Disussion of readings for session 5: 3D modelling

[gabrielbodard]

Please discuss these two readings in this thread:

• Valeria Vitale. 2016. “Transparent, Multivocal, Cross-disciplinary: The Use of Linked Open Data and a Community-developed RDF Ontology to Document and Enrich 3D Visualisation for Cultural Heritage.” In: Bodard/Romanello, Digital Classics Outside the Echo-Chamber: Teaching, Knowledge Exchange & Public Engagement. Pp. 147–168. London: Ubiquity Press. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bat.i
• Opitz, Rachel S., & Johnson, Tyler D. 2016. “Interpretation at the controller’s edge: Designing graphical user interfaces for the digital publication of the excavations at Gabii (Italy).” Open Archaeology 1(1). Available: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opar.2016.2.issue-1/opar-2016-0001/opar-2016-0001.xml

[Ghilaevansky]

The Vitale article intrigued me because it explained the 3D visualisation for cultural heritage. It highlights the importance and role of technology in relation to archaeology, among other things. It was mentioned that 3D technologies are becoming more affordable and are useful in the preservation of material. However, I wish the author would have explained opaque 3D visualisations a bit more in depth and provided more examples. As someone who isn't that familiar with technological terms and this form of technology, it would have been helpful for me to have more examples to understand it better. I wonder if there will come a day where these technologies take over the industry completely. I hope there can still be aspects of traditional artefacts. Nevertheless, I think the potential of 3D imaging is immensely valuable to scholars and academics. I found it really cool how "The 3D visualisation of a Roman temple, for example, could gather information, expressed in linked data, from archaeologists interested in the material remains as well as from art historians interested in the wall paintings." The author also mentioned that 3D visualisations displayed in museums do not seem to be successful in engaging the audience because the information delivered, despite the technological novelty, is often still mono-dimensional and authoritative. What could be some solutions to this?

Something that I gathered from the Opitz article was the influence of audience engagement in museums. Interactivity is key, in any form, whether it be video, audio, searchable data sets, animations and interactive mapping. I found this part fascinating: "Dallas (2015, p.177) suggests that “archaeology appears to be once again at a crossroads, shaped by the interaction between its evolving theoretical and epistemological horizons, and the sociotechnical infrastructures informing its increasingly digital practices.” We see interface design for archaeological publications as one of these digital practices. The design of this interface represents our sociotechnical practice, our effort to balance diverse modes of engaging with the materials, and our attempt to foreground embodiment as a key element of interfaces where 3D data and models are present."

[EdenCairns]

• In this paper, Valeria Vitale creates an argument for the adoption of a 3D visualisation system using Linked Open Data and the creation or adoption of a standardised ontology or schema behind it. She starts by explaining why 3D visualisations are not used in academic research even as the technology used to create them becomes more widely available, user-friendly, and affordable. 3D visualisations are, to use her word, too “opaque to be used in formal academic research; they often lack transparency about who their authors are, the sources used to construct them, and when they were published. They can also push a narrative that there is a consensus about what a specific artifact should look like where a consensus does not exist and are often seen as objective representations when they should be viewed as individual interpretations. As a result of these factors, visualisations are difficult to use responsibly in serious academic research. Vitale continues by going over a brief history of the use of 3D visualisations in research and an attempt to create a scientific standard for their use in the London Charter, which is only partially successful. The author then suggests using Linked Open Data and the proof-of-concept ontology she has developed, SCOTCH (Semantic Collaborative Ontology for Three-dimensional visualisation of Cultural Heritage – quite a mouthful!) in order to rectify some of these issues. This choice is supported because it uses an already existing technology that has been tested, uses an understood vocabulary, and is low-cost and lightweight. It also allows for multiple authors to contribute and annotate visualisations and has already seen previous use in museums. The main downside is that no existing ontologies fit with the intended use so a new one would have to be developed and this project is too large and complicated to be done by a single researcher. Building on that, there is a worry that no single researcher should be able to develop an ontology that sets a standard without input, so it would have to be crowd-sourced. Vitale’s proof-of-concept ontology, SCOTCH, avoids using a certainty principle to denote the quality of visualisations; instead, it allows individual visual elements to be qualified by the type of source that reference them. This helps by ensuring that no sources or visualisations are discounted immediately and produces healthy debate. The use of this system and a Linked Open Data framework allows for searchable databases to be set up that encourage multidisciplinary approaches in academia. Vitale then describes the benefits of a system like this in museum/archival, education, restoration, and urban planning contexts. She then goes over some of the issues that are expected such as problems with determining authorship of models, information sharing, and assessment of authors who have, until now, been anonymous and not critiqued. There are also issues determining whether or not the academic community is willing to work together to expand the ontology necessary for the system to work and whether the technology the author has chosen is actually the most appropriate choice.

[lettychardon]

As Ghila highlights in her post, the Vitale article mentions how 3D models in museums have not been effective in drawing great interest from the public. I was thinking about why this is, and maybe it could be something as basic as presentation. Reconstructions are often just plain and white. Doing the exercise for this week, I found the model was much more interesting once I had added the images to the walls! Maybe if this was also done in museums, the models would be of greater interest...! This, however, could exacerbate the issue with authoritative discourse, presenting an even more detailed interpretation. A solution could be to offer multiple models but this of course requires time and money... It is obviously not easy to resolve or else it would not be a problem but maybe as technology advances, a solution will present itself! At least for now, it should be made very clear that reconstructions are hypothetical and it would be very beneficial to provide the sources that support the hypothesis.

[molmay]

I really enjoyed the discussion of ‘slow archaeology’ within the Opitz article, a subject that I hadn’t thought much about before. So far in this module, I have been exposed to loads of new methods of approaching classics through the digital world and the benefits they have, so I found quite interesting to get an almost opposing viewpoint regarding some of the drawbacks of technological innovation and the speed of it. I thought the focus on ‘slow archaeology’ really reflects the same anxieties that most fields and industries have regarding technological innovation, i.e. human work being replaced by the work of machines, and trying to reconcile the place and primacy of the human mind in such work. I thought this was also reflected in the lecture’s emphasis on the necessity of providing interpretation to qualify work as scholarship. I completely agree, and believe that the human element or thought and critique/reflection provides additional useful information that computers can’t yet provide, but I still found it really interesting to see how such a debate is manifesting in the world of archaeology.

[JasNewtonRae]

Opitz begins by noting that archaeological excavations are increasingly 'using various technologies to create detailed and accurate 3D models of stratigraphy and structural remains in the field'. They note that the article 'attempts to illustrate how a theoretically informed approach to designing GUIs can help mediate between “raw” Interpretation at the Controller’s Edge 3 data and the researchers who wish to interpret it, and can encourage a slower, more reflective, embodied interaction with the 3D digital versions of archaeological materials.' Opitz is concerned with the topic of 'slow' archaeology and the fact that archaeological evidence is often digitized quickly and some people believe this to cause issues. The slow approach therefore being to take more time as the data is processed and used. Opitz brings up the good point that GUIs are not tailored specifically towards the archaeological project or the archaeologist's particular needs. Opitz then argues that in order to gain a 'slower' approach the 'archaeological interface must not only provide an accurate model of the dataset in question, but also interpretations generated throughout the excavation process' whilst also being intellectually rewarding to use. Opitz then moves onto Reflective Design and Reflexive Archaeology. They argue that reflective design is a good starting point 'for creating slower, more critical user experiences with archaeological data.' Opitz also highlights the importance of sensory experiences within archaeological research. Opitz uses the Tincu house as a case study. They then give a detailed description of how their interface works.

[ellie919]

Following on from the points made above about slow, self-reflexive archaeology, I thought it was interesting that the Opitz article brought in knowledge from the video-gaming industry about embodiment and the importance of the user feeling like they are navigating the model similarly to the way in which a person might experience the actual site by using a first-person view and a slow walking pace. I had never considered that these aspects might influence interpretations of archaeological findings and had simply assumed that something more like the 'orbit' view would be ideal for surveying the whole site. The use of features such as narrative, hyperlinks, and pop-ups are also associated with entertainment purposes or a resource tailored towards public consumption, but the article highlights how, in addition to being a valuable public resource, such features can have a great influence scholarly reception of the resource. Also, it seems like subjecting digitisation processes to standardised methodologies which can conform to academic critique has been a recurring issue in the last few weeks and not just one which affects 3D modelling but digital heritage as a whole.

[Avieava]

The concept of slow archaeology was not something I have every encountered before. I found it interesting that it does not necessarily oppose the use of technology rather it calls upon us to be more thoughtful about the process of using it. I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were about digital tools in terms of potentially taking away the need for any hands on skills? Technology has made fieldwork much more simple and thus more accessible moreover it is faster meaning more land can be excavated. On the other hand I do believe it is important for critical engagement and connection with the practice - I had never considered whether the process of excavation is equal to or more important than the artefacts found what does everyone else think..?

[Dasha-Barkova]

I found an article by Valeria Vitale particularly interesting as she describes the rising issues of using 3D modeling as a research tool. Personally, I have never thought of 3D modeling being an appropriate research tool yet I liked Vitale’s description of it being a ‘representation of something for purposes of study. My guess is that because modeling is in a way an act of creation, not a mere replication it involves some subjectivity as Valeria confirms. In the case of having some absent information, it is almost natural to interpret it individually. Valeria refers to it as «a continuous process of decision making and subjective interpretation».

Valeria makes a statement that seemed particularly interesting to me: “In these contexts, 3D visualizations are often used as communication (if not entertainment) tool, meant more to appeal the public for their technological and/or aesthetic value than to add anything to the knowledge or investigation of the artifacts represented.” As a non-digital classicist (yet) I realized that this is quite true for me. I could see 3D technology being used by archeologists or in re-constructions but for a general public experiencing it only as entertainment, this must be surely a strange shift.

Using technology as a way o re-imagine historical objects wasn’t something that I think about first thing when I hear «3D modeling». 3D environment indeed offers a lot to a viewer and it would be particularly interesting if some kind of interaction could be used, like a VR experience. I always think of the multi-disciplinary exhibition in VA «Alice in Wonderland», where you wander through different objects like historical artifacts, drawings, photography, installation, and VR. VR game was offered to the public where you could play golf with hedge-hocks as characters did in a book. As an artist myself I can see this connection of technology and history, one can compliment another creating more desire to learn for the general public. It would be particularly interesting to see some 3d models used in the National History Museum as it would add more dimension to the viewer and transform the perception of classical collections.