Hello, I don’t know if this idea requires its own talk session or if it could be folded into some of the others, but here goes. I’m currently a cataloging librarian, so naturally my focus is on bibliographic metadata. Since I work in an art library, I catalog a lot of art books, but I sometimes wonder if the cataloging I do is sufficient. In particular, I’ve been wondering if art researchers would appreciate knowing what works of art are reproduced or described in a given publication. This would probably require more time and effort than most cataloging outfits can afford, but I’m hoping that current technology might reduce some of that to manageable levels. A couple ideas:

• Scanning lists of illustrations/plates into PDFs that can be linked from the catalog record, the way some libraries currently do with tables of contents
• Using trusted sources of (linked) open data, such as CONA or museum websites, to identify works of art and possibly even verify/record their publication histories

Of course, there are potential issues with this. Simply digitizing published information may not be sufficient; for example, how would one account for artworks that are untitled, retitled, or even mis-titled? Some form of authority control might help, but that would require even more time and research on the part of the cataloger; imagine having to do that for 10, 20, or 100+ works in a single monograph. Finally, where would this information—scans, metadata, etc.—be stored/kept? For now, though, the foremost question in my mind is the one I started with: does anyone, aside from me, want to know what artworks are in what books?

Thanks to @BibliotecariaT for suggesting All Our Ideas to get conversation going about what we want to see happen at our THATCamp! You can vote, add ideas, or just see what types of content other people want to inspire your session proposals. Check it out (and vote!) here: www.allourideas.org/thatcamparlisnavra2016