April 9-12, 2008
Montréal, Québec, Canada

On-line Heritage Presentation In Flanders: A New Way Of Searching And Presenting Heritage Content

Joke Beyl and Gert Nulens, Research Centre SMIT (Studies On Media Information & Telecommunication), Vrije Universiteit Brussel; and Bart De Nil, FARO (Flemish Support Centre for Cultural Heritage), Belgium


Since April 2007, several research teams and heritage organisations in Flanders have been involved in a research trajectory called ‘Heritage 2.0’, in which problems regarding the on-line distribution of digital cultural heritage are analysed. One of the main challenges of the project is to develop a generic metadata exchange model for the whole Flemish heritage sector. While it spans the different heritage sectors, the target is not to create a centralised database, but rather to facilitate  communication among existing databases and metadata standards. Out of this combination of information, heritage professionals can create new cultural heritage stories and can distribute much richer information to their audiences.

Nowadays heritage institutions increasingly have the possibility of using mobile technologies for presenting their heritage to the visitor. But are heritage institutions capable of taking this road? This paper aims at unveiling the needs and views of Flemish heritage experts concerning the two major components of the Heritage 2.0  research project: on the one hand, the creation of a communication layer on top of existing databases, and on the other hand, the presentation of heritage by means of mobile technologies (for example, a PDA). Since mobile heritage presentation is still in its infancy in Flanders, we decided to extend these focus group conversations by means of some in-depth interviews with international experts. We asked them to reflect upon 5 central issues regarding mobile heritage presentation. In this paper we highlight some of the most interesting conclusions.

Keywords: Heritage 2.0, on-line cultural heritage, metadata layer, mobile heritage presentation, heritage experts


Since April 2007 several research teams and heritage organisations in Flanders have been involved in a research trajectory that is called ‘Heritage 2.0’, in which problems regarding the on-line distribution of digital cultural heritage are analysed. Flanders possesses a rich offer of cultural heritage. However, as is the case all over the world, information and data about this cultural heritage is often hidden in archives and specialised documentation centres. Nowadays this information is increasingly available in a digital format. This creates a lot of new opportunities. Indeed, it becomes more and more possible to link on-line sources of data about cultural heritage. Out of this combination of information heritage professionals can create new cultural heritage stories and can distribute much richer information to their audiences. Moreover, the distribution of on-line information about cultural heritage can attract local and regional cultural tourists.

The combination of different kinds of information about cultural heritage goes beyond the organisational and policy borders of the different heritage sub-sectors. Both movable and immovable, tangible and intangible cultural heritage are involved in this process. These different sub-sectors, and even institutions within the sub-sectors, often use different ways to describe their heritage content. In other words, they use different metadata (data to describe content) models. One of the main challenges of the project is to develop a generic metadata exchange model for the whole Flemish heritage sector. It is unique in that it spans the different heritage sectors. Nonetheless, the target is not to create a centralised database, but rather to facilitate communication between existing databases and metadata standards, removing a bottleneck much complained about by heritage experts.

As well as  connecting information from different kinds of data sources to construct new and rich heritage stories, the project is looking for new ways to distribute these stories. One of the possibilities is the use of mobile devices. Heritage institutions increasingly are experimenting with mobile technologies for presenting their heritage to the visitor. Devices such as PDA, MP3 and smart phone are no longer unheard of by common visitors. The question is however, are heritage institutions capable of taking this road? And maybe even more important, are they willing to invest in this new way of presenting heritage?

The Heritage 2.0 project intends to remove possible bottlenecks that might hinder the implementation of this process, starting with the search for heritage information and ending with the presentation of a heritage story. However, the mere translation of the heritage information into a story that is interesting for the visitor is not part of the research project.

During the last months, researchers involved in the project conducted a range of focus groups with professionals from different heritage sectors. Qualitatively rather than quantitatively, focus groups were designed to get insight into the opinions of a limited number of selected participants. The aim was to unveil the needs and visions of these experts concerning this new way of searching and presenting heritage information. In addition, the research team interviewed several international experts to understand how they view the present and future of mobile heritage presentation. This paper aims to presenting some of the most interesting results following that research.

Figure 1

Fig 1: Project outline

Researching The Needs And Views Of Flemish Heritage Experts Concerning Digital Cultural Heritage

We conducted a series of focus group conversations with professionals originating from different Flemish heritage sub sectors. It was our intention to cover a broad spectrum of the heritage sector since this sector is known by its diverse landscape. Hence we talked with, among others, representatives of heritage cells. Heritage cells in Flanders don’t manage their own heritage; instead, it is their responsibility to promote heritage to a large public, to stimulate collaboration between heritage institutions, to map local heritage... Furthermore, we consulted museum representatives, delegates from archives and documentation centres, representatives of coordinating cultural heritage bodies, people working within the sector of the local heritage and representatives of heritage sites.

It was our intention to find out more about their opinions concerning the two major components of the Heritage 2.0 – research project: the creation of a communication layer on top of existing databases, and the presentation of heritage by means of mobile technologies such as a PDA. Regarding the creation of a metadata layer, we asked about possible bottlenecks and added values. As to mobile heritage presentation, we were interested in knowing about significant issues as well as possible pitfalls, added values and wishes. By ‘wishes’, we meant what they would like to accomplish if they had unlimited resources.

We begin this paper by uncovering the most important issues raised during the various focus group conversations concerning the creation of a communication layer. Next we summarize these matters into a general view of the heritage experts. We proceed by outlining their thoughts and reflections on mobile heritage presentation. Since the heritage sector in Flanders is very diverse, we decided to zoom in on the ideas of the different sub-sectors in the case of the creation of a layer for connecting these different sectors of movable, immovable, tangible and intangible cultural heritage. As for mobile heritage presentation, we chose to focus on the similarities among the different focus groups as the heritage experts reflected a more general point of view, taking into account the entire heritage sector.

Creating A Communication Layer: A Vision From Each Sub Sector

Heritage Cells

Representatives of Flemish heritage cells mentioned a couple of bottlenecks concerning the construction of a metadata layer. They referred to the fear of certain heritage institutions of putting information on-line as well as to the lack of staff and priorities in the light of registering and describing heritage objects. There is still a lot of work to do regarding the digitising of objects. Also, different institutions describe their objects in a different manner due to different needs. This might hinder the connecting of databases, they argue.

However, they are convinced that there are also advantages connected to this kind of communication layer. For example, this will spare the users a lot of time since they  only need to ask one question instead of consulting every institution separately to find relevant information. This might even reveal information that was formerly unknown by the users. Moreover, such a layer creates the opportunity for heritage institutions to communicate and connect their content. This might lead to a mutual opening up of their collections.


The representatives of museums emphasized the importance of this communication layer since it doesn’t exist at the moment, and they believe it is needed for building a broad heritage story. Furthermore, putting a layer on top of existing databases avoids the creation of a central database. This is positive since doubling databases only creates more work. But a lack of cooperation within the heritage sector might be an obstacle. Also, heritage institutions want to be sure that the data and metadata they send out are correct, so they want control. But maintaining control is very time-consuming. Moreover, the description of data is generally very basic.

The advantages of this communication layer are, according to the museum representatives, both possible collaboration between heritage institutions and the connecting and easy retrieval of objects originating from different sources.

Archives And Documentation Centres

The experts we spoke to in this group highlighted a couple of concerns. They warned us not to create needless layers. They questioned whether museums and other heritage experts need this kind of layer since they already know their sources. In addition, they referred to the lack of digitalised data and metadata: in one word, input. Moreover, not everything is described in the same manner and with the same detail. There is also the danger of an overload of information as well as of the expert assuming wrongly that he will find all the information there is on a certain topic via this communication layer. These representatives fear that this project is too broad and too ambitious to be successful since the heritage sector is so varied.

Nevertheless, they acknowledged that this kind of communication layer might facilitate the retrieval process for the heritage expert. It is also a way for archives to unlock their data, and it offers the opportunity to cross the borders of different heritage sub-sectors. This could lead to a better understanding of the context of a certain topic since related objects are often kept in different locations.

Coordinating Bodies

The spokesmen within this focus group wondered whether this layer will actually facilitate the retrieval process since the users still need to translate the retrieved information into a story that is interesting for the visitor. In addition, they mentioned a couple of requirements for this layer to be successful. They talked about the need of user friendliness and the fact that it should be logical, reliable, complete, open and easy to use. Also, they emphasized the need for a long-term vision of a project like Heritage 2.0. Bottlenecks they pointed out were the lack of digitally registered data as well as the lack of expertise, resources, ICT-knowledge and a clear vision within heritage institutions. These shortages result, according to the representatives, in the fact that a lot of organisations are not yet ready to cooperate in this kind of communication project. Therefore, there is a need for support from a higher body. Lastly, they mentioned the importance of copyright. It should be made clear how this will work within the context of this new communication layer.

The value of this layer is that it offers heritage institutions the opportunity to profile themselves and open up to the world. Additionally, it is a means of connecting the heritage sector and grouping relevant information for the users. This might result in new heritage stories.

Local Heritage

Representatives within this sub-sector focused on the lack of expertise, knowledge sharing, staff and digitally described content as the most important problems. However, they mentioned the possibility of retrieving local knowledge that is often overlooked or unknown and of connecting information originating from scientific databases with information coming from local organisations.

Heritage Sites

Whether institutions will be prepared to cooperate in this kind of project will depend upon the cost of this system, these heritage professionals argue. Copyright is not really a problem, so they say, since heritage institutions should decide about them. However, it is important to keep in mind that some information is not meant to be accessible to everybody.

The biggest advantage of this layer is the fact that it offers the possibility to connect institutions that work with different database systems. This will also relieve heritage institutions since staff will have to answer fewer calls and e-mails from heritage experts in search for information on a certain topic. Finally, the mere existence of this communication layer might stimulate heritage institutions, the experts believe, to continue to make an inventory of their collections and unlock them.

Creating A Communication Layer: A General View From The Flemish Heritage Sector

The experts see a couple of pitfalls that could obstruct the creation of a communication layer connecting metadata from different heritage institutions that originate from different heritage sectors. To begin with, there is a lack of input within the heritage sector; namely, there is insufficient digitalised and digitally described data. And when there is no input, there will be no output, the experts warn.

They also mention that different institutions use different systems for organizing their data because they all have their own needs. This makes it difficult to connect these data.

Lastly, the experts refer to copyright issues. These issues are not insuperable, but it needs to be made clear what will be released by means of this communication layer and what won’t be released. For certain experts this is not really a problem because it is the institutions that should decide in advance what can be made public and what can’t.

They also see some added values related to this communication layer. For the professional who wants to build a heritage story regarding a certain topic, it would be a lot easier to find information. It would no longer be necessary to consult different heritage institutions to find out whether they have some relevant data about this topic. Instead, the professional would be able to ask just one question and receive a lot of information. Furthermore, this layer offers the possibility to discover unknown and unexpected information. This is possible because the metadata of each institution are linked. Finally, by connecting data derived from different institutions, heritage professionals believe that the opportunity for stimulating collaboration within the broad heritage landscape is created.

Mobile Heritage Presentation: What Do Heritage Professionals Think Of It?


To begin with, there are some issues about mobile heritage presentation that need  thorough attention, according to the heritage experts we consulted.

They mention the fact that it is important to guide visitors but at the same time to give them the freedom to choose. In particular, this means that heritage institutions should give visitors a story, a thread through the information that is delivered. On the other hand, visitors should be able to dig deeper into the information when they are  interested in a certain topic. This combination is achievable by offering layered stories.

Another issue is user-generated content. The experts believe this might be an interesting source of information. It offers the possibility of discovering information that cannot be discovered in another way. But at the same time, this kind of information gathering needs controlling, the experts argue. It needs to be filtered because not everybody will add valuable information. Since heritage institutions are responsible for the content of their databases, they have to be sure that content is of high quality. So there is a need for moderation, but this requires resources, and these are not always available.

Furthermore, they note that it is important that a PDA should not be used as a replacement of other means of heritage presentation. The experts emphasize that a PDA should only be used when it offers real added value. In the case of a group visit, for example, they believe a human guide is more useful than a PDA. It is important to combine different means of heritage presentation. The technology is but a means to an end.

The experts also stress the importance of content over technology. It should always be about the story, about the information that is delivered by means of a mobile device. That is the most significant, but also very time-consuming for the heritage institutions.

Another piece of advice given by the experts is that the use of a PDA should always be carefully considered in advance. The heritage institution has to reflect on the long term. Will it be able to keep investing? Technology can become obsolete very fast.

Lastly, the experts highlight the importance of the translation of heritage information into a story that is of interest to visitors. It doesn’t work if the heritage institution just pours a huge amount of information on the visitors: visitors want a prepared story. At the same time, experts realize that this translation will demand a lot of work from the heritage institution.


First, the experts mention the existence of a gap between big heritage institutions on the one hand and small and local institutions and organisations on the other hand. The latter are at this moment not capable of using mobile technologies for heritage presentation due to a lack of time, knowledge, money, resources and staff. By staff, the experts refer to both people who input data and people that translate this information into a story for the visitors.

The experts point out some other problems. Some doubt that the visitor is ready for using this kind of mobile technology. They also talk about the danger of an overload of information when using this kind of heritage presentation as well as about the danger that the PDA will isolate the visitor from the exhibits. Moreover, they say that this causes a problem for the heritage institutions since they have to make sure to stuff the PDA with a sufficient amount of information. It is not always easy to find enough data.

Added Value

Nonetheless, the experts note several added values to the use of mobile devices for the delivery of heritage content to the visitor.

To start with, they emphasize that a PDA offers more possibilities than the classical ways of presenting heritage. A PDA can be used to deliver both sound and vision as well as 3D reconstructions and can offer suggestions based upon the interests of the individual visitors. The experts also state that it can be very useful in outdoor situations.

A PDA also creates opportunities for heritage institutions to deliver serious information in a pleasant way. This may result in opening up heritage to the larger audience and more specificly to a young public. Furthermore, it offers visitors the possibility of selecting information they are personally interested in. Mobile devices such as PDAs also have an added value for the heritage institutions themselves. They make it more feasible to collect data about the behaviour and interests of visitors. This can be useful information for developing future exhibitions. Furthermore, it is easier to change the content of a PDA than to rebuild an entire exhibition.

Last but not least, visitors are able to collect and maintain information in an independent way. Before, during and after the visit visitors have access to a large amount of information. This is possible because information can be offered by means of different stories and different layers tailored to the specific interests of the visitor.


We asked the experts about their wishes. What would they like to see happen if they possessed unlimited resources?

The experts all emphasized the importance of information. There is a need to make an inventory of all the data in databases and to connect all these data. Only then it will be possible to realize all kinds of applications. In essence, it is about making all the data accessible to visitors in a way that holds added value for them.

An International View On The Present And Future Of Mobile E-culture

Since mobile heritage presentation is still in its infancy in Flanders, we decided to extend these focus group conversations by means of some in-depth interviews with international experts. Therefore we talked to several speakers who attended the 2007 ICHIM conference. We asked them to reflect upon 5 central issues regarding mobile heritage presentation:

  1. the content or information that is delivered by means of a mobile device
  2. the device or technology that is used
  3. the heritage institution
  4. the visitors, and
  5. the future of mobile e-culture.

We were interested in unveiling their thoughts, reflections and remarks on possible bottlenecks, thresholds and added values.

In the next sections we highlight some of the most interesting conclusions.

1. Content/information

It is possible to give visitors personalized information by means of a PDA. This is considered to be added value. However, a heritage institution should take into account some concerns. How will the visitor profile be built? It doesn’t work well asking the individual visitor a lot of questions preceding the visit. Furthermore, one of the experts believes this to be a conservative way of thinking, offering the visitor something s/he already knows. A visitor likes to be surprised.

Also the possibility of offering extra information is regarded as an advantage. But this needs to be done in a proper manner since there is a danger of cognitively overloading the visitor. Heritage institutions should avoid getting visitors confused. For example, some of the experts believe it might be interesting to link objects originating from different heritage institutions, yet  visitors might start looking for objects that are actually present in another museum. Linking data is not as easy as it seems since different heritage institutions operate within different conceptual frameworks.

Heritage institutions should also bear in mind that presenting content on a mobile device presupposes a specific adaptation of this content, taking into consideration the context of both the visit and use of the device.

In sum, the experts have mixed opinions concerning user-generated content. Some believe it might be of interest for other visitors in certain cases, but others believe it  only has meaning for the user himself or herself. Nonetheless, they emphasize the importance of contextualizing the use of this kind of content.

2. Device/technology

A PDA should be considered a refined audio guide. The experts point out the importance of keeping the use of this kind of device as simple as possible. The focus should be on the content and the interface instead of on the different technological possibilities. If the device is too complex for the visitor, he will give up, so it is argued.

There are of course other possibilities besides a PDA. This shouldn’t be forgotten. However, the same considerations apply. One of the experts notes the use of mobile phone tours in European museums and argues that this might cost a lot to the museum and to the visitors: the visitors need to pay roaming charges, and the museums invest a lot in the content but get no return since they don’t rent the devices to the visitors.

To conclude, the experts stress the importance of combining different ways of presenting heritage. Since technology evolves very fast, content should be delivered independent from the devices.

3. Heritage Institution

The experts believe that some heritage institutions are prepared to deliver cultural heritage in a more mobile manner. However they don’t think this is a general stance within the heritage sector.

Furthermore, one of the experts mentions that a lot of heritage institutions believe they can create a mobile heritage tour but underestimate the work and problems that accompany it. Nonetheless it is regarded as vital to involve the people working in the heritage institutions if these projects are to be a success. To get their genuine engagement,  heritage staff should be initiated into the advantages of mobile heritage presentation. A bottleneck mentioned regarding the lack of cooperation between companies that create mobile content and heritage institutions arises because the latter often fear the loss of control over their content. One of the experts also emphasizes that heritage institutions should always question the usefulness of these mobile devices within the specific context of a heritage visit. The question whether or not these are appropriate shouldn’t be ignored.

A PDA offers the heritage institution the possibility of collecting information regarding visitors and the way they deal with the exhibits. This might be of interest within the light of future exhibitions. However it is mentioned that many institutions are not willing to actually use these data and make changes.

To conclude, one of the experts says that heritage institutions should concentrate on the visitors instead of on their collection. Yet this is not what happens today.

4. Visitors

A PDA might hamper the communication between visitors. Nevertheless, one of the experts believes that these mobile devices have more advantages for the individual user than in the case of a group visit.

Also technology alone will not seduce the visitor to visit a certain museum. Of course it might be an extra trigger, but in the end it is the content that matters most. Likewise, mobile technology per se will not enhance learning, so it is stated.

One of the experts notes that mobile devices don’t automatically imply an added value for every visitor or for every visit. Youngsters visiting a museum with their parents might be disappointed by the low image quality of the mobile device since they are used to the quality of games. However, in the context of a school visit these youngsters might accept this since they know the focus is on learning. Nevertheless, visitor needs should always taken into account. Hence experts mention the importance of user studies.

5. The Future

The future is in the hands of the visitors - literally speaking. The experts predict that visitors will increasingly make use of their own devices. Furthermore, they believe that mobile heritage presentation will not so much increase the number of visitors as  augment the quality of the visitors’ experience and interaction with the heritage content.

The experts believe that heritage institutions will adapt to this changing environment. The question however is how this will be done. Another question is whether they have to adapt. It is not always desirable. For example, within the context of a science museum, it is possible that the visitor is asked to interact actively with the exhibits. In this case it won’t work well to let the visitor use a PDA at the same time. Furthermore it is not always possible for a heritage institution to invest in a mobile way of presenting heritage because of a lack of resources. That is why it is believed that different means of presenting heritage will have to coexist. Nevertheless museums and other heritage institutions shouldn’t be afraid of deviating from the habits of their visitors.

To conclude, one of the experts highlights the fact that the next years will be crucial for the mobile heritage market. Whether or not the leaders within the heritage sector will successfully implement mobile heritage presentations will impact the entire sector. For if they succeed others will follow. This success will be highly dependent upon the way the implementation of these mobile devices within the context of a heritage visit takes place. It should be kept simple and focused on the content instead of on the technology. Otherwise, a lot of visitors will be disappointed.


A Flemish View

We can conclude that the Flemish heritage sector stands critical in relation to the Heritage 2.0  research project. On the one hand, the experts that were consulted attached benefits to the creation of a communication layer to link existing databases as well as to the use of mobile devices for the presentation of heritage. On the other hand, they underlined the significance of reflecting about this in advance. They mentioned the importance of a long-term vision as well as the fact that there should always be added value. Otherwise, there is no need to use a mobile multimedia device to present information or to use a communication layer to search for information.

Furthermore, the experts talked about the fact that a lot of heritage institutions are not ready at this moment to start with a project like Heritage 2.0. For example, they referred to the lack of translators as well as to the lack of knowledge sharing and input projects.

They all pointed out the gap between big and small cultural heritage institutions. It is believed that for the latter it is not realistic to expect them to deliver heritage related content by means of a mobile device. Because of this they will sit on the fence and await the results of projects undertaken by the big institutions. If the outcome of these projects is positive, then these small institutions will expect a sharing of knowledge. But at the moment they are unwilling to invest in something which they are not sure will be a success. A possible solution suggested by some of the experts is cooperation between small institutions or support from a higher body.

To conclude, there was discord among the experts we talked to as to whether the heritage visitor is ready for mobile multimedia heritage presentation or not. Some experts argued the visitor is not. They mentioned the existence of a technological threshold. Others stated that visitors are quite capable of using this kind of technology since they already use it in their common lives. Yet other experts made a distinction between young and old visitors. The former will not have a problem with using these devices, while the latter certainly will.

An International View

It is notable that the international experts we consulted had clear remarks concerning the use of mobile heritage presentation. They emphasized that heritage institutions shouldn’t act rashly regarding this kind of heritage presentation. It needs to be well considered whether this is the path they should follow. Mobile heritage presentation offers several opportunities for both heritage institutions and heritage visitors. However it is not just because something is possible technologically that it is desirable. Furthermore, they underlined the importance of considering the needs and views of both heritage professionals and visitors when implementing a mobile way of presenting heritage.

Next Steps

Keeping the outcomes of the focus group conversations and interviews in mind, the Heritage 2.0 project will continue over the next months with the creation of the common metadatalayer. This layer will be tested in a prototype setting by the beginning of 2009. At the same time a prototype of a personalized story will be created and distributed on a PDA. Evolutions and results within the project can be followed at the project Web site:


The authors would like to thank the consulted Flemish and international experts for sharing their thoughts and views on ‘Heritage 2.0’: a new way of searching and presenting heritage content.


Ename Expertise Centre for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation. (2004). D.2.1.1: Report on stakeholders needs. In EPOCH  WP 2.1, Interim report. Last updated 17-Jan-2007. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Gleue, T. & T. Dähne (2001). Design and implementation of a mobile device for outdoor augmented reality in the Archeoguide project. Last updated 2002. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Kashiha, M., M.R. Malek  & F. Farzam (2006).  A tourist guide system for ancient cities. Case study: Bishapour. In M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci & K. Mania (Eds.) VAST, Short Papers from The 7th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archeology and Cultural Heritage 2006. 91-95. Last updated 29-Mar-2007. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Owen, R., D. Buhalis & D. Pletinckx (2004). Identifying technologies used in cultural heritage. In Y. Chrysanthou, K. Cain, N. Silberman & F. Niccolucci. (Eds.) VAST, The 5th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archeology and Cultural Heritage 2004. 155-163. Last updated 8-Oct-2007. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Ross, S.,  M. Donnelly & M. Dobreva (2004). Mobile access to cultural information resources. In Digicult. Emerging technologies for the cultural and scientific heritage sector, Technology watch report 2. 91-118. last updated 9-Dec-2005. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Ross, S., M. Donnelly,  M. Dobreva,  D. Abbott,  A. McHugh & A. Rusbridge (2005). Location-based systems. In Digicult. Core technologies for the cultural and scientific heritage sector, Technology watch report 3. 153-182. Last updated 9-Dec-2005. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Samis, P. (2007). Gaining Traction In The Vaseline: Visitor Response To A Multi-Track Interpretation Design For Matthew Barney: Drawing Restraint. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.) Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2007. Last updated 28-Mar-2007. Consulted 10-Jan-2008. Available

Cite as:

Beyl, J., et al., On-line Heritage Presentation In Flanders: A New Way Of Searching And Presenting Heritage Content, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2008: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2008. Consulted