Position Statements


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • distributed semantic application, developed with the aim of presenting contextualised cultural heritage information - in our case the archaeological finds, or artefacts, of Etruscan Italy. Through the use of ontologies, the system presents a unified view of heterogeneous datasets and supports searching at a semantic level. Within the cultural heritage sphere, much work is being carried out on furnishing artefacts with appropriate “context”. However, a platform built upon the distributed search paradigm, although useful in many respects, does not convey how an artefact sits within a broader setting. Instead, we propose narrative concepts as a way of reconciling artefacts with this context. A community of domain experts (e.g. archaeologists) is supported in contributing their knowledge through a comprehensive authoring process. In our TARCHNA system, annotated narrative content, buttressed by references to real world artefacts, is disseminated to a variety of platforms through a semantic web service. The entire approach is developed upon a multi-tiered architecture, allowing for the separation of functionality, yet supporting an open approach to interoperability.
  • Position Statements

    1. 1. Knowledge Technologies in Cultural Heritage Position Statement brought to you by
    2. 2. Content <ul><li>Background
    3. 3. Questions
    4. 4. Statements
    5. 5. Discussion </li></ul>
    6. 6. Background <ul><li>Cultural Heritage is </li><ul><li>Inherently 3 dimensional
    7. 7. of multidisciplinary nature
    8. 8. involving all kinds of complex data
    9. 9. characterized by an increasing volume of 3D digital content </li></ul><li>We argue the necessity of </li></ul>“ fostering the comprehension, adoption and use of knowledge intensive technologies for coding and sharing 3D CH media content ”
    10. 10. We are not alone
    11. 11. .. or maybe we are alone indeed? <ul><li>Our vision goes beyond some of the existing CH systems which support knowledge management (through ontologies) and: </li><ul><li>simply try to present a unified view of heterogeneous datasets and
    12. 12. support searching at a semantic level </li></ul></ul>but are unaware of the semantics associated with the 3D content itself.
    13. 13. An example: A Semantic Distributed System <ul><li>Aims at: </li><ul><li>presenting contextualised CH information
    14. 14. furnishing artifacts with appropriate “context” </li></ul><li>by semantically integrating 3D objects with 2D images, sounds, text, references. </li></ul>
    15. 15. Knowledge Technologies for 3D Cultural Heritage <ul><li>Do exist although some in their infancy
    16. 16. They also poor in from different disciplines and from different perspectives </li><ul><li>Architecture, Virtual Reality, Anthropology, Anatomy, Geoscience </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Stakeholders <ul><li>Cultural operators (museums, digital libraries, virtual exhibitors, dealers, collectors ...)
    18. 18. CH scholars, scientists and practitioners (archaeologists, restorators, …)
    19. 19. The public (democratization of heritage) </li></ul>We have questions for every group!
    20. 20. Question: Evolving How existing and emerging knowledge-based CH systems can be evolved into knowledge-based 3D digital shape modeling systems? <ul><li>Ontology mapping
    21. 21. Ontological standards
    22. 22. Other standards (shape representations) </li></ul>
    23. 23. Question: Accessing <ul>Do cultural operators (at any levels) need a new model of access to 3D CH? </ul><ul><li>Browse and keyword search still works but seems to be adequate
    24. 24. Semantic search is becoming popular (and feasible)
    25. 25. Other paradigms like narrative concepts and reasoning are emerging </li></ul>
    26. 26. Question: Similarity <ul>How one can compare 3D CH models at a high conceptual level? </ul><ul><li>Can be based on </li><ul><li>existing knowledge &
    27. 27. reasoning capabilities </li><ul><li>require at least first order logic and ontological organization of metada </li></ul></ul><li>Related question: </li></ul>How one can validate 3D CH models?
    28. 28. Questions: A long list Do the various virtual heritage tools have any particular characteristics? ...
    29. 29. Position Statement: Managing A large part of the European CH exists in 3D digital collections (e.g. virtual museums, digital libraries, scientific repositories) which are becoming more and more demanding in terms of management, preservation, and delivery mechanisms. Developing a holistic view of a heritage is essential. <ul><ul><li>In particular when it is fragmented </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Position Statement: Intelligent Search <ul><li>Users would like to perform content- and context-based (semantic) searching to retrieve 3D models or other detailed documentation, using: </li><ul><li>text
    31. 31. 3D objects
    32. 32. ontology classifications
    33. 33. or the combination of the above. </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Position Statement: Annotating The unavoidable manual annotation of explicit semantics cannot be considered a practical approach, <ul><ul><li>especially when the number of resources is expected to grow fast. </li></ul></ul>Knowledge -aware segmentations, and automated annotation and feature extraction are very much needed. <ul><ul><li>Do CH 3D artifacts have particular characteristics that further enable such automation? </li></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Position Statement: Communicating <ul><li>3D artifacts are commonly considered as perfect data carriers , </li><ul><li>This is particular true in the case of CH </li></ul><li>Particular geometric semantics of either the whole 3D CH object, or its segments, or its condition usually contain/provide valuable interpretations </li><ul><li>Presumably more valuable than just visual </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Position Statement: Sharing <ul><li>There is significant information flowing through the digital life-cycle of a 3D CH object </li><ul><li>Conventional bookkeeping is tedious, cumbersome, expensive and prone to errors
    37. 37. one can be guided & supported with a knowledge-based platform for performing the single steps involved: </li></ul></ul>
    38. 38. Position Statement: Sharing (cont.) <ul><li>data acquisition (3D scanning, registration, merging)
    39. 39. archiving & retrieval (classification of data, storage of 3D content and metadata, and retrieval of data from a repository)
    40. 40. virtual presentation (level-of-detail-driven simplification, association of material properties, texturing, and viewing);
    41. 41. virtual reconstruction & restoration (composition /assembling of parts, data conversion, modification/deformation of models, and morphing between two different objects);
    42. 42. prototyping & replication (fairing, generation of a uniform polygonal mesh);
    43. 43. deformation monitoring (comparison of geometric deviation of artifacts or buildings over time). </li></ul>
    44. 44. Position Statement: Caution <ul><li>Identify and carefully consider barriers that could prevent knowledge technologies to lead us to “ intelligent CH”
    45. 45. Be pragmatic. Consider cases where knowledge technologies have the potential to be used to build robust real-life solutions. </li></ul>