Download - The Digital Archaeological Workflow: A Case Study from Sweden

The Digital Archaeological Workflow: A Case Study from Sweden

Marcus Smith [email protected]

CAA 2014 – Paris

The Problem •  No central fieldwork

register

’Charles Babb parts storage’ – SDASM (flickr)


register •  No central digital

archive for archaeological data




•  Digital availability of fieldwork reports is patchy





•  Existing resources not linked

’silos’ – Doc Searls (flickr)





•  Existing resources not linked

•  Inefficient information transfer (digital → paper → digital)

How It Works – The Computer. The Output Unit. (Ladybird books)

Goals for DAP •  Fully digitised seamless

information transfer

’CERN storage servers’ – skimaniac (flickr)


information transfer •  Digital archive for

archaeological data



archaeological data •  Access to source data



archaeological data •  Access to source data •  Semantically linked

data

’Anchor Men of the Mauretania’ Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (flickr)

’Come in We’re Open’ – jilleatsapples (flickr)



archaeological data •  Access to source data •  Semantically linked

data •  Openly licensed, re-

useable data •  National ‘events’

register

DAP so far… •  Government directive, with extra funding for five years •  LOD as a core idea; openness and transparency as core

values •  Collaborative effort with the archaeological community •  DAP requires a new data infrastructure for us at RAÄ •  DAP requires a new way of working for archaeologists in

Sweden: –  Technical challenges –  Licensing challenges –  Mindset challenges

DAP so far… •  Already in place:

–  SAMLA reports/PDF repository: http://samla.raa.se/

–  Processes mapped –  Conceptual modeling

ongoing

Actor / R

ole

Organisation

Organisation

Legal framework

Legal fram

ework

Legal framew

ork

Archaeological event

Method Analysis

Fieldwork Documentation

Resolution

Documentation

Development

Research event

Actor /

Role

Assessment event

Legal status

Monument type Period

Information management event

Land m

anagement

event

Legal event

Natural event

Tangible Heritage

Temporal Context

Geographical Context

Event Context

Operative Context

DAP so far… •  Already in place:

–  SAMLA reports/PDF repository: http://samla.raa.se/

–  Processes mapped –  Conceptual modeling

ongoing •  Still to plan:

–  protocols & formats –  data mapping –  digital archive…

•  To do straight away: –  rescue fieldwork data –  start a skeleton of an

events register –  …and ‘master data’

such as ontologies, thesauri/controlled vocabularies!

SOCH Swedish Open Cultural Heritage

•  K-samsök – ‘Cultural Cross-Search’ http://www.ksamsok.se/



•  Metadata aggregator & web service for cultural heritage institutions

•  Monuments, buildings, museum collections…





•  40 institutions

(≈25–30 million triples)

(≈25–30 million triples)

•  2.1 million artefacts •  880 thousand photographs •  830 thousand monuments •  440 thousand documents •  110 thousand historic buildings •  40 thousand personages •  2000 historical events •  1500 historic maps





•  40 institutions •  4.7 million database

objects

Structured Vocabularies •  SOCH publishes LOD… •  …but the majority of the

classification metadata is still text strings, rather than URIs pointing to terms in authoritative controlled vocabularies

•  We’re going to need a number of such thesauri in for the data a future DAP infrastructure is going to handle

•  Perhaps even a full-blown ontology for Swedish archaeology…?

•  Monuments types •  Legal status •  Events •  Periods •  Materials •  Built heritage •  Evidence types •  Techniques •  Artefact types •  …etc

•  Extant/non-existent •  Internal/external

Structured Vocabularies •  SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation System – an RDF

application for structured vocabularies (also RDFS, OWL…)

•  Initial idea: create SKOS versions of our vocabularies and put them out on the web. (Like SENESCHAL http://www.heritagedata.org/)

•  But now: Need a proper system for managing these terms and publishing them in different ways: one central system for storing and managing the data, which can be consumed by a variety of systems (both internal and external) in a variety of formats. Of which SKOS would be one.

•  Investigate user-needs: not many use SKOS today… but may do later.

Who manages what data? •  Local authorities: resolutions •  Fieldwork units: field

documentation; produce reports •  National Heritage Board:

national monuments register, buildings register, monuments types thesaurus, etc; archive reports

•  Forest Agency: forest sites •  Museums: finds •  Universities, SND: research

data, analyses •  National Land Survey:

geospatial data •  Law: legal terms/concepts, legal

events

•  We need to be able to manage the data we're responsible for

•  We need to be able to connect to (fetch) data that external bodies are responsible for, and react when they change

Challenges •  Ongoing DAP project to deliver a set of recommendations on how

we should manage the structure and mapping of our master data taxonomies: practical protocols/praxis, and tools.

•  Versioning and preservation •  We welcome suggestions and feedback - we're very much finding

our way as we go! •  DAP is a massive undertaking, and we don’t want to reinvent the

wheel if we can help it.

DAP SOCH

http://www.raa.se/dap http://www.ksamsok.se/ http://www.kringla.nu/

[email protected] @carwash