Ariadne: Final Report on Good Practices

D4.6: Final Report on Good Practices

Author:

Kieron Niven, ADS

Ariadne is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme.

ARIADNED4.6FinalReportonGoodPractices(Public)

Version:1.0(final) 1stAugust2016

Authors: KieronNiven,ADS

Contributingpartners: RuthBeusing,MartinaTrognitz,DAI

HellaHollander,ValentijnGilissen,DANS

EstherJansma,CulturalHeritageAgencyandUtrechtUniversity

PeterBrewer,UniversityofArizona

KateFernie,2CultureAssociates

BrunoFanini,RobertoScopigno,CNR

SimonaSimionescu,ARHEO

SorinHermon,CYI-STARC

MartinKuna,ARUP-CAS

NikolaosKazakis,ATHENA

AnthonyCorns,Discovery

KaiSalasRossenbach,EmmanuelleBryas,INRAP

SaraDiGiorgio,MIBAC-ICCU

MátéStibrányi,MNM-NOK

NadezhdaKecheva,NIAM-BAS

EdeltraudAspöck,ElisabethPichler,SetaStuhec,OEAW,

BenjaminŠtular,ZRC-SAZU

ARIADNED4.6FinalReportonGoodPractices

3

TableofContents

TableofContents..............................................................................................................3

1 ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................4

2 IntroductionandBackground.....................................................................................62.1 TheRoleofTask4.6withinARIADNE........................................................................................6

2.2 Background–ABriefHistoryoftheGuidestoGoodPractice..................................................6

3 SummaryofInitialReportonGoodPractices..............................................................93.1 SummaryofSurveyofGoodPractice........................................................................................9

3.2 SummaryofPracticeandAreasofExpertise............................................................................93.2.1 DigitalArchivesandRepositories...................................................................................................93.2.2 NationalDatabases.......................................................................................................................103.2.3 ExcavationandFieldSurveyData.................................................................................................103.2.4 GeophysicalSurveyData..............................................................................................................103.2.5 AerialSurveyData:Lidarandphotography..................................................................................103.2.6 3DDatasets..................................................................................................................................113.2.7 ScientificAnalysisandDating.......................................................................................................11

3.3 Objectives................................................................................................................................11

4 GuidestoGoodPractice...........................................................................................124.1 DendrochronologicalDatainArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice...................................12

4.1.1 AimsandObjectives.....................................................................................................................134.1.2 CreatingDendrochronologicalData.............................................................................................134.1.3 ArchivingDendrochronologicalData............................................................................................13

4.2 3DDatasetsinArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice..........................................................154.2.1 AimsandObjectives.....................................................................................................................154.2.2 Creating3DData..........................................................................................................................164.2.3 Archiving3DData.........................................................................................................................16

4.3 Case Study: The Dendrochronology of the Early-medieval Emporium Dorestad (theNetherlands).....................................................................................................................................18

4.4 Case Study: Selection and Retention of Files in Big Data Collections: The Example of thePergamonExcavationoftheDAIIstanbul........................................................................................20

5 FinalWork................................................................................................................225.1 RTIGuide.................................................................................................................................22

5.2 3DGuideCaseStudy...............................................................................................................22

6 Conclusions..............................................................................................................23

7 References...............................................................................................................24


4

1 ExecutiveSummaryThis document is a deliverable (D4.6 Final Report on Good Practices) of the ARIADNE project(“Advanced Research Infrastructure for Archaeological Dataset Networking in Europe”), which isfundedunder theEuropeanCommunity'sSeventhFrameworkProgramme.D4.6 isassociatedwithWP4,whichistitledGoodPracticesandDissemination,andwhichisfocussedonthedisseminationofprojectoutcomesandtoinformandcreateawidercommunityofgoodpractice.D4.6reportstheresultsofTask4.6.

ThistaskisinspiredbythesuccessfulseriespublishedbytheArchaeologyDataService(ADS)intheUK in collaboration with Digital Antiquity in the United States. It concerns the preparation andpublication of a series of guides aimed at non-IT-specialist archaeological researchers, explaininghowtoorganisedifferentaspectsofarchaeologicalactivityanddocumentationtoensurethe longtermsustainabilityandre-useofarchaeologicaldata,therebymakingthebestuseoftheARIADNEInfrastructure. Archaeological real-life examples illustrate and demonstrate applications. TheexistingGuidesdefinedataandmetadatastandardscoveringthedepositofdata.WithinARIADNE,theGuideshavebeenextendedtoincorporatearangeofEuropeancasestudiesandtoencompassarangeofnewdatatypeswithwhichtheprojectpartnershavespecificexpertise.

The existingwiki format of the Guides lends itself to updating as a collaborative endeavour by anumber of ARIADNE partners. The scope of the Guides includes common data formats (text,spreadsheets,sound,video)aswellasmorediscipline-dependantformatsincludingGIS,geophysics,3Dphotogrammetryandlaserscanning.

Areas of contribution to the Guides have been previously identified through a survey of GoodPracticescarriedout inTask4.5andreported inD4.4 InitialReportonGoodPractices.Thesurveyinvolved the identification, assessmentanddefinitionof goodpractices in archaeological researchactivities,potentiallyaffectingtheuseoftheARIADNEresearchinfrastructure,including:

• Surveyofcurrentgoodpracticesrelatedtotheuseofexistinginfrastructures• Assessment,adaptationandcustomisationofsuchpractices• Guidanceonapplications,includingexamples• Referenceinformation.

Withintheseareas,particularthemeswereexplored,including:

• GIS,archaeologicalprospectionandrelateddatasets• Scientificdataorganisationandrelateddatasets• Applicationsofvisualisationtechnologiesinarchaeologyandrelateddatasets• Semanticsandmetadata.

D4.4describedandassessedthenatureofgoodpractice inusebythecontent-providingARIADNEpartners,andlistedpotentialareasofcontributiontotheGuidestoGoodPracticebythesepartners.


5

The contributions identified in D4.4 have formed the basis for work carried out under Task 4.6,GuidestoGoodPractice,andreportedinthisdeliverable,D4.6.ThesurveyoftheARIADNEcontent-providingpartnershighlightedadiverse rangeofguidanceandGoodPractice. SuchGoodPracticeusually takes the formof guidance documents,which reflect the partner’s areas of expertise andfunction,andrangefrom:

• Broadguidelinesondataandreportstructuresandthestructureofnationaldatabases• Guidelinesandrecommendationsforexcavationandfieldwork• Guidelinesforspecificsurvey(e.g.lidar)ordatasettypes(e.g.3Dordatingtechniques)

In some cases these guidelines have tied intowider guidance (e.g. CIDOC CRM) or good practiceprojects such as ArchaeoLandscapes or 3D-ICONS. D4.4 identified five broad themes that haveformedthebasisfortheworkontheGuidestoGoodPracticecarriedoutunderTask4.6,theseareasofcontributionare:

• Thealignmentwith,andreferencingof,existingGoodPracticedocuments• The creation of case studies illustrating the application of Good Practice documents to

specificdatasetsforwhichnogoodpracticecurrentlyexists• The referencingand incorporationofguidelines currentlyunderproduction through the

ArchaeoLandscapesand3D-ICONSprojectsintoexistingguidelinesandtheillustrationoftheseguidelinesthroughrelevantcasestudies

• Therevision,creationorenhancementofguidelinesfor3Ddatasets• The creation of guidelines for data from scientific dating and analysis, specifically

dendrochronologicaldatasets.


6

2 IntroductionandBackground

2.1 TheRoleofTask4.6withinARIADNE

WP4GoodPracticesandDisseminationcombinesthetasksrequiredforcommunicatinginformationabout the ARIADNE project with the work on Good Practices. These areas have been combinedbecause it is not only important to understand the nature of Good Practices for and within thenetwork,buttoalsomakethatinformationfreelyavailabletothedomain.Task4.6buildsupontheresultsofTask4.5(GoodPractices),asreportedinD4.4:InitialReportonGoodPractices.AsummaryoftheoutcomesofD4.4ispresentedinSection4ofthisdocument(below).

The focus of Task 4.6 is on the preparation and publication of a number of newGuides toGoodPractice1 aimed at non-IT-specialist archaeological researchers. These Guides explain how toorganise different aspects of archaeological activity and documentation to maximise theopportunities for preservation and re-use within the ARIADNE Infrastructure. Content-providingpartners within the ARIADNE project have contributed to the existing, formal Guides to GoodPractice(thehistoryofwhichisdetailedbelow)allowingtheGuidestobeexpandedaccordingtothepartner’s areas of expertise and ensuring that European approaches to Good Practice are betterrepresented.TheGuidesdefinedataandmetadatastandardsforthedepositionanddocumentationof data and cover common data formats (text, spreadsheets, sound, video) as well as morediscipline-dependentformatsincludingGIS,geophysics,3Dphotogrammetryandlaserscanning.Theexisting wiki format of the Guides has lent itself to updating as a collaborative endeavour by anumberofpartners.

ThesecontributionswillfurtheraidarchaeologicalresearcherswithexpandedandupdatedsectionswithintheexistingGuidestoGoodPractice,takingintoaccountEuropeanpractice,andfurthercasestudies highlighting European examples. This represents another important resource andcontributiontothedomainfromtheARIADNEprojectasawhole.

2.2 Background–ABriefHistoryoftheGuidestoGoodPractice

This section highlights the history of work undertaken by the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) toproduce a set of Guides to Good Practice focussed on documenting and preserving data createdthrougharchaeologicalresearch.ThisinformationhasbeenpreviouslyoutlinedinD4.4.

Inaddition to its core roleasadigitalarchive,ADSalsohasa responsibility topromotestandardsand provide guidance in best practice in the creation, description, preservation and use ofarchaeologicalinformationandtechnicaladvicetotheresearchcommunity.In1998itpublishedthefirsttwopublicationsinaseriesofGuidestoGoodPracticecoveringAerialPhotographyandRemoteSensing Data andGIS. Subsequently, four guides looking at excavation and geophysical datasets,CAD,andvirtualrealitywerepublishedbetween1998-2002andalldrewtogetherkeyauthorsandcontributorstoproducewidelyrelevantguidanceinapplyingrecognisedstandardsforthecreation,preservation, and re-use of digital resources. The original guides sat within a much larger cross-disciplinary series of Guides to Good Practice published by the Arts and Humanities Data Service


7

(AHDS)2, of which the ADS was then part. These guides have become widely used, cited, andendorsed by a number of key archaeological bodies in theUK including English Heritage and theCouncilforBritishArchaeology.

In2006ADSundertooktheBigDataProject3,fundedbyEnglishHeritage,tolookspecificallyatthepractical issues raised in storing and disseminating large 3D datasets through three case studiescoveringmarinesurvey,laserscanning,andLidardata.Theprojectincludedadataauditalongsideaquestionnaire survey and workshop aimed at 'big data' creators and produced a final reportprovidingguidanceintermsofbothpolicyandpracticeforcreating,storing,andaccessing'bigdata'.The project report also provided a key set of recommendations4 for future research which haveinformedsubsequentGuidestoGoodPracticeprojects.

Additionally,ADSinvolvementinthe2006-9FP6VENUSproject5alsolookedatthepreservationoflarge,complexmarinesurveydatasetsandthekeyrolethatdataselectionplaysinproducingrobustand reusabledigital archives.While theVENUSproject aimed todevelop scientificmethodologiesand tools for the virtual explorationof underwater sites, theADS role focussedon the long termpreservation of the project's digital outputs and resulted in the publication of a VENUSGuide toGood Practice6 alongside an exemplar digital archive7. As with the Big Data Project, the VENUSprojectmadeasignificantcontributiontothesubsequentrevisionandexpansionof theGuidestoGoodPracticethroughthedevelopmentofelementsoftheVENUSguideintoanewgeneralguidelookingatmarinesurveydata8.

In 2009, andwith the support from theAndrewMellon Foundation, theADSbeganworkingwithDigitalAntiquity (tDAR)partners in theUnitedStatesat theUniversityofArkansasandatArizonaState University on a collaborative project to revise and extend the previous series of guides. Inadditiontoupdatingthecontentfromtheoriginalsixguides,thenewprojectcoveredmarinesurvey–buildingon theVENUSprojectguide–and terrestrial remote sensing,aswellas laser scanning9and close range photogrammetry10. A key element of the new project was the integration andrestructuring of existing guidance so that common generic sections from the old guides werecombinedwithnewmaterialtoformnew'guide-wide'sectionscoveringelementssuchasarchivalstrategies,projectlevelmetadata,copyrightandarchivedeposition.

Themergingandrestructuringprocess,asidefromensuringahomogenousandcomprehensivesetof new guidelines, also allowed an integrated workflow structure, with greater linking betweencommonthemesandelementsbetweeneachguideordatatype.Theideaofa‘completeworkflow’also allowed easy identification and variation of specific parts of the new guidelines, such asrequired deposit formats andmetadata, to fit with the requirements of both the ADS and tDARrepositories.Toallowfuturecommunityupdating,theGuideswerealsotransferredtoawikiformat.

Moreover,thecurrentGuidesalsoincorporateandreviseanumberofexistingADSprojectreportsandworkingdocuments.ResultsandreportsfromprojectssuchastheBigDataProject(lookingatlargedatasetssuchas3Dandsurveydata)andtheVENUSproject(focussedonmarinesurveydata)haveprovidedstudiesofnewtypesofdata,often fromoutside theUK,uponwhichguidanceandprocedureshavebeencreated.The revisionof theGuideshasalsoallowedthe incorporationofanumber of internal ADS 'data procedure' documents thereby incorporating into the guides ingest


8

and archiving procedures of what could be considered ‘core’ or common file types such as textdocuments,spreadsheets,databases,images,digitalaudioanddigitalvideo.

As well asmore formal revision of procedures, the ACE ('Archaeology in Contemporary Europe'')project provided a number of placements during 2012which allowed students and professionalsfromSweden,Greece,France,theNetherlands,andPolandtovisittheADSandreceivetraining indigital archiving.Akey componentof thebursarywas theapplicationby theplacementholderofADS archiving procedures (specifically the Guides) to a dataset from their parent institution. Theprocess of applying ADS archiving procedures to a familiar dataset allowed the bursary holder tofamiliarisethemselveswiththearchivingprocedurewhilealsohighlightingtheapplicabilityofADSprocedures to data outside of their usual geographic remit. This process proved to be valuableexercise and a number of case studieswere produced and incorporated into theGuides toGoodPractice11.


9

3 SummaryofInitialReportonGoodPracticesThissectionprovidesasummaryoftheworkpresentedinD4.4InitialReportonGoodPractices.

Task4.5(GoodPractices),asreportedinD4.4,aimedtosurveyandunderstandthenatureofGoodPractices currently in use by the content-providing ARIADNE partners. This in turn aidsunderstanding as to how archaeological data is created, used and stored by the partners, andinforms theway thisdata canbestbe incorporated into theARIADNE infrastructure.Additionally,the survey has allowed the ARIADNE project to make an important assessment of howarchaeologicaldata ishandledacrossEurope in termsofbestpractice.While theassessmentwaslimited to the partners providing data to ARIADNE, and cannot be considered comprehensive, itformedastartingpointfromwhichgeneraldifferencesandsimilaritiesofpracticeweredefinedandreported.

3.1 SummaryofSurveyofGoodPractice

ThesurveyofGoodPracticesinitiallyconsistedofcompilingindividualreports,organisedbypartnerorganisation, outlining specific areas of expertise and good practice work, proposed areas ofcontributiontoTask4.6,andareaswhereindividualorganisationsfeltthattheywouldbenefitfromgoodpracticedocumentsandprocedures.

Each report from the survey provides a brief description and history of the organisation beforedetailing current areas of expertise, available guidelines, and good practice. These elements,alongsideproposedareasof contributionandareaswhere they feeldevelopment is required, aresummarisedatthestartofthereport.ThemajorthemesthatemergefromtheseindividualreportsaresubsequentlysummarisedanddiscussedinSection3ofD4.4.Section4thenproceedstoallocatethesethemestodiscreteareasofcontributionforTask4.6GuidestoGoodPractice.

Thesurvey foundthat,whileanumberofpartnerorganisationssuchasADS,DAI,andDANShavedeveloped generic good practice guides on file formats and metadata standards to inform thepreservationandfuturere-useofarchaeologicaldata,forotherpartners‘bestpractice’reflectstheirproceduresforundertakingspecificareasofarchaeological fieldworkorresearch,orsimplyreflectthedesignofrecordingsystemssuchasdatabases.

3.2 SummaryofPracticeandAreasofExpertise

Thesurvey identifiedsevenmajor themes in termsofpracticeandareasofexpertise.ThethemesprovidethebackgroundforpartnercontributionstotheGuidestoGoodPractice(Task4.6).ThesespecificareasofcontributionareoutlinedinthesubsequentObjectivessection.

3.2.1 DigitalArchivesandRepositories

ThesurveyidentifiedthatallARIADNEpartnerorganisationscollectandstoredigitaldataatavarietyoflevelsandthatsomepartnersactivelyresearch,publish,andpromoteguidelinesandbestpractice


10

documents for the digital preservation of archaeological datasets. The general focus of theseorganisations in terms of expertise is on ingestion, storage, preservation, and dissemination ofarchaeological data and incorporates consideration of file formats for preservation anddissemination, and metadata specifications. It was identified that a number of previous jointprojects,alongsideahistoryofclosecollaboration,haveresultedinalevelofcooperationbetweenorganisationsinthedevelopmentofguidelines.

3.2.2 NationalDatabases

Most, if not all, ARIADNEpartners involved in Task 4.4 host,maintain, or populate some formofnational archaeological or cultural heritage database. These databases vary in both scale andcontent from national fieldwork and museum databases to smaller regional or type-specificdatabases and repositories. While not guidelines themselves, these large databases exist asstructured systems for storing data and implicitly promote a way of recording information.Additionally, these databases vary both in terms of functionality and access with some systemsmoving beyond simply recording records of archaeologicalwork to include associated documentsandfiles.

3.2.3 ExcavationandFieldSurveyData

Fulldatasetsresultingfromfieldworkandmeasuredsurveysarestoredbyanumberoforganisationsseparately to any centralised record or report. For some organisations there is a ‘closed loop’relationship between those who create these data and those who store the resulting datasetsresulting in little to no conflict between the type of data being created and the ability of thatorganisationtostoreandaccessit.Insuchcases,bestpracticedocumentsandguidelinesarehighlyspecific to theworkundertakenby theorganisationwhereasorganisationswhodonotundertakefieldworknecessarilyhaveabroaderrangeofguidelineswhichaimtocovermostpossibilities.

3.2.4 GeophysicalSurveyData

Geophysical survey datawas highlighted as both an area of expertise for somepartners and onethat,forothers,requiresthedevelopmentofmoreguidance.Aswithexcavationdatasets,ARIADNEpartnerorganisationsare involvedwithgeophysicaldataatavarietyof levelsfromthecreationofgeophysicaldatasetsthroughtothearchivingandstorage.

3.2.5 AerialSurveyData:Lidarandphotography

Aerial surveydatawasalsohighlightedasanareaofbothexpertiseandone for furtherguidancedevelopment. New digital techniques and capture methods have introduced various new issuesalongsidenewapplications.Anumberofpartnerswere identifiedasbeingactively involved inthecaptureofaerial surveydatawhileothersare focussedmoreon thestorageanddisseminationofsuchdatasets.


11

3.2.6 3DDatasets

A number of ARIADNE partners were identified as having expertise in 3D datasets or a need forfurther development of guidance for this type of data, taken here to primarily include datasetsresultingfromtechniquessuchasterrestrial laserscanningandphotogrammetryalongsidemodelsandvisualisationsderivedfromanumberofacquisitionmethods.Arangeofexpertisewasidentifiedcovering the complete lifecycleof3Ddata fromcreation toarchivingPartner involvement rangedfromtheacquisitionof3Ddatainthefieldthroughtodevelopingrepositoryandresearchplatformsfordatastorage,disseminationanddocumentation.Partnersarealsoinvolvedintheproductionofguidelinesforthecreation,documentation,andpreservationof3Ddatasets.

3.2.7 ScientificAnalysisandDating

A number of partner organisations expressed an interest in developing and sharing best practicewith regard to scientific techniques and dating methods including the development of adendrochronologyguide. Inaddition,experienceinarangeofscientifictechniquesfortheanalysisanddatingofarchaeologicalmaterialwashighlighted.

3.3 Objectives

Fromtheseventhemes identifiedduringTask4.5,D4.4establishedfiveareasofworktoformthebasisforthecontributionstotheGuidestoGoodPractice.Thesefiveareasofwork,describedinfullin D4.4, form the objectives of Task 4.6. These specific objectives do notmatch on a one-to-onebasiswith the seven themesdiscussed in theprevious sectionand theproductionof case studiesandalignmentofexistingguidelinesisplannedtooccuroveranumberofthemedareas.

ThespecificobjectivesassociatedwithTask4.6GuidestoGoodPracticeare:

• ThealignmentandreferencingbetweenexistingGoodPracticedocuments• The development of case studies applying relevant areas of existing Good Practice

documentstospecificdatasetsheldbyARIADNEpartners.• Thealignmentandreferencingof forthcomingGoodPracticedocuments,specificallythose

beingcreatedundertheArchaeoLandscapesand3D-ICONSprojects.• Thedevelopmentofexisting3Dguidelines–eitherthroughcasestudiesortheextensionof

existingdocuments–focussedonthepreservation,dissemination,anddocumentationof3Dmodelsandvisualisations.

• ProductionofanewdendrochronologyguideledbyDANS.

TheseareasofworkaredescribedinmoredetailinSection4ofD4.4.


12

4 GuidestoGoodPracticeThis section provides an overview of the individual Guides to Good Practice and case studiesproducedbyTask4.6inlinewiththepreviouslydescribedObjectives.

4.1 Dendrochronological Data in Archaeology: A Guide to GoodPractice

The guide Dendrochronological Data in Archaeology: A Guide to Good Practice12 has beencontributedbyDANS and authoredby Prof. Esther Jansma (CulturalHeritageAgency andUtrechtUniversity, The Netherlands) and Peter Brewer (Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University ofArizona).TheguidewaspublishedonlineinJune2015andwaslaterupdatedwiththeadditionofacasestudy(describedbelow)inJune2016.Theguideaddressestheneedtoprovideguidancefortheproduction,documentation,andstorageofdendrochronologicaldatasetsandincorporatesexistinggoodpracticedevelopedbyorganisationsintheNetherlandsandtheUnitedStates,specificallytheTreeRingDataStandard(TRiDaS).

Figure1.ScreenshotoftheguideDendrochronologicalDatainArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice


13

4.1.1 AimsandObjectives

The guide serves as a good-practice guide for the collection and archivingof dendrochronologicaldata in the context of archaeological and historical research. The guide is aimed at both thosecreating dendrochronological datasets, and those that commission dendrochronological analyses.The guidedoesnot cover themethods involved in dendrochronological analyses, but focusses onhow to describe and archive the data andmetadata involved in these analyses. The guide brieflydescribes the application of dendrochronology within an archaeological context and providesspecific examples and use cases. The guide then outlines the relationship between data andmetadatawithindendrochronologicalanalysis.

4.1.2 CreatingDendrochronologicalData

Section 2 of the guide describes the project planning and requirements relevant todendrochronological datasets including references to national guidelines for dendrochronologicalanalyses. This section provides an overview of data formats currently in use by thedendrochronological community, recommended file naming conventions, and data structures.DocumentationandmetadatausedwhilecreatingdataisalsodiscussedandtheTRiDaSdatamodelisintroduced(Figure2)

Figure2.TheTRiDaSdatamodel.

4.1.3 ArchivingDendrochronologicalData

Section 3 of the guide is focussed on archiving dendrochronological data and discusses the keyelementsofdataselection,fileformats,anddocumentationandmetadata.Thissectionprovidesawide overview of file formats currently in use for the storage of dendrochronological data and


14

describestheirsuitability forstoringdataalongsideaTRiDaSmetadata file.Additionally, theguidegoesontodiscussdataconversionandtheTRYCYCLEdataconversiontool.

The TRiDaS data model is discussed in detail in this section and metadata fields are listed anddefined along with guidelines on their implementation and use. The guide then briefly discussescopyright and IPR considerations specific to dendrochronological datasets. A case study is thenpresentedinSection5(seebelow,section5.3).


15

4.2 3DDatasetsinArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice

Theguide3DDatasetsinArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice13hasbeencontributedprimarilybyDAI in collaboration with ADS and DANS and authored byMartina Trognitz (IANUS, DAI), KieronNiven(ADS),andValentijnGilissen(DANS).TheguideislargelybasedonaGermanguideproducedbyIANUSin2014andwaspublishedonlineintheGuidestoGoodPracticeinAugust2016.Theguidewillbelaterupdatedwiththeadditionofacasestudyduringwinter2016.The3Dguideaddressesthe need to provide guidance for the production, documentation, and storage of 3D datasets,specifically3Dmodels,and isdesigned tocomplementandalignwithexistingGuides focussedondata creation and digitisation, specifically those on Laser Scanning, Photogrammetry, CAD, andStructuredLightScanning.Additionally,the3Dguidealsoincorporatesandalignswithexistinggoodpractice guides developed by the 3D-ICONS project14 and refers heavily to this project’s work ondatacreationpipelines.

Figure3.3DDatasetsinArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice

4.2.1 AimsandObjectives

The 3D guide aims to ‘fill a gap’ in existing technique-specific guidelines (laser scanning orphotogrammetry) by focussing specifically on the preservation and documentation of 3Dmodels.Suchmodelsareusuallyproducedtowardstheendofadataacquisitionandprocessingworkflow(or“pipeline”, as described by the 3D-ICONS guidelines), the start of which can be any number or


16

digitisationordataacquisitiontechniques.Whilethepreservationanddocumentationofdatafromthese specific techniques is covered inother individual guides, in situationswhere techniquesarecombined,orwheredataisincorporatedfromothersources,thearchivingoffinal3Dmodelscanbecomplicated.The3Dguidethusdealswiththesemodelsinisolationwhilereferringtootherexistingguidesforcontextwithinwiderworkflows.

4.2.2 Creating3DData

Due to the complexity often involved in the creation and documentation of 3D data, the guideprovidesanoverviewofprojectplanningandrequirementsanddiscussesspecificallytheprinciplesset forward in the London Charter15 regarding the creation ofwell-documented and intellectuallyrigorouscomputer-basedvisualisations.

Sourcesof3Ddata,suchaslaserscanningorimage-basedmodelling,arethenoutlinedalongsideadescription of themain types ofmodel geometry (point clouds,meshes, NURBS, etc.), significantproperties,andcharacteristics.Thissectionoftheguidealsodescribesvarioustechniquesthatcanbeappliedtomodelcreationtogetherwithelementsthatareusedwithininteractivevirtualrealitymodels.

Figure4.ImagefromSection2.2(Figure3)ofthe3Dguideillustratingtheuseoftexturesandbumpmapping

UndertheheadingofDataCreation,theguidealsoprovidesanextensivesummaryofcommonfileformatsusedforthecreationandstorageof3Dmodels.Thissummaryincludesadescriptionoftheformatand,importantly,anindicationofwhethertheformatissuitableforlong-termdatapreservation.

4.2.3 Archiving3DData

Section3ofthe3Dguidefocussesspecificallyontheelementsneededtoensurethepreservationof3Dmodels.Theguidelistsspecificfileformatssuitablefordatapreservationanddiscussesalternativeformatsforthedisseminationofsuchdata.Metadataanddocumentationrequirements


17

arediscussedinthesubsequentsectionandaproposedsetofmetadataelementsspecificto3Dmodels,tobeusedinconjunctiontometadatasetsdescribedinrelatedGuides,areoutlined.Inaddition,broaderdevelopmentsinregardtospecificmetadatasetsfor3DdataarehighlightedsuchastheCARARE2andCRMdigschemas.


18

4.3 Case Study: The Dendrochronology of the Early-medievalEmporiumDorestad(theNetherlands)

ThecasestudyTheDendrochronologyoftheEarly-medievalEmporiumDorestad(theNetherlands)16hasbeencontributedbyDANSandauthoredbyProf.EstherJansma(CulturalHeritageAgencyandUtrecht University, the Netherlands). The case studywas published online in June 2016 andwasadded as Section 5 to the existing dendrochronology guide. The case study provides a real-worldworkedexampleof the reanalysis of dendrochronological datausing theTreeRingData Standard(TRiDaS)andassociatedtools.

Figure5.Casestudy:TheDendrochronologyoftheEarly-medievalEmporiumDorestad(theNetherlands)

The case study describes the four elements of work undertaken in order to reassess thedendrochronologicalpotentialoftheearly-medieval‘Emporium’ofDorestadintheNetherlands.Thefirstelementconsistedofanalysingasubsetofuninvestigatedoaktimbersandreanalysingavailabledatainordertoincreasethechronologicalresolutionforthissite.ThisworkdemonstratestheuseoftheTRiDaBASEdatabasetooltoexportmetadatatotheonlineDCCDrepository.


19

Thesecondelementofworkfocussedoncreatinganinventoryofwoodfindsandresultsinordertofacilitatereanalysesandnewresearch.Again,thiselementhighlightstheuseoftheTRiDaBASEtooltoimportandenhancemetadataandtoexportittoasingleformat.

Thethirdelementofworkdiscussedinthecasestudylookstocomparedendrochronologicaldatatootherearly-medievaldatasets.Thiswork involved,amongotherelements,digitisingmeasurementseriesandresearchreports,andreformattingdigitalmeasurementfiles.AssociatedmetadatawereimprovedandexpandedaccordingtothefieldsdefinedbyTRiDaSusingTRiDaBASE.

The final element discussed in the case study focussed on the storing and unlocking new resultsusing the DCCD repository in order to facilitate more follow-up research. The case study brieflydiscussesthetwomainapproachedtoenteringdataintotheDCCDrepositoryandtheirimplicationsintermsofworkrequiredandonaccuracyofresults.


20

4.4 Case Study: Selection and Retention of Files in Big DataCollections:TheExampleofthePergamonExcavationoftheDAIIstanbul

ThecasestudySelectionandRetentionofFilesinBigDataCollections:TheExampleofthePergamonExcavationoftheDAIIstanbul17hasbeencontributedprimarilybyDAIandauthoredbyFelixSchäfer(DAI).ThecasestudywaspublishedonlineintheGuidestoGoodPracticeinAugust2013.Thecasestudy looks at ‘big data collections’ created through long, multi-phased and multi-disciplinaryprocessesofgenerating,transformingandfinalizingdata.Suchdatasets,whilelargeinthemselves,also require storage of files atmultiple levels coveringmultiple phases, file formats, applications,andstages.Thecasestudyaddressestwobasicquestions:theselectionofdatafromlargedatasets,andthebestwaytodocumentsuchdatasetssothattheprocesses,relationships,anddependenciescanbeeasilyunderstood.

Figure6.CaseStudy:SelectionandRetentionofFilesinBigDataCollections:TheExampleofthePergamonExcavationoftheDAIIstanbul


21

In order to address these questions, the case study uses excavation data from theDAI project atPergamontogetherwiththeGuidestoGoodPracticesectionsonDataSelection,Photogrammetry,andLaserScanningasthetheoreticalbasis.

Thecasestudyfirstdescribesthedocumentationprocessandworkflowfortheproductionofdataatdifferent stagesof theexcavation.Thisprocess includes the initial creationofdigital images, theirsubsequentconversion,andstorageinahierarchicalfoldersystem(figure7).

Figure7.ThefoldersystemusedtostoreprojectdataforthePergamonExcavation.

Subsequent steps are then described in terms of the data they generate and the documentationproduced.Thesesteps includethecollectionofsurveypointdata,georeferencingandrectificationofimages,andtheprocessingoffilesinCADsoftware.

Thecasestudy,afterdescribingthedatacreationprocess,thenexaminestheentiredatasetintermsof file formats and their suitability for preservation (or conversion to preservation formats). Thisanalysis is thenexpandedonthroughadetailedstep-by-stepanalysisof thedatacreationprocesswithinagainstfourmaincriteriafordataselection.

Oncethemaindatatypesforpreservationhavebeenidentified,thecasestudythenexaminesthemetadataanddocumentationrequired inordertounderstandnot justthe individual filesbutalsotheentireworkflowprocess,includingtheinterdependenciesofdifferentfiletypes,theimplicationsformanagementoffoldersandfiles,andinformationaboutthedecisionsregardingwhichfilesarearchived,whicharedisseminated,andwhicharenot.


22

5 FinalWorkInadditiontotheGuidesandcasestudiesdescribedinsection5ofthisreport,oneguideandoneadditional case studyareplanned for completionprior to January2017. These contributionshavenot been reported in full in this report due to the timing of this deliverable but are brieflysummarisedbelow.TheseadditionalcontributionswillbemadeavailablefromtheGuidestoGoodPracticewebsiteasandwhentheyarecompleted.

5.1 RTIGuide

A guide focussed on the preservation and documentation of Reflectance Transformation Imaging(RTI) datasets is currently in draft form. This guide has been contributed primarily by ADS withcontributionsfromDAI.TheRTIguideaddressestheneedtoprovidepreservationguidanceforwhatisbecominganincreasinglypopulartechniqueforthecreationofinteractiveRTI‘images’.Theguideincorporates current guidelines for data acquisition andprocessing producedby CulturalHeritageImaging(CHI)andHistoricEnglandandnaturallyextendsthistoincludedataselection,preservationanddocumentationconsiderations.Theguidewillalsoreferenceandincorporateelements,wherepossible, of the recently produced DAI guidelines for RTI datasets (currently only available inGerman).

5.2 3DGuideCaseStudy

Acasestudyfortheguide3DDatasetsinArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice isalsoplannedtobeaddedtotheGuides.Thecasestudyis intendedtocomplementtheexistingguidelinesthroughthe illustration of data creation processes, data selection, and the creation of metadata anddocumentationusingarealworlddataset.


23

6 ConclusionsTheinitialsurveyofARIADNEpartnerorganisationscarriedoutasTask4.5highlightedtheexistenceofavarietyofguidanceandGoodPracticedocuments.Thesedocuments reflectabroad rangeofexpertiseandfunctionwhilealsohighlightinganumberofspecific themeswhichhaveformedtheobjectives for work to be carried out under Task 4.6Guides to Good Practice. The objectives, asoutlinedinsection4.3ofthisreport,included:

• ThealignmentandreferencingofexistingGoodPracticedocuments.• The creation of case studies illustrating the application of Good Practice documents to

specificdatasetsforwhichnogoodpracticecurrentlyexists.• The referencing and incorporation of guidelines currently under production through the

ArchaeoLandscapes and 3D-ICONS projects into existing guidelines and the illustration oftheseguidelinesthroughrelevantcasestudies.

• Therevision,creationorenhancementofguidelinesfor3Ddatasets.• The creation of guidelines for data from scientific dating and analysis, specifically

dendrochronologicaldatasets.

Inconclusion,Tasks4.5and4.6havesuccessfullymettheseobjectivesandhaveproducedanumberof new and much-needed guidelines which individually incorporate one of more of the areasidentifiedforcontribution.Thenewguidesandcasestudieshavesuccessfullyincorporatedexistingmaterial and guidelines from a wide range of sources, ranging from the outputs of othercollaborative projects such as 3D-ICONS through to organisation-specific guidelines produced byproject partners such as DAI and DANS. Additionally, case studies have been used both withinindividualguidesandasstand-alonecontributions,tosuccessfully illustratetheapplicationofdataselection,archiving,anddocumentationprocedurestoreal-worlddatasets.Whenviewedtogether,theoutputsofTask4.5and4.6highlighting that,while language,procedure,and thearchaeologyitselfmayvarywidelybetweencountriesand institutions, thedatathatarises fromarchaeologicalinvestigationsandprojects,irrespectiveofgeography,sharecommonelementsthatallowguidesforgoodpracticetobecommonlydevelopedandwidelyapplicable.


24

7 References

1”GuidestoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService/DigitalAntiquity,2011(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk)2“ArtsandHumanitiesDataService”(http://www.ahds.ac.uk/)3“PreservationandManagementStrategiesforExceptionallyLargeDataFormats:'BigData'”,ArchaeologyDataService,2007(http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/research/bigData)4“Fromquestionstoanswers:outcomesfromthe'bigdata'project”,TonyAustin,JennyMitcham,JulianD.Richards,2010(http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/volltexte/2010/497)5“VENUS:VirtualExploratioNofUnderwaterSites”,ArchaeologyDataService,(http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/research/venus)6“MarineRemoteSensingandPhotogrammetry:AGuidetoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService,TonyAustin,JonathanBateman,StuartJeffrey,JenMitcham,KieronNiven,(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/VENUS_Toc)7“VENUS:VirtualExploratioNofUnderwaterSites:Port-MiouCwreck,Marseille”,ArchaeologyDataService,PierreDrap,2009(http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1000004)8“MarineSurvey:AGuidetoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService,KieronNiven,2011(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/RSMarine_Toc)9“LaserScanningforArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService,AngiePayne,2011(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/LaserScan_Toc)10“Close-RangePhotogrammetry:AGuidetoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService,AdamBarnes,2011(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/Photogram_Toc)11“GuidestoGoodPractice:CaseStudies”,ArchaeologyDataService(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/CS_CaseStudiesToc)12“DendrochronologicalDatainArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService,EstherJansma&PeterBrewer,2015(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/Dendro_Toc)13“3DDatasetsinArchaeology:AGuidetoGoodPractice”,ArchaeologyDataService,MartinaTrognitz,KieronNiven,ValentijnGilissen,2016(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/3d_Toc)14“Guidelines”,3D-ICONS,2014(http://3dicons-project.eu/eng/Guidelines-Case-Studies/Guidelines2)15“TheLondonCharter”,2009(http://www.londoncharter.org/)16“Casestudy:TheDendrochronologyoftheEarly-medievalEmporiumDorestad(theNetherlands)”,ArchaeologyDataService,EstherJansma,2016(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/Dendro_CS)17“SelectionandRetentionofFilesinBigDataCollections:TheExampleofthePergamonExcavationoftheDAIIstanbul”,ArchaeologyDataService,FelixF.Schäfer,2013(http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/CS_ARIADNE-DAI-Schafer)

Data & Analytics

Ariadne: Final Report on Good Practices