Semantically Documenting Virtual Reconstruction: Building a Path to Knowledge Provenance

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The outcomes of virtual reconstructions of archaeological monuments are not just images for aesthetic consumption but rather present a scholarly argument and decision making process. They are based on complex chains of reasoning grounded in primary and secondary evidence that enable a historically probable whole to be reconstructed from the partial remains left in the archaeological record. This paper will explore the possibilities for documenting and storing in an information system the phases of the reasoning, decision and procedures that a modeler, with the support of an archaeologist, uses during the virtual reconstruction process and how they can be linked to the reconstruction output. The goal is to present a documentation model such that the foundations of evidence for the reconstructed elements, and the reasoning around them, are made not only explicit and interrogable but also can be updated, extended and reused by other researchers in future work. Using as a case-study the reconstruction of a kitchen in a Roman domus in Grand, we will examine the necessary documentation requirements, and the capacity to express it using semantic technologies. For our study we adopt the CIDOC-CRM ontological model, and its extensions CRMinf, CRMBa and CRMgeo as a starting point for modelling the arguments and relations.

Semantic Bridging of Cultural Heritage Disciplines and Tasks

“…In conclusion, knowledge of existing extensions, as well as deployments of CIDOC CRM for mapping/merging ontologies, is necessary for efficiently modeling information related to the various CH sub-disciplines and tasks. In this way, suggestions on using appropriate entities and relations (e.g., [55] makes suggestions for modeling arguments and relations for virtual reconstruction), which express more efficiently knowledge/information for different use-cases, are considered valuable. It is common knowledge that more specialized semantic representations of CH domain information will further facilitate its reuse and ensure its provenance, capturing a whole universe of perpetually produced information.…”

Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) and Archaeology: Old Tool, New Model

“…Demetrescu and Fanini have introduced the concept of a 'Report of Virtual Activities', a textual version of their 'Extended Matrix', that acts as sort of 'mind map' of the researcher's intuition, 'for quick sharing of the reconstruction hypothesis' (Demetrescu & Fanini, 2017: 505). Concurrently, Bruseker et al (2015), putting the accent on the reasoning process ('knowledge provenance') behind every hypothesis formulated by experts in computer-based visualizations, have proposed a generic documentation model linking the virtual reconstructions with their reasoning. Despite not pointing to any specific form of logical inference as a driving force for the choices behind those virtual processes, these contributions mention the possibility of self-excluding, coexisting hypotheses (Demetrescu & Fanini, 2017: 508) or an iterative process of constraining the choices 'left available to the modeler' (Bruseker et al, 2015: 36).…”

A Glimpse through Time and Space: Visualizing Spatial Continuity and History Making at Çatalhöyük, Turkey

“…The CRMinf 0.7 extension expands the capability of the CRM, providing additional tools for capturing and curating the 3D-modeling argumentation paradata and their sources. To ensure Bruseker, Guillem, and Carboni 2015. transparency and track provenance in the data and argumentation knowledge used in this study, we recorded precise information in each of the following phases: 1) reconstruction commissioning; 2) documentation research; 3) identification of propositional objects; 4) functional argumentation cluster; 5) geometric argumentation cluster; and 6) results of argument.…”