A future for our digital memory: born-digital cultural heritage in the Netherlands

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
Inge Angevaare

This article provides an overview of the status quo with regard to collecting and preserving born-digital cultural heritage objects in the Netherlands. Since there, as elsewhere, the cultural heritage sector is still grappling with the realities of web 2.0, the article also offers some more speculative thoughts on where web 2.0 may take us, as well as some practical suggestions for the next steps cultural heritage organisations could take.

Author(s):  
Huibert Crijns ◽  
Anna Rademakers

The Memory of the Netherlands programme was created by the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the National Library of the Netherlands) in cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science to present a major national database of images of cultural heritage objects on the Internet. The article describes the background to the project, the collections that it contains, and the partnerships with other institutions that have been forged. Particular issues highlighted by the programme have been open access and copyright, contextualizing the content of the database, and the challenges of evolving Information Technology and the standardization of metadata. Memory of the Netherlands has been successful in creating a freely accessible database of more than 400,000 digital objects from 70 different cultural heritage institutions. However, the Dutch government, which financed the programme for its first ten years, has decided to end its funding and the Koninklijke Bibliotheek now has to consider how best to ensure the continued existence and accessibility of the project.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (93) ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
Peter Hitchcock ◽  
Christian P. Haines

These theses are meant not as the final word on the concept or praxis of the commons but as words inspiring readers to imagine alternatives to the status quo. They cover topics including social reproduction, the knowledge economy, cultural heritage, affective attachments to property, the Anthropocene or Capitalocene, the legacy of communism, and the politics of institution building.


2020 ◽  
pp. 135050682097889
Author(s):  
Halleh Ghorashi

Explicit racism’s increased presence in Dutch public space did not lead to public recognition of the existence of structural forms of racism in the Netherlands until recently. Previously, I argued this denial was historically rooted in the construction of the Dutch self-image as charitable and open versus the framing of migrants as “weak”, “disadvantaged” others who need help from the majority group. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement changed this denial of structural racism in the Netherlands. Never before have structural forms of racism been addressed so widely and cross-racially in the Dutch public space and within institutions. Additionally, awareness of structural racism is growing among non-White young professionals, who previously thought their exclusion from or marginalisation within Dutch society was due to personal inability and lack of strategies to “adapt”. The increasing calls against institutional racism in the Netherlands mean unsettling the status quo and creating inclusionary spaces and practices.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 4562
Author(s):  
Marleen van Dijk ◽  
Sylvia M. Brakenhoff ◽  
Cas J. Isfordink ◽  
Wei-Han Cheng ◽  
Hans Blokzijl ◽  
...  

Background: The Netherlands strives for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, in accordance with the World Health Organization targets. An accurate estimate when HCV elimination will be reached is elusive. We have embarked on a nationwide HCV elimination project (CELINE) that allowed us to harvest detailed data on the Dutch HCV epidemic. This study aims to provide a well-supported timeline towards HCV elimination in The Netherlands. Methods: A previously published Markov model was used, adopting published data and unpublished CELINE project data. Two main scenarios were devised. In the Status Quo scenario, 2020 diagnosis and treatment levels remained constant in subsequent years. In the Gradual Decline scenario, an annual decrease of 10% in both diagnoses and treatments was implemented, starting in 2020. WHO incidence target was disregarded, due to low HCV incidence in The Netherlands (≤5 per 100,000). Results: Following the Status Quo and Gradual Decline scenarios, The Netherlands would meet WHO’s elimination targets by 2027 and 2032, respectively. From 2015 to 2030, liver-related mortality would be reduced by 97% in the Status Quo and 93% in the Gradual Decline scenario. Compared to the Status Quo scenario, the Gradual Decline scenario would result in 12 excess cases of decompensated cirrhosis, 18 excess cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 20 excess cases of liver-related death from 2020–2030. Conclusions: The Netherlands is on track to reach HCV elimination by 2030. However, it is vital that HCV elimination remains high on the agenda to ensure adequate numbers of patients are being diagnosed and treated.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
А.В. Гончаров ◽  
А.В. Крюков

Цель статьи – определить правовой статус и особенности государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия, созданных для увековечения событий военной истории, а также принадлежащих к произведениям монументального искусства. Исследование выполнено на материалах ведомственного архива управления государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия Краснодарского края, использованы национальные стандарты Российской Федерации, акты федерального и регионального законодательства. Изучены проблемы, связанные с правоприменительной практикой в отношении братских могил воинов и отдельных памятников, содержащих в своем составе военную технику, тиражированные монументы и обелиски из листового железа. Определено, что в каждом конкретном случае юридический статус и особенности государственной охраны рассмотренных монументов могут быть установлены с опорой на нормативно-техническую документацию (национальный стандарт), в большинстве случаев содержащую достаточно точные определения этих объектов. The aim of the study is to determine the status and peculiarities of the state protection of cultural heritage objects, which were created in order to perpetuate military history and are works of monumental art, within the framework of the current Russian legislation. The materials used in the article mainly relate to the regulatory framework for the protection of monuments in Krasnodar Krai. The study is based on documents from the departmental archive of the regional Office of State Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of Krasnodar Krai, on national standards of the Russian Federation, and on acts of federal and regional legislation. The study uses historical legal, formal legal, and comparative legal methods, as well as methods of interpretation of law and logical methods. The authors examine the novelties of the Russian legislation affecting the establishment of protective zones around the monuments of architecture and urban construction and note that the acts of Krasnodar Krai also prescribe the arrangement of such zones for monuments containing burials and monuments of monumental art. The authors formulate questions related to the law enforcement practice in relation to the mass graves of soldiers and to individual monuments containing military equipment, replicated monuments, and obelisks made of sheet iron. The authors analyze the national standard of the Russian Federation, “Cultural Heritage Preservation. Terms and Definitions”, and give examples of checks for compliance with the terms in the standard at individual objects of cultural heritage. The analysis of the status of monuments containing military equipment is based on methodological recommendations published in the 1980s. They prescribed state protection for monuments made at a high artistic level from durable materials, but in practice these requirements were rarely met. The authors conclude that, along with samples of military equipment, works of architecture or sculpture created in honor of specific historical events, including guns or transport-combat vehicles installed on pedestals, are subject to state protection. It is the presence of an architectural base that allows classifying such objects with the term “monument”. In each specific case, the legal status and features of the state protection of the monuments considered in the article can be established based on the regulatory and technical documents (national standard) that contain sufficiently accurate definitions of these objects.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Kordel ◽  
Stefanie Lutsch

Abstract Return migration recently became of scientific interest on an intra-European scale. As remigrants bring along various forms of capital, this form of migration is frequently considered as an opportunity to revitalize rural communities. Since Romania entered the EU in 2007, a certain number of Transylvanian Saxons, i.e., ethnic Germans, who emigrated to Germany in the 1980s and 1990s, temporarily or permanently returned to rural Romania. By means of qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey among returnees and potential re-emigrants, this study provides empirical insights to the status quo and the potential of this phenomenon. A particular emphasis is given to their everyday practices and implications on the Transylvanian community, mostly aiming at preservation of the cultural heritage.


Pravovedenie ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-183
Author(s):  
Maria A. Aleksandrova ◽  

UNESCO’s activities are dedicated to the conservation of both intangible and tangible cultural heritage. One of the most difficult issues in constructing a system for the protection of tangible cultural heritage objects is the criteria for identifying objects as cultural heritage. Obviously, it takes time to assess the cultural or historical value and significance of a tangible object. In most cases, granting the status of a cultural heritage object is assigned much later than its creation. However, international acts also do not contain specific requirements for how old a particular object should be in order to qualify it as an object of cultural heritage. UNESCO’s practice is known for several cases of adding to the World Heritage List relatively young sites. The Russian Cultural Heritage Object Act (2002), along with the laws of some other countries, establishes a specific age (40 years) that any object must reach in order to become a cultural heritage object. An exception is made only for memorial apartments and buildings (they can be attributed as objects of cultural heritage immediately after the death of famous personalities) and for objects of archeology (they must be at least 100 years old). This rule of law is mandatory, which means that it does not make other exceptions to the rule of 40 years. Such a rule of law significantly distinguishes the Russian approach from foreign legislation. On the one hand, such regulation may negatively affect the possibility of protecting outstanding objects from the late Soviet and early new Russian period. On the other hand, the approach of granting the status of cultural heritage objects to many relatively new objects can negatively affect urban development. The author proposes to evaluate and review this provision of law in order to find the optimal balance of public and private interests.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document