The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•495 views
A roundtable with Peter McKeague (RCAHMS) and Stefano Campana (McDonald Research Institute, University of Cambridge and the University of Siena) at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference at the University of Siena on 1st April 2015. This round table session seeks to build a case for developing a thematic SDI but is thematic SDI even necessary with existing digital infrastructure initiatives – Archaeolandscapes (Arcland), ARIADNE and Europeana – in place? Where are the current initiatives and exemplar projects, particularly for data created through fieldwork and scientific analysis, for harmonising spatial data?
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage?
Similar to The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? (20)
More from Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)
More from Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) (17)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage?
- 1. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. IThe whole is other than the sum of the parts:where is the Spatial Data Infrastructure for cultural heritage? #heritage_sdi Peter McKeague (Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland) Stefano Campana (McDonald Research Institute, University of Cambridge and the University of Siena) Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. 1
- 2. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. I wouldn’t start from here Purpose of the Roundtable The INSPIRE Directive What is a Spatial Data Infrastructure What INSPIRE requires What is in scope Datasets Why we as a community need a thematic SDI Efficiency savings Build not reinvent What we value Open data Existing trans-national initiatives? http://blueeyedennis-siempre.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ 10/i-wouldnt-start-from-here.html Reused under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 2
- 3. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The Purpose of the roundtable Evidence gathering To introduce INSPIRE and Spatial Data Infrastructures To discover what work is going on in preparing cultural heritage datasets for INSPIRE To demonstrate the need for building on the INSPIRE Directive to develop a thematic SDI for heritage To demonstrate relevance – why we need to develop an SDI To understand how spatial data is addressed in existing EU funded research projects: and to help define business cases •Protected Sites •Undesignated Assets •Primary observed data •Historic landuse characterisation •Arcland •Ariadne •Europeana 3
- 4. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The INSPIRE Directive • Requires that existing data held by member states is compliant with INSPIRE standards • It does not require the creation of new datasets but it does state that when new datasets are created they must comply with INSPIRE standards • INSPIRE requires Metadata for the creation and maintenance of searchable catalogues to identify what data is available ,who holds it and any access constraints. • INSPIRE requires data publishers to setup network services View Services (WMS) Transformation services (From British National Grid to WGS 84) Data harmonisation – consistent schema Download services (WFS and ATOM feed) • INSPIRE outlines charging for public access to services • Monitoring and reporting on INSPIRE compliance • INSPIRE is about Public Sector data – it does not address data created by the private sector 4
- 5. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. What is a Spatial Data Infrastructure? Coordinating body Component GI Services Framework GI / Thematic GI Interoperability Standards Resources Research & Development Policies/LegalFramework AccessMechanism SDI is the technology, policies, standards, human resources and related activities necessary to acquire, process, distribute, use, maintain and preserve spatial data 5
- 6. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. What is a Spatial Data Infrastructure? … and why it matters GI Enabled Business Applications and Services Coordinating body Component GI Services Framework GI / Thematic GI Interoperability Standards Resources Research & Development Policies/LegalFramework AccessMechanism Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits 6
- 7. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The INSPIRE Directive Source: http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/ImplementingRules/inspireDataspecD2_3v2.0.pdf Annex I 1. Coordinate reference systems 2. Geographical grid systems 3. Geographical names 4. Administrative units 5. Addresses 6. Cadastral parcels 7. Transport networks 8. Hydrography 9. Protected sites - * Annex II 1. Elevation 2. Land cover 3. Ortho-imagery 4. Geology Annex III 1. Statistical units 2. Buildings 3. Soil 4. Land use 5. Human health and safety 6. Utility and governmental services 7. Environmental monitoring facilities - * 8. Production and industrial facilities - * 9. Agricultural and aquaculture facilities - * 10. Population distribution – demography 11. Area management/restriction/regulation zones & reporting units - * 12. Natural risk zones 13. Atmospheric conditions - * 14. Meteorological geographical features - * 15. Oceanographic geographical features 16. Sea regions 17. Bio-geographical regions - * 18. Habitats and biotopes - * 19. Species distribution - * 20. Energy Resources - * 21. Mineral resources - * -* heavy weighting towards the natural environment 7
- 8. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Cluster INSPIRE Themes 1 Statistical Cluster Statistical Units, Population Distribution, Human Health and Safety 2 Marine and Atmosphere Cluster Oceanographic Geographical Features, Sea Regions, Atmospheric Conditions and Meteorological Geographical Features 3 Earth Science Cluster Geology, Soil, Natural Risk Zones, Mineral resources, Energy resources 4 Land Cover and Land Use Cluster Land Use, Land Cover 5 Elevation, Orthoimagery, Reference Systems, Geographical Grids Cluster Elevation, Orthoimagery, Coordinate Reference Systems, Geographical Grid 6 Environmental Monitoring and Observations Cluster Environmental Monitoring Facilities, Observations and Measurements 7 Biodiversity and Management Areas Cluster Protected Sites, Area Management/Restriction/Regulation Zones and Reporting Units, Habitats and Biotopes, Species Distribution, Bio- geographical Regions 8 Facilities, Utilities and Public Services Cluster Facilities, Utilities and Public Services 9 Topographic and Cadastral Reference Data Hydrography, Geographical Names, Administrative Units, Cadastral Parcels, Addresses, Buildings, Transport Networks 8
- 9. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The INSPIRE Directive - Protected Sites Grade A Listed building: Gardner’s warehouse 36 Jamaica Street and 10 Midland Street, Glasgow, Scotland Scheduled monuments Roman fort, fort annexes and temporary camps Newstead, Scottish Borders, Scotland Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 9
- 10. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The INSPIRE Directive – much richer cultural heritage Cropmark sites Upstanding archaeology Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 ExcavationsGeophysical survey Laser scanning Lost heritage Landscape and landuse 10
- 11. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Data specific metadata Spatial Discovery metadata: Describes the nature and content of the dataset Exploration metadata: The information required to ensure the data is appropriate for purpose Exploitation metadata: The information required to access, transfer and apply the data Geophysical survey Airborne Laser Scanning Laser scanning After: Shaw, R., Corns, A. and McAuley J. Archiving Archaeological Spatial Data: Standards and Metadata Online proceedings CAA 2009 : http://www.caa2009.org/articles/shaw_contribution187_c%20(1).pdf 11
- 12. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Spatial – much more than a dot on a map The extent of the magnetometer survey helps inform the definition of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 12 After Rennie, 2006
- 13. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Locked in data Spatial data is locked into reports and publications whereas it should be mapped to build knowledge Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 13
- 14. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Delivering efficiency INSPIRE sets down the general rules for establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe for the purposes Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment • Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively • The ability to combine seamlessly spatial data from different sources and share it between many users and applications • Spatial data should be collected at one level of Government and shared between all levels • Spatial data needed for good Governance should be available on conditions that are not restricting its extensive use • It should be easy to discover which spatial data is available, to evaluate its fitness for purpose, and to know which conditions apply for its use. Source: David Fry, Inspire Directive: GIS Professional issue 15, April 2007, 18 14
- 15. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Standards and schema Extract from Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale conventions Copyright 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 INSPIRE technical specifications Protected Sites Fernandez Freire, C. Et al. (2014) A data model for Cultural Heritage within INSPIRE, Cadernos de Arqueoloxía e Patrimonio (CAPA) no.35 15
- 16. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Towards standardisation http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/294740/ Courtesy: GSB Prospection 16
- 17. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. 3887 projects reported through OASIS in Scotland since April 2007 (2372 completed) 310 projects have spatial extents attached. 156 completed projects with spatial extents attached Commercial units are ready to comply submitting project extents as part of a discharge of a Planning Condition Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 17
- 18. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Common terminologies Brandenburg Tor, Berlin, Germany The East Port, Dundee, Scotland http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/details/1232014/Attribution: James Denham Bootham Bar, York, England 18
- 19. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. What we value: Eco-system services http://www.openness-project.eu/ Managing change in landscapes through decision support tools (Quickscan) Data needs to be understood by the non-specialist user 19
- 20. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The bigger picture: Historic Landuse and landscape characterisation The landscapes of Europe have been shaped through human interaction to form a rich tapestry that documents development and change over centuries and provides people with a sense of place and identity. Historic landuse tools inform strategic decision making for the environment, policy and planning. There are multiple audiences: the land owner; the land manager and farmer; Planners and architects; developers, consultants and contractors, academics and researchers and curators. Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey licence number 100020548 Landscape: ‘... an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Article 1, European Landscape Convention) 20
- 21. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Changing work patterns Open Data Charter A key driver for change A balancing act between developing sustainable services, fostering interest in the cultural heritage and contributing to economic and environmental development INSPIRE requires that data publishers ensure appropriate rights management and licencing agreements are in place that don’t restrict use and reuse of data. • Discovery services should be free of charge • View services should generally not be charged • Any charging models must be transparent • Publication must respect third party Intellectual Property Rights There is a need to recognise that how information is accessed – heritage curators can no longer expect to act as gatekeepers to knowledge Need to recognise the need to manage sensitive information 21
- 22. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. Is a cultural heritage SDI already addressed by existing initiatives? Integrates European Research Infrastructures on archaeological datasets. Aims to overcome fragmentation of archaeological data repositories and to foster a culture of data sharing and re-use Aims to address existing imbalances in the use of modern surveying and remote sensing techniques and to create conditions for the regular use of these strikingly successful techniques across the Continent as a whole. Has a mission to transform the world with culture. Aims to build on Europe’s rich heritage and make it easier for people to use, whether for work, for learning or just for fun http://www.europeana.eu/portal/ http://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/ http://www.arcland.eu/ Brings together heritage bodies from all over Europe to establish a service that will make digital content for Europe's unique archaeological monuments and historic sites interoperable with Europeana. http://www.carare.eu/ 22
- 23. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The knowledge pyramid After: https://kvaes.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/data-knowledge-information-wisdom/ Past Experience Novelty Future Portals WMS, WFS, APIs 23
- 24. The whole is other than the sum of its parts: where is the spatial data infrastructure for cultural heritage? Keep the Revolution Going? - Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Siena 1st April 2015. The whole is other than the sum of the parts... Gatekeepers to knowledge Project based approach Data not discoverable Data locked into reports No set standard for information collection Meeting INSPIRE requirements Developing an evidence based approach Harmonisation of datasets Consistent message to remote users Long term efficiencies SDI Contact: Peter McKeague - peter.mckeague@rcahms.gov.uk Stefano Campana - srlc3@cam.ac.uk 24
Editor's Notes
- This presentation will explore The purpose of the round table The Inspire Directive Why we as a community need a thematic SDI And asks how we fit in with existing trans-national initiatives
- Purpose of the roundtable To introduce INSPIRE and Spatial Data Infrastructures To find out what work is going on in preparing cultural heritage data for INSPIRE To demonstrate the need for developing a thematic SDI for the historic environment, (perhaps building on the INSPIRE Directive) To demonstrate relevance: why it is important to adopt Spatial standards To understand how spatial data is being addressed in existing EU funded infrastructure projects And (for me at least) to develop a business case for why we need to do more with spatial data
- The INSPIRE Directive - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community Launched in 2007, the INSPIRE Directive seeks to publish and harmonise data relating to the environment across participating states. It sets down the general rules for establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe for Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. It requires that member states conform existing data within scope to standards and requirements It does not require creation of new datasets but it does state that when new datasets are created they must comply with INSPIRE standards Data must be discoverable through searchable catalogues to identify what data is available, who holds it and any access constraints. INSPIRE requires data publishers to provide View services Transformation services (e.g from British National Grid to WGS Data harmonisation (to consistent schema) And download services – WFS and ATOM Feed) It outlines policies for charging for public access to services And requires monitoring and reporting on compliance for some but not all datasets
- Key to delivering INSPIRE is the establishment of a Spatial Data Infrastructure - that is the technology, policies, standards, human resources and related activities necessary to acquire, process, distribute, use, maintain and preserve spatial data.
- and through GI enabled Business Applications and Services, deliver Social, Economic and environmental benefits
- INSPIRE defines 34 key themes, in three annexes. However most of the themes are weighted to the natural environment rather than Europe’s cultural heritage Indeed within INSPIRE cultural heritage is only really covered as part of the Protected Sites theme and what is in and out of scope is open to interpretation. Most agencies favouring a narrow definition of legally defined constraints rather than a more generous managed through legal or other effective means.
- Recently the 34 themes have been reorganised into thematic clusters Cultural heritage falls within the biodiversity and Management Areas Cluster - although a lot of the data we collect relates to one or more of the INSPIRE themes and clusters - Information about buildings naturally has a relationship with the Buildings theme and thus Topographic and cadastral Reference Data cluster Land use and Land characterisation with the Landuse theme and Land Cover and Land Use Cluster - LIDAR data has a relationship with Elevation - and the Elevation, Orthoimagery, reference Systems and Geographical Grids Cluster as does Imagery collected as part of a Lidar survey -but what about data acquired through analysis and interpretation of the Lidar?
- As noted above statutorily protected sites : - for instance Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings in Scotland form part of Annex 1 Protected Sites theme and Historic Scotland have published INSPIRE compliant WMS for their statutory datasets. Yet as colleagues in Spain have observed this data represents a legal constraint or fiat rather than the actual or bona fide resource (see Freire et al 2014. A data model for Cultural Heritage within INSPIRE http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/94227 )
- So if Protected Sites are part of INSPIRE, is that the job done? Although dependant on the legislation of individual nations, there may be a much greater range of heritage than the formally protected sites – this is heritage that is still considered in mitigation during the planning process, destroyed sites or those only known from documentary sources, As well as the primary evidence – the techniques and observations used to record our heritage from non-invasive processes like Laser Scanning, aerial photographic interpretation or geophysical survey techniques to invasive excavations. It also covers the locations of the results of scientific analysis such as radiocarbon dating, stable isotope analysis etc.
- Many of the techniques used, particularly those dependant on technology, require additional metadata elements to be collected. – in particular the Exploration metadata that enables a user years later to assess if the data is fit for purpose. (See Shaw, R., Corns, A. and McAuley J. Archiving Archaeological Spatial Data: Standards and Metadata Online proceedings CAA 2009 : http://www.caa2009.org/articles/shaw_contribution187_c%20(1).pdf )
- Location or extent Too often we are simply interested in location, where something is but not its extent. The metadata should also routinely describe the extent of a site or the survey or excavation undertaken. For instance the database of geophysical surveys undertaken in Scotland to 2003 (Rennie, 2006) provides a baseline audit of where remote sensing techniques have been used – and helped demonstrate that the techniques were worth deploying in Scotland. At a national or regional scale displaying the location is appropriate. However, it is the extent and detail of individual surveys that is significant at a given location. It is essential to understand the extent of the site or fieldwork. In the case of Balmuildy Fort on the Antonine Wall, the geophysical surveys helped define the extent the annex on the east side of the fort and thus informed the definition of the World Heritage Site. The extent of the survey indicates where work has been undertaken and provides a visual index to the surveys whilst the raster plots and interpretation define the potential features. For remote sensing and for fieldwork more generally, investigations are undertaken by commercial units, University research projects and through community projects and not by national or local government agencies. There is often no firm obligation to deposit an archive (something not addressed by INSPIRE) nor any metrics for measuring deposition of completed archives.
- Even though we gather information digitally and publish it electronically, spatial data is essentially locked-into the published report. The mapping element is lost. The spatial element cannot realise its true value or potential as part of a map in a series of siloed reports. It cannot be easily combined and shared to present a map of investigations used to build knowledge and inform management decisions. Yet this spatial data is gathered electronically either during fieldwork or created in preparation of the final project reports; the files already exist they just need to realise their potential. To do so requires the development of a thematic SDI to provide the guidance and infrastructure to deliver a digital revolution in spatial data management for cultural heritage.
- Through INSPIRE we already have a broad data strategy one that defines best practice INSPIRE defines the rules about the collection of data - That it should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively. - It should be possible to combine data seamlessly from different sources and share it between many users and applications - It should be collected at one level of Government and shared between all levels - Spatial data needed for good governance should be available on conditions that are not restricting its extensive use And that it should be easy to discover which spatial data is available to evaluate its fitness for purpose and know which conditions apply for its use. How these rules are applied to the data the cultural heritage sector create and collect remains a systemic challenge for us all.
- Whilst the emphasis of this presentation is on making use of the spatial footprint of cultural heritage data we also need to think about defining consistent conventions or more appropriately for complex geospatial datasets – data standards. In publishing paper maps for Britain the Ordnance Survey defined a consistent conventions for the feature types they wished to represent. Individual offices such as RCAHMS defined house styles for their survey drawings. For digital products we need to move beyond conventions and define the attribution associated with the spatial data. The INSPIRE protected sites technical specifications defines some standards which include unique identifier for the resource, site designation data and protected classification – but are these sufficient for the information we want to present about the Cultural Heritage? Work on the Spanish SDI has proposed a much richer data model for Cultural Heritage within INSPIRE (see Freire et al 2014. A data model for Cultural Heritage within INSPIRE http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/94227 ). However, for most primary datasets there are few if any defined standards – placing the onus of standardisation on the data curators receiving the completed project archive or investing in complex transformation tools to harmonise data from different agencies.
- In England and Scotland ambition for harmonised project data can be and is being addressed through the use of online reporting forms. The OASIS form (http://oasis.ac.uk/) is used to systematically capture project metadata, - the who, what, why, where and when - but it also includes the ability to capture technical exploration metadata to document geophysics techniques. In the example on screen the xml documents the technique used, the instrumentation, its configuration, the resolution of the survey and technique dependant metadata - this is standardised information units applicable to each remote sensing technique used anywhere.
- The OASIS form also enables fieldworkers to upload shape files (or CAD files) indicating the extent of their fieldwork projects. This is information required to produce illustrations in the site report etc, but it can also be unlocked, recycled and combined to build to a spatial layer of primary observed data. The point is that the data is gathered by the people undertaking the fieldwork, transferred and re-used to create knowledge and shared through network services. It goes someway to fulfilling the INSPIRE Directive rule that Data should be collected once (by those creating the data) and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively (by those curating the data) .
- Complementing consistent data standards is the need for consistent terminologies We require consistent code-lists and multi-lingual terminologies to describe the data presented through network services – So that a user can describe the same concept – be it the nature of the designation, monument type or an investigative activity. In this example from http://www.heritagedata.org/ English Heritage have defined a concept for a ‘Town Gate’ which can be expressed in a number of ways ; Bootham Bar in York, The East Port in Dundee or in another language – the Tor in German.
- We also need to think about how information will be used in the future – like it or not Internet delivery and INSPIRE have changed the way people expect to access data – that is remotely. The remote user may not appreciate the labels we use to identify and index records: which is more meaningful to a remote user: that a monument is upstanding, known from Cropmark or documentary evidence rather than it is a burnt mound or cursus monument – what do these labels convey to a land manager? And beyond legally protected sites, how can they assess the value that we place on records in a way that they can understand - and be able to compare the value judgements we need to assign to our datasets. This may currently be a traffic light system of high, medium and low (or no value). We need to think about what is relevant to the remote user. As Natural Capital and Eco-system services develop these systems will consume data remotely through WMS and WFS and divorced from curatorial guidance. For instance the Openness project http://www.openness-project.eu/ is running a series of case studies exploring how eco-system services impact on management and decision making situations such as integrated river basin management, coastal zone management as well as planning issues. These are all areas where the cultural heritage is potentially vulnerable and needs to be considered alongside other factors such as drainage, change in land cover Software like Quickscan provide powerful scenario modelling tools to inform and support decision making, For cultural heritage data to be part of these systems it needs to be discoverable, usable (without undue restrictions and licencing), clear and consistent. If the cultural heritage community cannot present data that is consistent and easy to understand to the non-specialist there is a danger that the data is either misunderstood, or ignored comkpletely.
- If so far the focus is on sites and activities we also need to think about the landscape perspective. Landscape: is an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Article 1, European Landscape Convention. The landscapes of Europe have been shaped through human interaction to form a rich tapestry that documents development and change over centuries and provides people with a sense of place and identity. Historic landuse tools inform strategic decision making for the environment, policy and planning. There are multiple audiences: the land owner; the land manager and farmer; Planners and architects; developers, consultants and contractors, academics and researchers and curators. Whilst it may be straightforward to map and quantify the amount of historic landuse, How easy is it to compare and contrast across different jurisdictions? How does what we as archaeologists collect tie in with other users (think how the character of the land we value would work with eco-system services)?
- We need to accept that the world is changing and those engaged with managing data need to adapt. There are more and more requirements to push out data in such a way as not to restrict use and reuse of data although publication of data must respect third party IPR. Charging models need to be considered as delivery of an SDI for cultural heritage involves both those who create data and those who curate and publish data. Adoption of the G8 Open Data charter is a key driver for change But there needs to be rights management, particularly over sensitive data and the risk of looting but the presumption should be to publish and empower local communities to take ownership of the heritage in their locality. The cultural heritage needs to perform a balancing act between developing sustainable services, fostering interest in the cultural heritage and contributing to economic and environmental development We need to recognise and accept that how information is accessed is changing - heritage curators can no longer expect to act as gatekeepers to knowledge as too often they will be by-passed. Instead they should see remote access as an opportunity to engage in a new, collaborative environment.
- So is the need for a cultural heritage SDI already being addressed by existing initiatives? There are already a number of European initiatives for cultural heritage ARIADNE, Archaeolandscapes (ArcLand). The Europeana and Carare projects But they don’t directly address spatial data. What about the European Archaeological Consilium (http://european-archaeological-council.org/)? What is their view? Much more needs to be done to raise the raise the profile of spatial data in a domain that is inherently spatial. There is an expectation - and national and international directives – to make information available for reuse to drive the information economy. If we are not part of that process we cannot complain if the historic environment is ignored.
- Looking beyond the Protected Sites theme in INSPIRE where there is a mandate (albeit a slightly ambiguous one) which has obligations to publish spatial information as Discovery, View and Download services. We are not working the data we, as a community, create hard enough – we create plenty of data but it is still not particularly well joined up. Most spatial information is lost in the transition from data gathering to interpretation of individual site records. And it is certainly not combined to form datasets and services that present a regional, national, or trans-national inventory / map of the extent of our knowledge which is the level to provide Access and delivery mechanisms. – which in turn inform decision making processes . And this process is cyclical or temporal - that the applied wisdom helps inform future research / management issues about the heritage – contributing to inform and improve the knowledge about the historic environment.
- Through fieldwork or analysis the cultural heritage community creates data to inform the understanding or interpretation of an individual site. Occasionally that data is collected together into datasets – such as the Protected Sites layers published under INSPIRE but too often the value of spatial data is not appreciated and it’s potential not realised. As most primary fieldwork adopts a project based approach meaning data loses value as soon as the project is completed. Spatial data created through fieldwork is not always discoverable. It is locked into reports and there is often no set standard for information collection and dissemination. Inaccessible data can quickly become irrelevant INSPIRE provides both a driver and a model for change. We need consistency and relevant attribution for data already published under the INSPIRE Protected Sites theme. We need to develop an evidence based approach based on our observed fieldwork. We need to harmonise / standardise the data we create and publish. We need to deliver a consistent - and clear - message to remote users and deliver long term efficiencies in how information is gathered, transferred, managed in an evidence-based digital economy. Drawing on Gestalt psychology to highlight the need for developing a Spatial Data Infrastructure for cultural heritage “The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing up is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful” Kurt Koffka, 1935 It is not simply a case of adding the individual components of the cultural heritage information management together as a stock taking exercise to build a model, it requires the technologies, policies, standards, human resources, and related activities to acquire, process, distribute, use, maintain and preserve spatial data – in short a blueprint to deliver an SDI for cultural heritage. However, It is impossible to move from the individual building blocks to the completed model without a firm blueprint - the SDI.