numbering to all H2 and H3 elements.

> a thorough spell check

Corrected several typos. Apologies for not running the spell checker earlier.

> In general, it would be recommended to mention Linked Data in title and abstract of the paper as it would help future readers to understand the article’s impact direction immediately.

> Line 10: it would be helpful to mention Linked Open Data or Linked Data in the abstract and/or title

Added mention.

> Line 26: typo (2000's)

Corrected.

> Line 197 ff (comparison with Samvera community): recommendation to focus more on "cultural shift" as the section title suggest and less on process description

Reworked the entire Samvera episode (I agree that it was not relevant enough to the context).

> Line 240: typo (infrastructureis)

Corrected.

> Line 281: revise section title

Changed title.

> Line 298: recommendation to revise, e.g. "the outward-facing goals may seem irrational in first sight, but they have to be judged within the broader picture of memory institutions’ missions"

Rephrased paragraph, also better tied it to the next chapter.

> Line 304: please introduce the study

Added introductory paragraph.

> Line 403: recommendation to replace “excellent” with “pioneering”?

Agree. Replaced.

> Line 469: recommendation to summarise the interview and use quotes only to highlight your argumentation

> ·         Line 475: typo (geograpically)

Corrected.

> ·         Line 565/568: check consistency "Open Source Software" or "open source software"?

Introduced the "OSS" acronym for Open Source Software on line 102. Also made "open source" consistently lowercase whenever it is used generically as an adjective.