Digital Objects – Rhiannon’s Plants

My collection of digital objects consists of plants from my personal collection – specifically ones that I propagated from cuttings to grow them into the full plants shown here. I specifically chose plants that I propagated as I felt that allows me to use the metadata field of “Creator” to describe myself, “Method of Accrual” (propagation,) and the “Date of Creation” – when I propagated them. In addition to these three metadata fields, I also used:

1. Alternative Title
2. Access Rights
3. Audience
4. Description
5. Format
6. Medium
7. Requires

Most of these items were chosen in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek manner. The Alternative Title field was used to share the scientific name of the plant, in the instance that the title and description referred to it as a common name. This piece of information will help a wider audience be able to identify the plant species, as common names differ widely regionally and often refer to many various plant species. Audience shares that these items are of interest to those who enjoy indoor gardening or learning about popular houseplant species. Access Rights serves to inform interested parties that this collection isn’t publicly accessible to be visited. Description provides a more detailed description of the physical appearance of the digital object. Format informs the audience that the item is a real plant, and not a paper craft or fake plant, while Medium describes in more granular detail the separate materials that make up a potted plant. Requires is used to inform the audience that they cannot have a collection of this type themselves’ without providing specific requirements.

I would say that it was easier to describe my digital objects than I expected going into the assignment, but I ran into difficulties when trying to incorporate other metadata fields from Bibliographic Ontology, which felt far too specific to print materials, and Friend of a Friend, which felt far too specific to digital materials, while mine are physical items. While I was a bit literal in the interpretation of some of these Dublin Core metadata fields, perhaps bending the intended use of some to accommodate my needs, I think that was required to catalogue items that are a bit out of the ordinary for a digital collection. I think I used most of the fields that were available to me and exhausted the options I had for describing my items, and I don’t think there was any other way for me to describe them.

Digital exhibits can create experiences that are more immersive and interactive; they can create experiences that are more accessible to a wider range of people, or more unique and exciting (very dependent on the specific digital exhibit and the person). If well implemented, digital exhibits can educate museum users and give them more context and information to better take advantage of their in-person museum trip. Digital technologies can also open a space for dialogue, broaden access to information and culture, and keep these resources accessible even in the instance of shut-downs of the traditional, in-person exhibits – such as during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Digital exhibits can also mean that the resources are easier to search for, study, and reference in a research setting, for example, allowing scholars and students to study materials that are too delicate to be physically handled. They are also essential for the preservation of the memory of things lost to time. An example of this is Notre-Dame de Paris: The Augmented Exhibition where guests could “walk through” a virtual exhibit of the Notre Dame Cathedral that tragically burned. Matthew Hunter’s presentation also highlighted the importance of digital exhibits for other cultural heritage preservation purposes in addition to the tour of the Notre Dame Cathedral, as well as to allow wider access to cultural sites, or to destinations that are unsafe to be travelled to without special training – or at all, like the Caves of Lascaux

Digital exhibits can facilitate interaction with many new audiences, such as people who live too far away to visit the museum; people who may not be able to afford to visit the museum; people who may not have been able to visit a physical exhibit due to mental or physical accessibility concerns; classes at schools that don’t have the budgets for in-person visits; other museums and archives, in order to facilitate connection between their collections and audiences; and perhaps researchers or scholars who were previously unable to connect with the materials before they became more searchable as a digital collection. Museums can share links to digital exhibits from other museums and archives that may provide further context to their own exhibits.

One of the challenges in implementing digital exhibits is the same as one of it’s strengths – accessibility. The digital technologies may not integrate with the technology the public has available, or they may not have any personal technology at all, if that’s required. Even if the technology is provided as part of the experience, it may not be accessible to everyone’s physical needs, or they may not understand it. Extra staffing may be needed to teach attendees how to use the technology, or to keep it clean between uses. It may limit capacity, especially for in-person interactive exhibits. It can also be expensive to maintain the software and hardware, and they may create large amounts of waste if they are unable to maintain an exhibit. Overall, there are many positive benefits of digital exhibits, but, the benefits may be difficult to weigh against the cost, maintenance, and potential waste associated with them in an ever-changing technological and informational era.