Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Dokumentationsstandards und der Besitznachweis in Sammlungen - ein vergleichender Überblick

Authors: Klose, Christoph; Gnyp, Anna; Biesterfeld, Victoria; Morstein, Maria; Sternitzke, Katja; Fritsch, Bernhard; Gerber, Anja; +2 Authors

Dokumentationsstandards und der Besitznachweis in Sammlungen - ein vergleichender Überblick

Abstract

Das ist die erste Version des Drafts, der für die Kommentierung bis zum 16.09.2025 auf dem Community Hub von NFDI4Objects bereitgestellt wurde:Dokumentationsstandards und der Besitznachweis in Sammlungen - ein vergleichender Überblick - NFDI4Objects Dieser Beitrag der N4O-TWG "Besitznachweis im Verlustfall: Use-Case für den Minimaldatensatz" umfasst die zusammengeführten Whitepaper 1 "Vergleich von Basiserschließungsstandards" & 2 "Use-Cases", die im Proposal der TWG vorgesehen sind. Die Untersuchung ermittelt durch Vergleich bestehender Dokumentationsstandards und Fallbeispiele, welche Metadaten Museumsobjekte eindeutig identifizieren und formuliert Vorschläge für eine mögliche Anpassung der Empfehlungen der AG Minimaldatensatz. Objektbesitzende Einrichtungen sind eingeladen, die hier ermittelten Empfehlungen zu überprüfen und zu kommentieren sowie ihre Bestände auf Diebstahlgefährdung hin zu evaluieren. Die Kommentierungsphase läuft bis einschließlich Dienstag, den 16.9.25 auf dem NFDI4Objects Community Hub. +++ This is the first version of the draft, which has been made available for comment until 16 September 2025 on the NFDI4Objects Community Hub:Dokumentationsstandards und der Besitznachweis in Sammlungen - ein vergleichender Überblick - NFDI4Objects This contribution of the N4O TWG ‘Proof of ownership in the event of loss: Use case for the minimal data set’ comprises the merged white papers 1 ‘Comparison of basic indexing standards’ & 2 ‘Use cases’, which are provided in the TWG proposal. By comparing existing documentation standards and case studies, the study determines which metadata uniquely identifies museum objects and formulates proposals for a possible adaptation of the recommendations of the Minimal Dataset Working Group. Object-owning institutions are invited to review and comment on the recommendations identified here and to evaluate their collections for theft risk. The comment phase runs until Tuesday 16 September on the NFDI4Objects Community Hub.

Keywords

Museums/classification, Proof of Ownership, N4O, Collection, Museums, event of loss, Besitznachweis, Museum, Museums/standards, Verlustfall, NFDI4Objects, Research Data, Digital humanities

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green
Related to Research communities