Paradata in Documentation Standards and Recommendations for Digital Archaeological Visualisations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22120972 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lisa Börjesson, Olle Sköld (0000-0002-0904-7222), Isto Huvila (0000-0001-9196-2106) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 191-220 |
| Publication date | 2021-06-24 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Digital Culture & Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2364-2114 • E-ISSN: 2364-2122 |
| Publisher | Transcript Verlag (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.14361/dcs-2020-0210 |
| OpenAlex | W3176091158 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 15 |
Digitalisation of research data and massive efforts to make it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable has revealed that in addition to an eventual lack of description of the data itself (metadata), data reuse is often obstructed by the lack of information about the datamaking and interpretation (i.e. paradata). In search of the extent and composition of categories for describing processes, this article reviews a selection of standards and recommendations frequently referred to as useful for documenting archaeological visualisations. It provides insight into 1) how current standards can be employed to document provenance and processing history (i.e. paradata), and 2) what aspects of the processing history can be made transparent using current standards and which aspects are pushed back or hidden. The findings show that processes are often either completely absent or only partially addressed in the standards. However, instead of criticising standards for bias and omissions as if a perfect description of everything would be attainable, the findings point to the need for a comprehensive consideration of the space a standard is operating in (e.g. national heritage administration or international harmonisation of data). When a standard is used in a specific space it makes particular processes, methods, or tools transparent. Given these premises, if the standard helps to document what needs to be documented (e.g. paradata), and if it provides a type of transparency required in a certain space, it is reasonable to deem the standard good enough for that purpose
Computer security · Data science · Documentation · Interoperability · Metadata · Reuse · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Digital and Traditional Archives Management · Image Processing and 3D Reconstruction · Research Data Management Practices
Global socio-technical regimes
On the Outside Looking in
The London Charter and the Seville Principles as sources of requirements for e-archaeology systems development purposes
Mapping Our Heritage
Semantic Bridging of Cultural Heritage Disciplines and Tasks
The Archaeological Excavation Report of Rigny
A Proposal for the Standardized Reporting of Error and Paradata Regarding Structure from Motion (SfM) 3D Models Used in Recording and Consolidating Archaeological Architecture
Beyond Digital Dwelling
Enabling European Archaeological Research
Archaeological stratigraphy as a formal language for virtual reconstruction. Theory and practice
Pencils and Pixels
A 3D spatial data infrastructure for Mapping the Via Appia
Icomos Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |