Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Bringing Excavation Data Together : Are We There Yet and Where is That?

Nenova, Denitsa ; Bruseker, George ; Derudas, Paola LU orcid ; Hiebel, Gerald ; Hivert, Florian ; Katsianis, Markos ; Marlet, Olivier ; Opitz, Rachel ; Ore, Christian-Emile and Uleberg, Espen (2022)
Abstract
Archaeological data repositories usually integrate excavation data archives as single data collections with restricted capacities to accommodate excavation data interoperability at the sub-collection level. This is largely due to the complexity of excavation data archives that are compiled with different tools and methodologies, use distinct conceptual descriptions at variable granularities, can often be unfinished or open-ended and may be linked to all sorts of digital data types, each with its own complicated production workflow. In the past decades, several attempts to adapt CIDOC-CRM in order to provide more explicit descriptions of the excavation domain have resulted in several model extensions (e.g. CRMarchaeo, CRMsc, CRMba). Each... (More)
Archaeological data repositories usually integrate excavation data archives as single data collections with restricted capacities to accommodate excavation data interoperability at the sub-collection level. This is largely due to the complexity of excavation data archives that are compiled with different tools and methodologies, use distinct conceptual descriptions at variable granularities, can often be unfinished or open-ended and may be linked to all sorts of digital data types, each with its own complicated production workflow. In the past decades, several attempts to adapt CIDOC-CRM in order to provide more explicit descriptions of the excavation domain have resulted in several model extensions (e.g. CRMarchaeo, CRMsc, CRMba). Each focuses on corresponding aspects of the excavation research process, while their combined usage holds an already demonstrated potential to support expressive data mappings at the sub-collection level. As part of the ongoing ARIADNEplus project, several CIDOC-CRM developers and domain experts have been working as a group and engaging in conceptual mapping exercises to address the practicalities of bringing excavation data descriptions together. In this presentation we will consider several issues that may be affecting the applicability of existing solutions and link these to our overall expectations/aspirations in terms of excavation data discoverability and reusability. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to conference
publication status
published
subject
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.7117049
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
b50d6e4b-f0dc-45ac-b2aa-716b7f2668c6
date added to LUP
2024-01-21 16:53:19
date last changed
2024-02-09 09:32:38
@misc{b50d6e4b-f0dc-45ac-b2aa-716b7f2668c6,
  abstract     = {{Archaeological data repositories usually integrate excavation data archives as single data collections with restricted capacities to accommodate excavation data interoperability at the sub-collection level. This is largely due to the complexity of excavation data archives that are compiled with different tools and methodologies, use distinct conceptual descriptions at variable granularities, can often be unfinished or open-ended and may be linked to all sorts of digital data types, each with its own complicated production workflow. In the past decades, several attempts to adapt CIDOC-CRM in order to provide more explicit descriptions of the excavation domain have resulted in several model extensions (e.g. CRMarchaeo, CRMsc, CRMba). Each focuses on corresponding aspects of the excavation research process, while their combined usage holds an already demonstrated potential to support expressive data mappings at the sub-collection level. As part of the ongoing ARIADNEplus project, several CIDOC-CRM developers and domain experts have been working as a group and engaging in conceptual mapping exercises to address the practicalities of bringing excavation data descriptions together. In this presentation we will consider several issues that may be affecting the applicability of existing solutions and link these to our overall expectations/aspirations in terms of excavation data discoverability and reusability.}},
  author       = {{Nenova, Denitsa and Bruseker, George and Derudas, Paola and Hiebel, Gerald and Hivert, Florian and Katsianis, Markos and Marlet, Olivier and Opitz, Rachel and Ore, Christian-Emile and Uleberg, Espen}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{09}},
  title        = {{Bringing Excavation Data Together : Are We There Yet and Where is That?}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7117049}},
  doi          = {{10.5281/zenodo.7117049}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}