Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The VRC Project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

The VRC Project

718
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
718
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The VRC Project Towards a cataloguing standard for open data Alick Macdonnel McLean Augusto Palombini fabrizio giudici
  • 2. Agenda • Origins and philosophy of SUF Media Lab/VRC: open data, the community • Commonality of interests between VRC original users and archaeologists • Technical realization with open source tools temple of Diana, Cefalù, photo A.M. McLean
  • 3. Origins and philosophy of SUF Media Lab/VRC: open data, community
  • 4. Origins and Philosophy • institutional origins of the VRC at SUF • modest origins • pool slide collections when digitizing • catalog across disciplines • each faculty agrees to share data and images with others
  • 5. Data community • extensible, rich cataloging blessing and challenge • extend pool of catalogers by extending pool of users/institutions • expand based on original model • distribute program in exchange for user engagement in data community through cataloging and image contributions
  • 6. Commonality of interests between VRC original users and archaeologists
  • 7. Common Interests? • Commonality of interest between VRC original users and archaeologists: • public utility of open data and transparency of processes • flexible classification as a powerful research tool
  • 8. Archaeological catalogation: the state of the art Traditional approach: Forcing different objects into a main classification scheme Advantages: ● diffusion of standard models ● easy queries on fields Problems: ● adapting the same model to different elements ● problems in defining standard chronological notations
  • 9. Archaeological catalogation: the state of the art Traditional approach: Forcing different objects into a main classification scheme Another fundamental problem ●“hard defined” relationships among different attributes don't allow their changing through time and the spread of new properties and classification criteria
  • 10. ontologic VS episthemologic aspect of classification. Classification as euristhic tool “L'eidos è un dato o un posto? lo trovo nella cosa o lo applico alla cosa per renderla intelligibile?” ... “Si è irrigidita l'esperienza in un modello; nulla dal punto di vista epistemologico interviene ancora per affermare o negare che l'esperienza contenesse anche gli aspetti che ne sono stati isolati, accanto a infiniti altri tipi di correlazione” (U.Eco, la Strutttura assente, 1968)
  • 11. Technical realization with open source tools
  • 12. VRC - Structure ● Components: – Cataloguing core – Web interface – Modules for integration with rich-clients – Photographic module ● manages: metadata, “camera raw” formats, grid computing, etc... ● Entirely written in Java – Cross-platform, Linux-ready
  • 13. Entities and Relations ● Art objects (paintings, ● Relates entities to entities sculptures, buildings,...) and entities to files ● Agents (painters, ● Basic relationships sponsors, owners, ...) – “Made by”, “Owned ● Locations (geographical, by”, “Located at”, ... geopolitical, historical, ● Temporal relationships ...) – Associated to date ● Materials ranges ● GPS tags – Date precision: from d/m/y to century or ● Other information era
  • 14. Database vs Semantic Web ● DB: entity and relations – ad-hoc – local, not universal – different DB-based systems are “islands” ● Semantic Web – RDF: Resource Description Framework – Subject / Relation / Object – XML based – FLOSS resources: Jena, SPARQL ● RDF as a “lingua franca” ● Peer-to-peer search
  • 15. “Ontologies” ● Data models with relations – classes – attributes – relations ● OWL – Web Ontology Language ● Standard ontologies ● More can be defined – Requires pool of expert, agreement
  • 16. An example
  • 17. Concluding Remarks • what does SUF need to go open source? • sharing high-quality, vetted data for sites across Italy and the world • extension of data across institutions, disciplines, geography and time • how to structure data community? Villa Rossa & garden, Syracuse University in Florence • concerns of SUF • concerns of all data community members • how to express interest in VRC data community: • write sufmedialab@syr.fi.it Alick McLean and Emily Schiavone, media librarian
  • 18. • Prof. Alick Macdonnel McLean Syracuse University ammclean@syr.fi.it http://www.syr.fi.it/study-abroad-florence-media-lab.php • Dr. Augusto Palombini CNR VHLab Rome augusto.palombini@itabc.cnr.it • Ing. Fabrizio Giudici TidalWave / SourceSense fabrizio.giudici@tidalwave.it