描述文物之資料內容標準CCO

Data Content Standards for Describing Cultural Objects

10.6120/JoEMLS.200909_46(4).0280.RS.AM

陳和琴(Ho-Chin Chen)

文物資料內容標準 ； 英美編目規則 ； 檔案描述內容標準 ； Cataloging Cultural Objects CCO ； Data content standards ； AACR2R ； DACS

教育資料與圖書館學

46卷4期（2009 / 09 / 01）

496 - 522

繁體中文

「文物」是指人類在歷史發展過程中遺留下來具有歷史、藝術及科學價值的遺物和遺蹟。文物資源的描述一向是文化資產典藏單位（亦即圖書館、檔案館及博物館等）共同的工作重點。為求作業標準化以交換及分享資訊資源，有史以來，資料標準存在已久。尤其越來越多文化資訊以電子形式出現於網際網路，將更凸顯文物描述資料標準的重要性。2006年，美國圖書館協會(American Library Association)出版文化資產界關於文物描述的第一套資料內容標準Cataloguing Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Objects and Their Images，簡稱CCO。為進一步了解此項工具，筆者試從相關文獻探討其歷史發展背景、範圍及組織結構，並與其他資料內容標準比較，包括圖書館界廣泛使用的編目規則中國編目規則、英美編目規則(Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, AACR)及檔案界的檔案描述內容標準(Describing Archives: A Content Standard, DACS)，擬找出CCO的特色及可應用性，供台灣之圖書館、博物館或檔案館相關人士參考。

Cultural objects are relics that have remained historical, artistic and scientific values after experiencing human development processes. Cultural objects cataloging has been a common main point for works of culture heritage related institutions such as library, archives and museum. To standardize operations of exchanging and sharing information resources, data description standards have existed since the beginning of recorded history. Especially, the more electronic cultural information emerges over the internet, the more important cultural objects description standards are. In 2006, American Library Association published Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Objects and Their Images, as known as CCO, the first set of data content standards for cultural objects. In order to get further information about this tool, the author explored the historical background, characteristics, and importance of CCO by making comparisons with other data content standards (including CCR, AACR2R and DACS) for those who work for domestic museums, libraries and archives.

1. Seminar 6: Common Ground: Standards for Cataloging Images and Objects
2. Ann Baird Whiteside.
3. Presented at the Art Libraries Society of North America, 33rd Annual Conference
4. Anna DeVore.Cataloging Cultural Objects.
5. Introduction to Metadata
6. Beacom Matthew(2007).Cataloging Cultural Objects(CCO), Resource Description and Access (RDA) and the Future of Metadata Content.VRA Bulletin,34(1),81-85.
7. E. O'' Keefe(2007).The Best of Both Worlds: Using CCO for Object Cataloging in Libraries and Special Collections.VRA Bulletin,34(1),86-96.
8. University at Buffalo Libraries
9. Object Cataloging in An RDA/MARC World: How CCO Can Help
10. Elizabeth O’ Keefe(2007).The Best of Both Worlds: Using CCO for Object Cataloging in Libraries and Special Collections.VRA Bulletin 34, no.1,86-89.
11. Gregory Most,St. Louis(2002).Common Ground: Standards for Cataloging Images and Objects.Presented at ARLIS/NA 30th / VRA 20th Joint Conference,Hyatt Regency, Union Station, St. Louis, Missouri:
12. Isabel del Carmen Quintana.review of Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images.
13. Jonathan Furner.Subject Access to Cultural Objects: A review of Challenges and Apportunities.
14. Subject Access to Cultural Objects: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities
15. Linda McRae (eds),Lynda S. White (eds).(1997).ArtMARC Sourcebook.Chicago:ALA.
16. Digital Library Federation
17. American Library Association
18. Dig Italia
19. Murtha Baca(2007).College and Research Libraries,64(4)
20. review of Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images
21. Murtha Baca.Fear Authority? Authority Control and Thesaurus Building for Art and Material Culture Information.Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 32.
22. Murtha Baca (eds)(2006).Cataloguing Cultural Objects.Chicago:ALA.
23. Patricia Harpring(2007).CCO Overview And Description.Visual Resources Association Bulletin,34(1),34-44.
24. CCO in the Museum: CCO, CDWA, and CDWA Lite for Cataloging Museum Objects
25. Paula Frosch,Murtha Baca(2007).Cataloging Our Culture.review of Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images|Library Journal Book Review.
26. Penn State
27. William E. Landis.Plays Well With Others: DACS and CCO as Interoperable Metadata Content Standards.
28. William E. Landis(2007).Plays Well With Others: DACS and CCO as Interoperable Metadata Content Standards.VRA Bulletin,34(1),97-103.
29. 文物
30. 數位典藏計畫彙編2007 年版9-1-4 後設資料專論：檔案館社群後設資料標準

1. 顏上晴、林芳誼(2018)。文物編目指引（CCO）是否有助於改善博物館藏品編目品質？以國立臺灣美術館為例。博物館學季刊，32(2)，103-129+131。
2. 張淑卿(2018)。博物館藏品編目實務面向的問題與改善建議－以國立臺灣歷史博物館為例。博物館學季刊，32(3)，63-79。
3. 張志光(2022)。博物館藏品詮釋資料建置與開放之探究－以國立故宮博物院器物數位典藏為例。科技博物，26(4)，25-47。