Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T10:53:51.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cataloguing and indexing of images: time for a new paradigm?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Margaret E. Graham
Margaret E. Graham*
Affiliation:
Institute for Image Data Research, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 8ST, UK
*
Email: margaret.graham@unn.ac.uk
Get access

Extract

Funding opportunities and digitisation initiatives offer libraries, galleries and museums the potential to exploit their image collections – photographs, slides, drawings, pictures and works of art – in new and exciting ways. Many different organisations are involved in developing standards for the formal description of images (e.g. artist, title, photographer) and some effort is being made to develop compatible standards for the digital environment. Indexing of images can be a difficult task because images are rich in information and may be used by widely different groups of users, who may not always express their information needs adequately. Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) technology, which allows the retrieval of images based on similarity to a query image, has enormous potential, particularly if it can be combined with text-based indexing.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , 2001 , pp. 22 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Graham, Margaret E. Description and indexing of images: report of a survey of ARLIS members, 1998/99. Newcastle upon Tyne: Institute for Image Data Research, 1999. (Also available at http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/ARLIS/)Google Scholar
2. Guides to quality in visual resource imaging. Council on Library and Information Resources, 2000. (http://www.rlg.org/visguides/)Google Scholar
3. TASI framework. Technical Advisory Services for Images (TASI). (http://www.tasi.ac.uk/framework/framework.html)Google Scholar
4. Kenney, Anne R. and Rieger, Oya Y. Moving theory into practice: digital imaging for libraries and archives. Mountain View, CA: Research Libraries Group, 2000.Google Scholar
5. Milstead, Jessica and Feldman, Susan. ‘Metadata: cataloging by any other name . . .’ Online January 1999. (Available at http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/OL1999/milsteadl.html)Google Scholar
6. Dublin Core metadata element set, Version 1.1: Reference description. OCLC, 1999. (http://purl.org/dc/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm)Google Scholar
7. Lassila, Ora and Swick, Ralph R., eds. Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. World Wide Web Consortium, 1999. (W3C Recommendation 22 February 1999). (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/)Google Scholar
8. Day, Michael. ‘Metadata for images: emerging practice and standards’. Paper presented at CIR99 – Second conference on image retrieval, 25 & 26 February 1999, Newcastle upon Tyne. Newcastle: Institute for Image Data Research, 1999.Google Scholar
9. Lancaster, F.W. Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice. 2nd ed. London: Library Association, 1998.Google Scholar
10. Evans, Adrian. ‘TELCLASS: a structural approach to TV classification’. Audiovisual librarian vol. 13 no. 4 1987, p.215–216.Google Scholar
11. Social History and Industrial Classification: a subject classification for museum cataloguing. 2nd edition. SHIC Working Party, 1993 (revised 1996). (See also http://www.holm.demon.co.uk/shic/).Google Scholar
12. World Intellectual Property Organization. International classification of the figurative elements of marks (Vienna Classification). 4th Edition. Geneva: WIPO, 1998.Google Scholar
13. Opitz, H. et al. ‘Workpiece classification and its industrial application’. International journal of machine tool design research vol. 9 1969, p.39–50.Google Scholar
14. Bjarnestam, Anna. ‘Description of an image retrieval system’. Paper presented at the Challenge of image retrieval research workshop, Newcastle upon Tyne, 5 February 1998. Newcastle: Institute for Image Data Research, 1998.Google Scholar
15. Graham, op. cit.Google Scholar
16. Rasmussen, Edie M. ‘Indexing images’. Annual review of information science and technology vol. 32 1997, p.169–196.Google Scholar
17. Cawkell, Anthony E. Indexing collections of electronic images: a review. British Library, 1993. (British Library Research Review, 15)Google Scholar
18. Besser, Howard. ‘Visual access to visual images: the UC Berkeley Image Database Project’. Library trends vol. 38 no. 4 1990, p.787–798.Google Scholar
19. Shatford Layne, Sara. ‘Some issues in the indexing of images’, Journal of the American Society of Information Science vol. 45 no. 8 1994, p.583–588.Google Scholar
20. Van der Starre, J. H. E. ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe: indexing of images’. In Multimedia computing and museums: selected papers from the 3rd international conference on hypermedia and interactivity in museums (ICHIM’95/MCN’95), San Diego, California, October 9-13, 1995. (David, Bearman, ed.) Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics, 1995, p.267–277.Google Scholar
21. Keister, Lucinda H. ‘User types and queries: impact on image access systems’. In Challenges in indexing electronic text and images. (Raya, Fidel and others, eds.) Washington, DC: Learned Information for the American Society for Information Science, 1994, p.7–22.Google Scholar
22. Ogle, V.E. and Stonebraker, M. ‘Chabot: retrieval from a relational database of images’. Computer vol. 28 no. 9 1995, p.40–48.Google Scholar
23. Eakins, John P. and Graham, Margaret E. Content-based Image Retrieval: a report to the JISC Technology Applications Programme.’ JTAP, 1999. (Also available at http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/research/cbir/report.html)Google Scholar
24. Idres, F. and Panchanathan, S. ‘Review of image and video indexing techniques’, Journal of visual communication and image representation vol. 8 no. 2 1997, p.146–166.Google Scholar
25. De Marsicoi, M. et al. ‘Indexing pictorial documents by their content: a survey of current techniques’. Image and vision computing vol. 15 1997, p.119–141.Google Scholar
26. Flickner, M. et al. ‘Query by image and video content: the QBIC system’. IEEE computer vol. 28 no. 9 1995, p.23–32.Google Scholar
27. Gupta, A. et al. ‘The Virage image search engine: an open framework for image management’. In Storage and retrieval for image and video databases IV Proc SPIE 2670 (Sethi, Ishwar K. and Jain, Ramesh C., eds). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optical Engineering, 1996, p.76–87.Google Scholar
28. Holt, Bonnie and Hartwick, Laura. ‘Retrieving art images by image content: the UC Davis QBIC project’. Aslib proceedings vol. 46 no. 10 1994, p.243–248.Google Scholar
29. Smith, John R. and Chang, Shih-Fu. ‘Visually searching the Web for content’. IEEE multimedia vol. 4 no. 3 1997, p.12–20.Google Scholar
30. Chapman, Ann, Kingsley, Nicholas and Dempsey, Lorcan. Full disclosure: releasing the value of library and archive collections. Library and Information Commission, 1999. (LIC Report 10)Google Scholar