Contextualizing 3D Cultural Heritage

Lloyd, James

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_69

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A user study conducted by Lloyd (2016) on Sketchfab focused on only the 'contextualisation' issue. A majority of the users appreciated Sketchfab's annotation feature and mentioned that it helped them to understand and contextualise the 3D artefacts.…”

Section: Discussion: 3d Models Online Exhibition and Desirable Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A majority of the users appreciated Sketchfab's annotation feature and mentioned that it helped them to understand and contextualise the 3D artefacts. Echoing Lloyd's (2016) study, Statham (2019) suggests that we should present extended information to support 3D visualisation of online heritage assets, and proposes 17 considerations for an 'information package'. There are other preliminary studies, from Guidazzoli et al (2017), Scopigno et al (2017), Koller et al (2009), Champion (2018Champion ( , 2019, Flynn (2019) and Clarke (2015).…”

Section: Discussion: 3d Models Online Exhibition and Desirable Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms

Champion

Rahaman

2020

Virtual archaeol. rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the increasing number of three-dimensional (3D) model portals and online repositories catering for digital heritage scholars, students and interested members of the general public, there are very few recent academic publications that offer a critical analysis when reviewing the relative potential of these portals and online repositories. Solid reviews of the features and functions they offer are insufficient; there is also a lack of explanations as to how these assets and their related functionality can further the digital heritage (and virtual heritage) field, and help in the preservation, maintenance, and promotion of real-world 3D heritage sites and assets. What features do they offer? How could their feature list better cater for the needs of the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) sector? This article’s priority is to examine the useful features of 8 institutional and 11 commercial repositories designed specifically to host 3D digital models. The available features of their associated 3D viewers, where applicable, are also analysed, connecting recommendations for future-proofing with the need to address current gaps and weaknesses in the scholarly field of 3D digital heritage. Many projects do not address the requirements stipulated by charters, such as access, reusability, and preservation. The lack of preservation strategies and examples highlights the oxymoronic nature of virtual heritage (oxymoronic in the sense that the virtual heritage projects themselves are seldom preserved). To study these concerns, six criteria for gauging the usefulness of the 3D repositories to host 3D digital models and related digital assets are suggested. The authors also provide 13 features that would be useful additions for their 3D viewers.Highlights:<ul><li>A survey of relevant features from eight institutional and eleven commercial online 3D repositories in the scholarly fieldof 3D digital heritage.</li><li>Presents a critical review of their hosting services and 3D model viewer features.</li><li>Proposes six features to enhance services of 3D repositories to support the GLAM sector, heritage scholars andheritage communities.</li></ul>

show abstract

Section: Discussion: 3d Models Online Exhibition and Desirable Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion: 3d Models Online Exhibition and Desirable Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms

Champion

Rahaman

2020

Virtual archaeol. rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twitter is a suitable tool for specialised research data dissemination, using hyperlinks, one of the most essential components of the internet (Berners-Lee et al, 1994;Berners-Lee, 1997). One of these workflows is described through a basic example here: a 3D model of trench 2/2014 from the Roman excavation at Molino San Vincenzo in Tuscany/ Italy was uploaded to the 3D content sharing platform Sketchfab (Hagmann et al, 2015;Lloyd, 2016;Sketchfab, 2017). The model, hosted on this platform, was embedded in a tweet: one can view the embedded model interactively within the tweet or follow the reference to Sketchfab (@ rrl_univie, 2017c; Hagmann, Reiter, 2016c).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Hagmann¹

2018

IANSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study concerning the use of the social networking sites (SNS) Twitter, Sketchfab, and ResearchGate as an integrated tool for digital science communication in archaeology. Although this combination seems to be characterised by means of a distinct heterogeneity among the different SNS, the interlocking of the various sites will be highlighted and its importance outlined. Therefore, the basic workflow for combining a microblogging service with a 3D content sharing site and a scientific social network shall be delineated within the framework of science communication. Disseminating data digitally can be handled in different ways, both actively and passively. An active manner can be the triggering of a social media war: in general, war might be seen here as permanent adversity between at least two parties. This adversity can arise for various reasons and take different courses on different intensity levels (Kekes 2010). Expanding the meaning of war to include digital conflicts within the realm of information and computer science, this permanent adversity can be easily combined with social media, specifically the social web, as an integral part of Web 2.0 (e.g.

show abstract

“…Sketchfab allows for some degree of explanation and contextualization of models within the platform and can also allow for more immersive virtual reality and augmented reality experiences (Ellenberger 2017). However, publication of 3D models as individual files in an online database fails to appropriately contextualize the artifacts within their archaeological, geographic, cultural, or historical framework (Lloyd 2016). As such, even publishing of archaeological 3D data to the public may not take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the increasing availability of these datasets.…”

Section: Archaeology In a Digital Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Digital Datasets into Public Engagement through ArcGIS StoryMaps

Howland

Liss

Levy

et al. 2020

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeologists have a responsibility to use their research to engage people and provide opportunities for the public to interact with cultural heritage and interpret it on their own terms. This can be done through hypermedia and deep mapping as approaches to public archaeology. In twenty-first-century archaeology, scholars can rely on vastly improved technologies to aid them in these efforts toward public engagement, including digital photography, geographic information systems, and three-dimensional models. These technologies, even when collected for analysis or documentation, can be valuable tools for educating and involving the public with archaeological methods and how these methods help archaeologists learn about the past. Ultimately, academic storytelling can benefit from making archaeological results and methods accessible and engaging for stakeholders and the general public. ArcGIS StoryMaps is an effective tool for integrating digital datasets into an accessible framework that is suitable for interactive public engagement. This article describes the benefits of using ArcGIS StoryMaps for hypermedia and deep mapping–based public engagement using the story of copper production in Iron Age Faynan, Jordan, as a case study.

show abstract

Contextualizing 3D Cultural Heritage

Cited by 14 publications

References 5 publications

Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms

Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Integrating Digital Datasets into Public Engagement through ArcGIS StoryMaps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About