How to Put Archaeological Geometric Data into Context? Representing Mining History Research with CIDOC CRM and Extensions

Hiebel, Gerald; Doerr, Martin; Hanke, K.; Masur, Anja

doi:10.1260/2047-4970.3.3.557

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, extensions have been developed for CIDOC-CRM, aimed at expanding its capability to handle a variety of knowledge domains. These include CRMarchaeo (Hiebel et al 2014), providing a semantic map for excavation data; CRMgeo for spatiotemporal data (Hiebel et al 2016); CRMsci for scientific observations (Dörr et al 2014) and CRMepi for epigraphs (Felicetti et al in press). As the ontology has grown, it has built capabilities to describe complex spatiotemporal events such as the fight between the HMS Victory and the Redoubtable at the battle of Trafalgar (Hiebel et al 2016).…”

Section: Documenting the Conditions Of Emergence In Archaeological Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting the Network, Knotting the Line: a Linaeological Approach to Network Analysis

Pálsson

2020

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Network methods have seen a rapid rise in archaeology in recent years. There are still concerns regarding how well formal networks are able to effectively model local interaction. These are often present in the so-called qualitative network approaches-studies that tend to be based on close readings of relations between entities and the way they form dynamic networks of agents. Such studies have demonstrated the value in scrutinizing the way in which relations might be acted on in practice, and how that might differ from expected results. But rarely do such studies produce network data of the kind analyzed by formal network analytical methods. Formal approaches, on the other hand, blur the specificity of individual relations and trade much of their specificity for the ability to make general statements about relations across large datasets. More generally, the modality of the relation/edge is a crucial way in which formal network analysis differs from other prevalent relational approaches popular in archaeology today, where the substantivity of individual relations is paramount. Such relations are often seen as starting points for subsequent hybridizations that radically alter, if only temporarily, the structure of their respective networks. I argue that a key step in allowing networks to reformulate from initial, datadriven network schemata is the introduction of a more symmetrical agency between the node and the edge. In this article, I discuss how ethnographic sources can be used to achieve this for archaeological survey data. I use assemblage theory as a framework to explore the potential the edge has to offer archaeological network modelling. While assemblage theory is helpful for this purpose, the lack of a computational formality to assemblage theory immediately places it at odds with network science. As a complement, I will also employ the computational ontology CIDOC-CRM to more explicitly articulate the character of links between nodes in archaeological networks. The paper will end by suggesting a method of network modelling which integrates the line as a key source of agency. As a nod to Ingold's call for an increased emphasis on the line, I call this approach network linaeology.

show abstract

Section: Documenting the Conditions Of Emergence In Archaeological Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting the Network, Knotting the Line: a Linaeological Approach to Network Analysis

Pálsson

2020

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conceptual part of this process consists of three steps that range from a scope definition over CRM class and properties identification to a thesaurus specification. HiMAT has also used CRMgeo (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmgeo/), an extension of CIDOC-CRM that treats space always in combination with time, to model prospection activities, archaeological excavations, and survey and dendrochronological analysis [12].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomy-Oriented Domain Analysis of GIS: A Case Study for Paleontological Software Systems

Buccella

Cechich

Porfiri

et al. 2019

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Documenting the paleontological process includes data produced by different techniques and protocols, which are used by paleontologists to prospect and eventually find a new fossil. Nowadays, together with the aforementioned data, a great amount of information is also available in terms of georeferenced systems, including contextual as well as descriptive information. However, the use of this information into a model capable of recognizing similarities and differences is still an open issue within the Natural Heritage community. From the software engineering field, software product lines are models that focus on reusing common assets, in such a way that new software developments are only concern on differentiation relying on already modeled (and implemented) systems. This synergy leads us to apply our taxonomy-oriented domain analysis for Software Product Line (SPL) development, when building systems for documenting the paleontological process. In this paper, we introduce the approach for building such software systems, and illustrate its use through a case study in North Patagonia. Findings show promissory results in terms of reuse.

show abstract

“…A further step, after developing and populating the ontology, is to find target ontologies to link to, following semantic web recommendations (Bizer et al 2009); linking the newly published ontology to other existent ontologies in the web in order to allow ontologies sharing, exchanging and reusing information between them. In cultural heritage contexts, CIDOC CRM is our main target ontology since it is now well adopted by CH actors from theoretical point of view (Gaitanou et al 2016;Niccolucci 2016;Niccolucci and Hermon 2016) as well as applicative works (Araújo et al 2018) and an interesting direction toward GIS application based on some connection with photogrammetric survey (Hiebel et al 2014(Hiebel et al , 2016.…”

Section: In Underwater Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deepwater Archaeological Survey: An Interdisciplinary and Complex Process

Drap

Papini

Merad

et al. 2019

3D Recording and Interpretation for Maritime Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter introduces several state of the art techniques that could help to make deep underwater archaeological photogrammetric surveys easier, faster, more accurate, and to provide more visually appealing representations in 2D and 3D for both experts and public. We detail how the 3D captured data is analysed and then represented using ontologies, and how this facilitates interdisciplinary interpretation and cooperation. Towards more automation, we present a new method that adopts a deep learning approach for the detection and the recognition of objects of interest, amphorae for example. In order to provide more readable, direct and clearer illustrations, we describe several techniques that generate different styles of sketches out of orthophotos developed using neural networks. In the same direction, we present the Non-Photorealistic Rendering (NPR) technique, which converts a 3D model into a more readable 2D representation that is more useful to communicate and simplifies the identification of objects of interest. Regarding public dissemination, we demonstrate how recent advances in virtual reality to provide an accurate, high resolution, amusing and appropriate visualization tool that offers the public the possibility to 'visit' an unreachable archaeological site. Finally, we conclude by introducing the plenoptic approach, a new promising technology that can change the future of the photogrammetry by making it easier and less time consuming and that allows a user to create a 3D model using only one camera shot. Here, we introduce the concepts, the developing process, and some results, which we obtained with underwater imaging.

show abstract

How to Put Archaeological Geometric Data into Context? Representing Mining History Research with CIDOC CRM and Extensions

Abstract: How to put archaeological geometric data into context? Representing mining history research with CIDOC CRM and extensions How to put archaeological geometric data into context? Representing mining history research with CIDOC CRM and extensions

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Cutting the Network, Knotting the Line: a Linaeological Approach to Network Analysis

Cutting the Network, Knotting the Line: a Linaeological Approach to Network Analysis

Taxonomy-Oriented Domain Analysis of GIS: A Case Study for Paleontological Software Systems

Deepwater Archaeological Survey: An Interdisciplinary and Complex Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About