Advocacy Survey, Results & Analysis

RESULTS

Visual Resources Association

1. Concept of Networking Cultural Heritage How familiar is your organization and its constituents with the terms of this vision and with the current issues that have to be grappled with to make this vision a reality? As an organization I would say that the VRA is very familiar with the terms of the concept and with the associated issues. Our constituency is diverse and I suspect that some individual VRA members would be less familiar with the mentioned terms, but they will NEED to become familiar over the next several years because of the inherent nature of our profession (as suppliers of visual information) and the rapid development and expansion of networked information.

2. ADVOCACY 2a Given this definition of advocacy, how does your organization advocate for networking cultural heritage? The above stated advocacy statement would fit the VRA stance very well. Our current tax status forbids us from actively lobbying.

2b Do you have a different working definition of advocacy than the one we offer here? No

2c Projects? Of the projects that your organization participates in, which are related to digital networking? The VRA Data Standards Committee is actively developing a set of Core Categories for describing visual images. This project impacts on digital networking and the committee is currently concentrating on indicating mappings to other data standards such as MARC, CDWA, and the Dublin Core. The VRA Ad Hoc Committee on Intellectual Property Rights has been actively involved in the CONFU proceedings in regard to seeking guidelines for accessing digital images, text, and multimedia within a networked environment.

2d Partners? If you collaborate with partners in any networking advocacy activity, who are they? Right now the VRA is collaborating with the Reseach Libraries Group to set up a test-bed to test our VRA Core Categories within a networked environment. The VRA also is represented on the USMARC Advisory Committee. The VRA has also worked very closely with the College Art Association (CAA) and the Art Librairies Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) in regard to the CONFU Guidelines Issues. The VRA is also a member of the DFC.

2e Measure Success? How do you measure the success of your networking advocacy projects? In regard to the VRA Core Categories, we hope that the RLG testbed will give a good indication of the success of the project.

2f Target? Besides NINCH members, what groups should NINCH target for advocacy? Public Education Groups More Government Agencies NASA Other universities actively involved in digital networking projects such as the University of Maryland (Caprina Project) and San Jose State University (Delta Project).

3 Needs? I think the VRA needs a better understanding of the "nuts & bolts" of digital networking such as syntactical issues. We seem to be very up to speed on issues associated with semantics such as descriptors for electronic resources, cataloguing standards, etc. but we need more work in understanding standards of syntax such as ISO standards, SGML usage, etc.

4. Issues? 1. intellectual property (copyright law, fair use, licensing) This is indeed a top priority because our constituency works mostly with "surrogate" images. 2. standards (vocabulary/description/data; cataloging; technical, etc.) Another top priority, but probably second to IPR issues. 3. access I think access is very much dependent upon the above issues. Once IPR issues and standards are resolved, access is only a question of implementation. 4. economics As an organization, we have very little control over economics. This is mostly a matter between individual members and their home institutions. 5. internationalism Very much related to the above 6. preservation For VRA members who are employed by museums, historical societies, or in some way deal directly with objects, this is a very high priority. Less so for the many of us whose employment is associated mostly with "surrogate images"

Back to Index of Organizations