The document discusses the development of the CARARE 2.0 metadata schema. The schema was updated based on lessons learned from supplying data to Europeana and requirements for documenting 3D content from projects like 3D-ICONS. The main changes in CARARE 2.0 include broadening the "Heritage Asset" scope, simplifying references and provenance, and adding elements to document activities, provenance, and paradata needed for quality 3D models. The schema distinguishes heritage assets, digital resources, and activities, and allows them to be related to fully document objects and their digital surrogates.

1. CARARE 2.0: developing the
metadata schema
Kate Fernie, 2Culture Associates

2. Background
• CARARE developed its metadata schema to
support harvesting of archaeology and
architecture content for Europeana
• The schema was based on:
• MIDAS heritage
• LIDO
• CIDOC data standards
• Mapped to Europeana Data Model (EDM)

3. The CARARE schema provides
•Familiar concepts
•Rich where the domain calls for it, e.g.:
•Time – from earliest prehistory to modern dates
•Space – place names, coordinates, bounding
boxes and polygons
•Monument character
•Includes events and collection information
CARARE provided 2 million rich records
to Europeana using v1 CARARE schema

4. Developments
•The experience of supplying data to Europeana
suggested areas where the CARARE schema
might be simplified and improved
•3D ICONS project adopted the CARARE schema
•Adding some requirements for 3D content

5. 3D-ICONS context
3D-ICONS was a 3D digitisation project funded by the
EC’s CIP-ICT PSP programme (2012-2015)
16 partners in 11 countries
Digitising world heritage sites and archaeological
objects
Establishing a pipeline for capture, processing and
publishing of 3D content online
– in user friendly formats
– with metadata
– For Europeana

6. 3D ICONS and documenting 3D
http://www.londoncharter.org/
There is more to documenting 3D models than meets the eye!
• To use 3D data correctly requires information about
• How and why it was created
• Which instruments and techniques were used
• What evidence was analysed and how it was interpreted
• The London Charter identified the need to record this
information
• CIDOC CRMdig defined what information to record about the
provenance (technical processes) and paradata (human
thinking and understanding) behind 3D reconstructions

7. Developing CARARE 2.0
In 3D-ICONS we developed V2.0 of the CARARE
Schema to take on board:
– Lessons learned during the CARARE project
– Developments in EDM
– the recommendations in CIDOC CRMdig;
– and to support the provenance and paradata required for
quality assurance of 3D models

8. The main changes
• Heritage Asset
• Scope has been broadened to include printed materials, archives and
born-digital objects relating to the archaeological and architectural
heritage
• Becomes mandatory; there must be one in each CARARE object
• The references section has been simplified
• Provenance has been added
• Digital Resource
• Has been simplified to focus on the type, format and location of the online
resource.
• It remains mandatory; there must be at least one in each CARARE object.
• Record information has been simplified.
• Rights statements have been simplified and metadata rights clarified.
• Spatial information has been updated.
• Elements for types of relations from heritage assets, digital resources and
activities have been specified for clarity

9. Documenting a heritage object using
the CARARE 2.0 schema
- a quick guide!

10. CARARE 2.0 approach
• Distinguishes “heritage assets” – a painting, book, drawing, image, film,
3D reconstruction or real-world archaeological monument/ historic building
from
• Digital representations (or digital resources) of the heritage asset which
can be found online
• Allows for events (historical, field activities, laboratory work) to be related
to heritage assets or digital resources
• Includes collection and other contextual information
• Allows one heritage asset to be related to another (whole/part,
parent/child, predecessor/successor, version) allowing for alternate
interpretations to be offered.

11. Heritage asset
Core details:
• Title
• Description
• General type
• Character (subject, time period, etc)
• Spatial location (place name coordinates)
• Rights
• Provenance
• Actors
• Relation to digital resource
Castle of Kavala
Cultural and Educational
Technology Research
Institute

12. Digital Resource
Core details:
• Title
• Description
• Type and format
• Location of the resource online
(URL, URI)
• Rights
• Relation to heritage asset
There can be more than one digital
resource linked to a heritage asset

13. Activity
Core details:
• Title
• Description
• Date
• Actors
• Type of event (data acquisition, etc)
• Event methods and techniques
• General and specific purpose
• Relations to heritage asset and
digital resource

14. Any questions?
Kate Fernie
kfernie27@gmail.com