Ruethai Nimnoi, S. Sudarshan Rao


Memory institution is a generic term used to describe an institution that has the responsibility to collect, care for, and provide access to the human record - for example, museums, libraries, and archives. They are responsible for organizing, maintaining, preserving, and transmitting cultural and intellectual information in any formats for the reference of future generations. With the advantages of modern technology, memory institutions increasingly digitize their collections to serve their users’ need and facilitate their users’ ability to discover information remotely at anytime. As metadata is one of the most critical components of digitizing, archival processors, library catalogers, and museum registrars apply the concept of metadata to arrange their digital information resources. In addition to metadata as an organizing tool, the archive, library, and museum communities have to keep up with changing user demands in a digital environment. Users need relevant information without the limitation of material type or the location of the object they ask for. This study, therefore, investigates the current state of metadata practices for cultural object collections in archives, libraries, and museums in Thailand with particular focus on the National Museum, the National Library and the National Archives of Thailand. The study revealed among the current state of metadata practices for cultural object collections, problems and factors regarding cataloguing cultural object collections in archives, libraries, and museums in Thailand. Semi-structured interviews method was adopted for the study. A curator, a librarian and an archivist from the three memory institutions who constituted the target population were purposively sampled. By investigating metadata practices for cultural object collections, the study may improve our understanding of the current state of metadata practices of in Thailand. The findings for related information could be used as basic facts in developing metadata schema for management of original and digitized Thai Cultural Objects.


Memory institution; Cultural object; Metadata practices; Thai Cultural Objects; Metadata schema

Full Text:



Baca. M., (Ed.). (2008). Introduction to metadata: Pathways to digital information. Los Angeles, Calif.: Getty Research Institute.

Boeri, Robert J. and Hensel, Martin. (n.d.). Here’s Waldo: Content-Based Image Retrieval. Retrieved 20 June 2012, from

Boock, M. & Vondracek, R. (2006). “Organizing for digitization: a survey,” Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), p.197-217.

Chen, Ya-Ning; Chen, Shu-Jiun; & Lin, S. C. (2003). A metadata lifecycle model for digital libraries: methodology and application for an evidence-based approach to library research. World Library and Information Congress: 69th IFLA General Conference and Council, 1-9 August 2003, Berlin. Retrieved February 5, 2010 from

Deegan, M. & Tanner, S. (2002). Digital futures: strategies for the information age. London: Library Association Publishing.

Dempsey L. (1999). Scientific, industrial, and cultural heritage. A shared approach: A Research framework for digital libraries, museums, and archives. Ariadne, (22). Retrieved 6 December, 2012 from

Department for Culture, Media and Sport Cultural Property Unit, (United Kingdom). (2004) Dealing in Tainted Cultural Objects – Guidance on the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. London : Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Dunsire, G. (2008). “Collecting metadata from institutional repositories,” OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 24(1), p. 51-58.

Gilliland, A. J. (2008). Setting the stage. In M. Baca (Ed.), In Introduction to Metadata (pp. 1-19). Los Angeles, Calif.: Getty Research Institute.

Guinchard, C. (2002). “Dublin Core use in libraries: a survey,” OCLC Systems & Services, 18(1), p.40-50.

Lalitha, P. and Murthy TAV. (2005.) “Preservation of Digital Cultural Heritage Materials”. In Proceedingsof 3rd International CALIBER- 2005, 2-4 February 2005. Ahmedabad:INFLIBNET, p.420-427.

Liu, Y.Q. (2004). “Best practices, standards and techniques for digitizing library materials: a snapshot of library digitization practices in the USA,” Online Information Review, 28(5), p.338-345.

Lopatin, L. (2006). “Library digitization projects, issues, and guidelines: A survey of the literature,” Library Hi Tech, 24(2), p.273-289.

Lupovici, C. (1999). Introduction to session I. In Convergence in the digital age: Challenges for libraries, museums, and archives: proceedings of a conference held in Amsterdam on 13-14 August 1998, pp.3. Luxembourg: European Commission.

Lyman, Peter and Kahle, Brewster. (1998). “Archiving Digital Cultural Artifacts: Organizing an Agenda for Action”, D-Lib Magazine. Retrieved 20 June 2012, from Accessed on 28.03.03.

Ma, J. (2009). “Metadata in ARL libraries: a survey of metadata practices,” Journal of Library Metadata, 9, p. 1-14.

Manaf, Z.A. (2007). “The state of digitization initiatives by cultural institutions in Malaysia: An exploratory survey”, Library Review, 56(1), p.45-60.

Ministry of Culture (Thailand). (2011). Cultural Knowledge Center. Retrieved 20 June 2012, from

Park, Jung-Ran. (2009). “Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of the art,” Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly, 47, p.213-228.

Purday, J. (2009). “Think culture: from concept to construction,” The Electronic Library, 27(6), p.919-937.

Sukantarat, W. (2008). “Digital initiatives and metadata use in Thailand,” Program: Electronic Library and Information System, 42(2), p.150-162.

Wisser, K. (2005). “Meeting metadata challenges in the consortia environment: Metadata ordination for North Carolina Exploring Cultural Heritage Online,” Library Hi Tech, 23(2), p.164-171.

Woodyard, D. (2002). “Metadata and Preservation,” Information Services & Use, 22, p.121-125.

Zeng, M. L., Lee, J. & Hayes, A.F. (2009). “Metadata decisions for digital libraries: A survey report,” Journal of Library Metadata, 9, p.173-193.