A catch 22 of 3D data sustainability: Lessons in 3D archaeological data management &amp; accessibility

Richards-Rissetto, Heather; Schwerin, Jennifer von

doi:10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.005

Cited by 27 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22 In exploring the concept of data sustainability and accessibility, the MayaArch3D project, which built a 3D virtual environment for analyzing archaeological data, 23 encountered four key issues with regard to 3D data: data security/sensitivity; web-based dissemination; conveying uncertainty; and data storage, reuse, and peer review. 24 In their project, security is addressed by providing different levels of user access with sensitive location-based data protected with additional restrictions. To address web-based dissemination challenges (such as high data transfer rates required for high resolution data types), the project made use of JavaScript libraries and JSON file formats to provide lightweight online access to massive amounts of data.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Data Repository Features, Best Practices, and Implications for Preservation Models: Findings from a National Forum

Hardesty

Johnson

Wittenberg

et al. 2020

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identifies challenges and directions for 3D/VR repository standards and practices. As 3D technologies become more affordable and accessible, academic libraries need to implement workflows, standards, and practices that support the full lifecycle of 3D data. This study invited experts across several disciplines to analyze current national repository and preservation efforts. Outlined models provide frameworks to identify features, examine workflows, and determine implications of 3D data on current preservation models. Participants identified challenges for supporting 3D data, including intellectual property and fair use; providing repository system management beyond academic libraries; seeking guidance outside of academia for workflows to model.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Data Repository Features, Best Practices, and Implications for Preservation Models: Findings from a National Forum

Hardesty

Johnson

Wittenberg

et al. 2020

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3D surveying collects raw data of extant archaeological features x, y and z points, but most archaeological data are not delivered as raw data (i.e. original survey data), but rather have been transformed into post‐processed data for various purposes via 3D modelling (Richards‐Rissetto and von Schwerin ).…”

Section: Ethics Of Data Management: An Anthropological Archaeology Pementioning

confidence: 99%

Data management in anthropology: the next phase in ethics governance?

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent demands for accountability in 'data management' by funding agencies, universities, international journals and other academic institutions have worried many anthropologists and ethnographers. While their demands for transparency and integrity in opening up data for scrutiny seem to enhance scientific integrity, such principles do not always consider the way the social relationships of research are properly maintained. As a springboard, the present Forum, triggered by such recent demands to account for the use of 'data', discusses the present state of anthropological research and academic ethics/integrity in a broader perspective. It specifically gives voice to our disciplinary concerns and leads to a principled statement that clarifies a particularly ethnographic position. This position is then discussed by several commentators who treat its viability and necessity against the background of wider developments in anthropology -sustaining the original insight that in ethnography, research materials have been coproduced before they become commoditised into 'data'. Finally, in moving beyond such a position, the Forum broadens the issue to the point where other methodologies and forms of ownership of research materials will also need consideration.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. 25 See Baud et al. (2013). It might have made a difference if the committee could have seen Bax's original materials (which he claimed to have destroyed), but only after the fact. FO RU M 4 01

show abstract

“…If we can ensure digital data longevity, is it ethical to have all this information digitally available in this day and age when looting for profit and vandalism for idle and ideological reasons is so high? Most of the publications cited throughout this section raise logistical and ethical questions at one level or another as relevant to their particular case study (for extended discussion of these issues, see Ashley, Tringham, and Perlingieri ; Katz and Tokovinine ; Richards‐Rissetto and von Schwerin 2017).…”

Section: Grappling With the Digitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding Archaeology in 2017: What Is Archaeology and Why Are We Doing It? Why Should We Be Doing It?

Lewis

2018

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These annual review essays focus on what we as archaeologists are doing year by year. Many themes continue on from review to review, waxing and waning, not unlike the bell curves of a traditional pottery seriation.Each year, themes are highlighted and presented in varied ways according to the orientation and aims of the reviewer. All do a masterful job of curating the vast range of what archaeologists were, in each annual period, currently producing. My review follows in the footsteps of its predecessors, summarizing an array of new and exciting research, and describing how agendas presented in 2017 cluster around sets of related questions and aims. It will also look at the growing literature that asks, in one way or another, fundamental questions about what archaeology really is and why we pursue it. In this time when the value of academic pursuits and scientific perspectives are being highly scrutinized in politics and popular culture, archaeologists are faced with the uncomfortable question of "What is it, really, that we should be doing?" [archaeology, current issues, public archaeology, digital archaeology] RESUMEN Estos ensayos de revisión anual se enfocan en lo que como arqueólogos estamos haciendo año tras año. Muchos temas continúan de revisión en revisión, creciendo o menguando, no muy diferente de las curvas en forma de campana de la seriación de la cerámica tradicional. Cada año, temas son enfatizados y presentados de varias maneras de acuerdo a la orientación y metas del crítico. Todos hacen un trabajo magistral de organizar un rango vasto de lo que los arqueólogos estaban, en cada período anual, realmente produciendo. Mi revisión sigue los pasos de sus predecesores, resumiendo una colección de nueva y emocionante investigación, y describiendo cómo las agendas presentadas en el 2017 se agrupan alrededor de juegos de cuestiones y metas relacionadas.También examina la creciente literatura que pregunta, de una manera u otra, cuestiones fundamentales acerca de lo que la arqueología realmente es y por qué nos dedicamos a ella. En este tiempo cuando el valor de los empeños académicos y las perspectivas científicas están siendo altamente escrutados en política y cultura popular, los arqueólogos se enfrentan a la pregunta incomoda de "¿Qué es lo que realmente deberíamos estar haciendo?"[arqueología, cuestiones actuales, arqueología pública, arqueología digital] ARCHAEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION?While the theme of what such a diverse discipline should be subtly undergirds much of the literature, a number of 2017 articles, each in a very different way, directly address the very nature of what archaeology is and why we practice it. In the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Assaf Nativ (2017, 55) asks us to reconsider our notions of the

show abstract

A catch 22 of 3D data sustainability: Lessons in 3D archaeological data management & accessibility

Cited by 27 publications

References 39 publications

3D Data Repository Features, Best Practices, and Implications for Preservation Models: Findings from a National Forum

3D Data Repository Features, Best Practices, and Implications for Preservation Models: Findings from a National Forum

Data management in anthropology: the next phase in ethics governance?

Finding Archaeology in 2017: What Is Archaeology and Why Are We Doing It? Why Should We Be Doing It?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About