=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-356/paper-6
|storemode=property
|title=m-Dvara 2.0: Mobile & Web 2.0 Services Integration for Cultural Heritage
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-356/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-356
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/www/CoppolaLMN08
}}
==m-Dvara 2.0: Mobile & Web 2.0 Services Integration for Cultural Heritage==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-356/paper6.pdf
m-Dvara 2.0: Mobile & Web 2.0 Services Integration for
Cultural Heritage
Paolo Coppola, Raffaella Lomuscio, Stefano Mizzaro, Elena Nazzi
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Udine
Via delle Scienze 206
33100 Udine, Italy
coppola@uniud.it, raffaellalomuscio@gmail.com, mizzaro@dimi.uniud.it,
elenanazzi@gmail.com
ABSTRACT Cultural Heritage Organizations (museums, archaeological
Web 2.0 marks a new philosophy where user is the main ac- sites, historical towns, even libraries, etc.) are trying to un-
tor and content producer: users write blogs and comments, derstand the evolution of the Web, but they tend to stick to
they tag, link, and upload photos, pictures, videos, and pod- their traditional role, of being the sole owners of knowledge
casts. As a step further, Mobile 2.0 adapts Web 2.0 technol- about their collections [4].
ogy to mobile users. We intend to study how Web 2.0 and Our approach is complementary: we want to understand
Mobile 2.0 together can be applied to the cultural heritage if a fully Web 2.0/Mobile 2.0 approach is viable for the cul-
sector. A number of cultural institutions and museums are tural heritage sector. Indeed, in this research area, old and
introducing in their projects some Web 2.0 applications, but new conferences, e.g., Museum and the Web (http://www.
the main knowledge source remains a small group of a few archimuse.com/conferences/mw.html), International Cul-
experts. Our approach is different: we plan to let all the tural Heritage Informatics Meeting (http://www.archimuse.
users, the crowd, to be the main contents provider. We aim com/index.html), concentrate on the possible application of
to the crowdsourcing, the long tail power, as we call fuel Web 2.0 concept and technology to museums, libraries, and
of cultural heritage system. In this paper, we describe the other cultural heritage institutions. Web 2.0 offers a lot of
m-Dvara 2.0 project, whose aim is a system that lets users useful tools:
to create, share, and use cultural contents including mobile
• Wikies are websites that allow users to create, edit,
context-aware features.
and link web pages easily, e.g., Wikipedia (http://
en.wikipedia.org/).
Categories and Subject Descriptors
• Blogs are websites where entries of different types of
J.4 [Computer Applications]: Social and Behavioral Sci- content are commonly displayed in reverse chronolo-
ence; J.5 [Computer Applications]: Art and Humanities; gical order, e.g., Blogger (http://www.blogger.com/
K.3.1 [Computing Milieux]: Computer and Education home) and MoBlog:UK for mobile devices (http://
—Computer Uses in Education; K.4.3 [Computing Mi- moblog.co.uk/index.php).
lieux]: Computer and Society - Organizational Impacts —
Computer-supported collaborative work • Tagging (Folksonomy) and social bookmarking let users
to attach keywords to a digital object to describe it.
Examples include del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/),
Keywords which launched the “social bookmarking” phenomenon
Culture, collaboration, cultural heritage, Mobile 2.0, mu- or Mobilicio.us (http://mobilicio.us/), which is a
seum, social, user-centered, Web 2.0, wisdom of crowd “mashup” of Google Mobile (http://www.google.com/
mobile/) with del.icio.us or Ma.gnolia (http://ma.
1. INTRODUCTION gnolia.com/) as online bookmarking services.
With Web 2.0 and social software we represent all web- • Multimedia sharing are services that allow storage and
based services with “an architecture of participation”, that sharing of multimedia content, e.g., YouTube for video
is, one in which users interact and generate, share, and take (http://youtube.com/), Odeo for podcast (http://
care of the content (http://museumtwo.blogspot.com). Mo- odeo.com), Flickr for photo (http://www.flickr.com/),
bile 2.0 is the evolution of mobile technology to let us “cap- Twitter (http://twitter.com/), and Jaiku (http://
turing the content at the point of inspiration” (http:// jaiku.com/) for mobile.
blog.comtaste.com/2007/06/what_is_social_in_mobile_
web_2.html), that is, in the exact moment in which the in- By reusing and remixing these tools, static content au-
spiration and the opportunity exist to do it. Nowadays, thorities could evolve to dynamic platforms for content ge-
Copyright is held by the Authors. Copyright transfered for publishing on-
neration and sharing.
line and a conference CD ROM. In this paper, we propose a set of combined Web-based
SWKM’2008: Workshop on Social Web and Knowledge services available on a unique platform, m-Dvara 2.0, that
Management @ WWW 2008, April 22, 2008, Beijing, China. allows users to create, share, and use cultural contents. As
.
Web 2.0 applications gain success and become more inte- • Brooklyn College Library (http://www.myspace.com/
resting and rich with more and more users, m-Dvara 2.0 brooklyncollegelibrary) uses MySpace to allow par-
provides content on the basis of users participation and col- ticipants to post personal profiles containing their fa-
laboration, in the very same spirit of wikipedia. The ambi- vourite books, movies, photos, and videos.
tion of this project is to have a content repository populated
by user-generated textual and multimedia content, in a new • Many projects have been developed to study how to in-
approach to improve user cultural experience through col- tegrate mobile devices in museum visits; [6] discusses
laborating environments. some projects of museum covisiting with mobile de-
In the following sections, we first analyze several cultural vice.
heritage organizations that use Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0 ser-
From these few examples is evident that Web 2.0 technolo-
vices; then, we introduce purposes and main functionalities
gies are transforming the methods of both production of
of the ongoing m-Dvara 2.0 project, which is in the analysis
and access to cultural and educational contents, and also
stage of its development.
that the heritage sectors evolve towards user generated con-
tent. However, all these “Museum 2.0” examples also share
2. RELATED WORKS the common approach of merely giving to the users the tools
Most museums, cultural sites, libraries, and other educa- to record what the exposition had been for them, whereas
tional and cultural websites are not involved in Web 2.0 evo- a few expert members still are the main content providers.
lution. They are the sole provider of contents, whereas users This is different from a full 2.0 approach, in which the users
are only consumers; for instance, Louvre Museum (http: are given the real opportunity of creating contents in a way
//www.louvre.fr), one of the first museums with a website, that makes themselves essential.
offers no real Web 2.0 services [2].
However, some cultural heritage organizations and some 3. M-DVARA 2.0
educational istitutions have introduced Web 2.0 services in Our approach is to let users to be not only visitors of
their sites. In this section we provide a short summary of an exposition: we want them to be the main content cre-
these projects. ators through a framework of collaboration and participa-
tion based on Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0 technologies.
• A group of US art museums are taking a folksonomic
approach to their online collections: Steve (http:// 3.1 Purpose
www.steve.museum/) is a collaborative research project We think users can be reliable and effective content pro-
exploring the potential for user-generated descriptions viders, and that the wisdom of crowds is a very important
of the subjects of works of art to improve access to source of knowledge. Can the crowd actively participate
museum collections and encourage engagement with to the cultural heritage life? Can the crowd become the
cultural content. undisputed contents owner? We believe it is possible or
at least worthwhile to try. Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0 ap-
• Trant [5] has compared the Metropolitan Museum of propriate tools already exist and they are widespread. We
Art in New York (http://metmuseum.org) terms as- propose a unique platform that uses all Web 2.0 and Mo-
signed by trained cataloguers and untrained cataloguers bile 2.0 technologies for our purposes: m-Dvara 2.0. m-
to existing museum documentation, thus exploring the Dvara 2.0 is an ongoing project; it is an evolution of E-
potential of social tagging: preliminary results show Dvara, a platform storing cultural and scientific contents
the potential of social tagging and folksonomies for (http://edvara.uniud.it/india). The “m” and “2.0” in
opening museum collections to new, more personal mean- m-Dvara 2.0 highlight the mobile and social nature of our
ings. Untrained cataloguers identified content elements project. More in detail, m-Dvara 2.0 encompasses:
not described in formal museum documentation. Tags
assigned by users might help to bridge the semantic • a reuse of Web 2.0 technologies,
gap between the professional language of the curator
and the popular language of the museum visitor [5]. • a reuse of Mobile 2.0 technologies,
• a mix of web and mobile services,
• Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
(http://plcmc.org/) in Charlotte, North Carolina, • minimum implementation, through reuse and aggrega-
has a teen outreach program that includes a presence tion of Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0 services already avai-
in SecondLife (http://secondlife.com) with Teen Sec- lable online.
ond Life (http://plcmc.org/Teens/secondLife.asp).
m-Dvara 2.0 is just an empty box with many services,
• Tate web site offers the youngtate section (http:// whose content must be added by users, being they experts
www.tate.org.uk/youngtate/) to young people to cre- or novices. In m-Dvara 2.0 there is no central authority who
ate new learning communities, opportunities for input, publishes, owns, and controls all content.
and activity based on personal choice, and innovative We aim to mashup several Web 2.0 existing services (i.e.,
forms of interaction with art and artists [8]. YouTube, Flickr, Blogger, etc.), in order to avoid unneces-
sary user efforts to interact with our system platform, and
• Brooklyn Museum site (http://www.brooklynmuseum. to work in an easy and comfortable way. In this way, we
org/community/) has a Community section with blogs, will provide an all-in-one familiar set of services for users.
podcasts, forums, and a Flickr-based photos sharing To fulfill real users requirements and expectations we will
service [2]. make several surveys. We plan to evaluate through several
user testings how each single service improves user experi- posts) or it can evaluate user’s profile to set her pref-
ence and if it is useful. We also plan to analyse the user erences, then system process these information in or-
behavior while using the whole integrated system. Finally der to create the user’s ideal tour. A dynamic tour
we are going to observe if social and Web 2.0 tools are appro- does not relate to user’s personal information, but it
priate for diffusion and perusal of cultural heritage, through depends on all users actions, thus user can decide to
evaluation of content growth and user participation level: visit the most viewed, most commented, or most voted
we will observe the crowd behavior. artworks. In other words, she can visit all the artworks
According to Web 2.0 concepts of remixability and aggre- that the crowd (community) advises to see. Finally, in
gation, the development and adoption of standard software a contextual tour, user can decide to visit only art-
solutions enable websites to interact with each other by using works about a specific topic or artworks belonging to
SOAP, Javascript and any other web technology. This ap- the same artist, and so on. In addition, a tourist can
proach allows to interconnect websites in a more fluid user- change the tour criterion or she can add or remove
friendly way, not only for programmers but for users as well. artworks to visit from the suggested list at any time.
m-Dvara 2.0 will be based on these methodologies, examples To detect user location we intend to integrate Google
are: Mobile with MoBe location features [10].
• OpenApi and OpenSocial Api (http://en.wikipedia. • Social guides: a cultural heritage system could be a
org/wiki/Open_API, http://code.google.com/apis/ guide. A tourist can record an artwork description as
opensocial/); a guide and listen an audio description from her mobile
device about the item she is examining. She can also
• OpenID (http://openid.net/); access a wiki in order to read or use a screen reader to
know what she needs. All different descriptions about
• DataPortability philosophy (http://dataportability. a certain object are rated according to the crowd opin-
org/); ion (social evaluation). We can use, again, Twitter or
Jaiku.
For mobile context-aware feature, we will implement a mo-
bile service aggregator by exploiting MoBe, a framework for • Live tagging: the tourist can tag, using her own mobile
developing context-aware mobile applications [10]. Collabo- device, the artwork she is looking at.
ration and participation features involve evaluation mecha-
nisms and for this reason we propose the adoption of social • Evaluation & Rating: the tourist can rate the artwork
evaluation. Following [7], in our system all contents can be she is looking at. A simple rating application is au-
judged by users (e.g., according to accuracy, comprehensibil- tomatically downloaded and executed on the tourist’s
ity, etc.). In addition, every content provider has a dynamic mobile device, thanks to the MoBe framework [10].
reliability score that depends on the scores of contents she The judgment is weighted accordingly to the technique
produced. In this way, the crowd is the reviewer of its own proposed in [7].
contents. • M-Bookmark : to bookmark from mobile devices. For
this we can integrate Mobilicio.us.
3.2 Use Cases
System functionalities can be classified according to: • Travel diary: the system can keep track of artworks,
monuments and places the user has seen, in order to
• technology being used (a user can use a mobile device, maintain a personal travel diary.
desktop, notebook, etc.),
• M-Teach: students can use their own mobile devices
• user location (a user can be on-site or off-site). for educational lab activities.
To introduce m-Dvara 2.0 functionalities description, we Use case 2 Off-site users with a desktop or notebook
present some examples of typical use cases. device.
Use case 1 On-site users with a mobile device, e.g.,
tourists visiting a museum, an artwork exhibition, an ar- • Wiki per topic: the user can add contents about a topic
chaeological excavation, etc. or an object to the open wiki, e.g. Wikipedia.
• Update in real-time: the tourist can upload in real- • Wiki per author : every user can write own wiki page,
time on m-Dvara 2.0 photo, video, audio, text about an e.g. Knol.
artwork. Twitter, Jaiku technology, and/or YouTube • 3D collaborative environment: we can merge the 3D
Mobile (http://youtube.com/mobile) can be used to museum (e.g. Second Life) with wiki, chat, photo, and
upload video. comments of users. In this way the user can visit 3D
• Social tour : the system can helps tourists by suggest- environment but she can also update wiki, talk with
ing a tour. The tourist can request to the system an other visitors, write comments...
ideal tour according to her preferences, and/or tourist • Blog: the user can write a post about an artwork on
can select on her mobile device a tour criterion. There her own blog, on a blog dedicated to a specific topic,
are three main kinds of tours: custom, dynamic and or comment other blogs.
contextual tour. For custom tour we mean that sys-
tem can detect user information keeping track of her • Bookmark : the user can bookmark other users web-
actions (e.g., visited places or artworks, commented pages or artwork dedicated web-pages.
• Personal profile and social network : user can manage Acknowledgements
her social network, defining white and black lists. She The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Ital-
can select her “friends” in order to create a personal ian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR)
sub-community. She can also suggest other users she within the FIRB project number RBIN04M8S8.
is interested in, in order to be notified of their new
posts. Similarly a user can suggest posts or themes
she is interested in to be notified of their evolution. 5. REFERENCES
[1] A. Alain and M. Foggett, (2007). Towards Community
Use case 3 Off-site users with a mobile device. Contribution: Empowering community voices on-line.
In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the
• MoBlog: to upload photo, video, text, audio on the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum
blog section. We can exploit MoBlog. Informatics, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/
papers/alain/alain.html
• Update in real-time: tourist can upload in real-time [2] G. Crenn and G. Vidal, (2007). Les Musées Français
photo, video, audio, text about an artefact. et leurs publics a lâge du Web 2.0. Nouveaux usages
du multimédia et transformations des rapports entre
To enhance user functionalities, we are considering what institutions et usagers? , in International Cultural
we call the user events cloud. The system will collect all Heritage Informatics Meeting (ICHIM07):
available data about registered users, keeping track of all Proceedings, J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Toronto:
events generated (i.e., real or digital visited objects, topics Archives & Museum Informatics, http://www.
of generated content, past expositions viewed, etc.), in order archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/crenn/crenn.html
to create for each user an events cloud (a sort of user cultural
[3] M. Middleton and J. Lee, (2007). Cultural institutions
history). We would like to use the power of the long tail of
and Web 2.0. In Proceedings Fourth Seminar on
those users that know (or use) only few system functionality
Research Applications in Information and Library
and help us to enjoy new features or improve already existing
Studies (RAILS 4), RMIT University, Melbourne,
services (e.g., rank of content to be shown in a social tour
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00010808/01/
or by social guides). All m-Dvara 2.0 functionalities will be
Cultural_Institutions_and_Web_2_0.pdf
offered to all kind of users, although we foresee a graceful
degradation depending on the user context, the location, [4] B. Groen, (2007). Culture 2.0, Cultuur 2.0 Online
and the technology currently used. PDF Publication, http://www.virtueelplatform.nl/
[5] J. Trant, (2006). Exploring the potential for social
tagging and folksonomy in art museums: proof of
4. DISCUSSION concept. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia,
In this paper we have presented how various current mu- 12(1), 83-105, http://www.archimuse.com/papers/
seum evolution projects integrate Web 2.0 services for im- steve-nrhm-0605preprint.pdf
proving user experience. We emphasized the common limi- [6] Y. Laurillau, and F. Paternò, (2004). Supporting
tations of these “Museum 2.0” examples: they share the ap- museum co-visits using mobile devices. Proceedings of
proach of merely providing to the users the tools to record Mobile HCI 2004, Glasgow, Scotland,
their personal experience, while a few expert members still http://giove.cnuce.cnr.it/pdawebsite/
are the main content providers. This is different from a full publications/MobileHCI04.pdf
2.0 approach, in which the users participate and collaborate [7] S. Mizzaro, (2003). Quality Control in Scholarly
as the central content creators. This is the approach fol- Publishing: A New Proposal, Journal of the American
lowed in the m-Dvara 2.0 project, whose aim is to produce a Society for Information Science and Technology,
service that allows the crowd of users to control and manage 54(11):989-1005. http://users.dimi.uniud.it/
the knowledge flow through collaboration and participation. ~stefano.mizzaro/research/papers/EJ-JASIST.pdf
We will develop an aggregator of Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0 [8] R. Cardiff, (2007). Designing a Web Site for Young
services for institutions of humanistic field. People: The Challenges of Appealing to a Diverse and
Many are the problems that we are taking into account. Fickle Audience. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds).
The reuse and remixing of already existing external services Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto:
involve the direct dependence from: Archives & Museum Informatics,
• their implementation - How to develop an architecture http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/
able to aggregate services featuring their own standard cardiff/cardiff.html
open interfaces and services providing personalized in- [9] P. Anderson, (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas,
terfaces? technologies and implications for education, JISC
Technology and Standards Watch, http://www.jisc.
• their life - What will happen if some service does not ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
exist anymore? [10] P. Coppola, V. Della Mea, L. Di Gaspero, S. Mizzaro,
I. Scagnetto, A. Selva, L. Vassena, and P.
Also, copyright issues are a complex field, dependent on Zandegiacomo Riziò, (2005) Information Filtering and
each nation legislation, and should be taken into account Retrieving of Context-Aware Applications Within the
when working with cultural heritage contents. Another open MoBe Framework. In Proceedings of CIR 2005 -
question is the vandalism, that is any addition, removal, or International Workshop on Context-Based Information
change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compro- Retrieval, CONTEXT 2005, Paris, France.
mise the integrity of the system.