Landscape Data Art & Models as Linked Open Data

A free event on Linked Open Data and related Digital Humanities Projects will be taking place on 27 July.

Landscape Data Art & Models as Linked Open Data

The HIVE, (inside John Curtin Gallery) | Building 200A, Curtin University | Kent Street, Bentley | Perth, WA 6102 | Australia

Friday, 27 July 2018 from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm (Australian Western Standard Time)

Venue: The HIVE (inside John Curtin Gallery), Curtin University

Speakers (alphabetical order, program later), with provisional title and topic

Please note, if you do not know what RDF (Resource Description Framework), Semantic Web, or Linked Open Data is, we will have an intro workshop on this (and current Digital Humanities projects including Virtual Reality) in the Curtin Library Makerspace, Level 5, 3-4:30PM 26 July 2018. The working title is Linked Reality, Mixed Reality but a link to the free workshop will be provided from this page.

The Screen Tourism VR and Cultural Heritage event will take place Monday at the HIVE, Curtin University.

It is fully booked but the programme is now:

DRAFT SCHEDULE (HIVE opens at 12:30pm)

PROGRAM SESSION 1 (Chair: Dr Tod Jones (Curtin University))

1.00–1.05pm: Welcome by Dr Tod Jones

1.05–1.40pm: Mr Ian Brodie (http://www.ianbrodie.net/)

1.40–2.00pm: Dr Christina Lee (Curtin University)

2.00–2.20pm: Professor Erik Champion (Curtin University)

2.20 – 2.45pm: Q&A

2.45–3.15pm: Coffee/tea break at Aroma Café

SESSION 2 (Chair: Erik Champion)

3.15–3.20pm: Introductions

3.20–3.40pm: Mr Mike Dunn (Phimedia)

3.40–3.50pm: Mr Mat Lewis (South West Development Commission)

3.50–4.00pm: Mr Nathan Gibbs (Screen West)

4.00–4.30pm: Q&A then sundowner (see below).

VENUE

HIVE (VR Centre), John Curtin Gallery, Kent Street, Curtin Bentley campus WA 6102

https://humanities.curtin.edu.au/research/centres-institutes-groups/hive/

Phone: (08) 9266 9024 (HIVE).
Map link https://goo.gl/maps/FZu8FaEaULt (in John Curtin Gallery opposite Aroma Café)

PARKING (https://properties.curtin.edu.au/gettingaround/parkingzones.cfm

You can pay in a visitor’s carpark (there are parks near John Curtin Gallery/the HIVE) or you can download a phone app and pay in the yellow signed curtin parks at a much cheaper rate. Closest zone is D3 off Kent St then Beazley Avenue, park as close as you can to John Curtin Library.

CANCELLATIONS

If you cannot make the event please cancel your ticket at Eventbrite as we have people on the waiting list

TEA/COFFEE

We hope to have tea or coffee provided for attendees at the nearby outside Aroma cafe during the coffee break, please bring your Eventbrite ticket number.

SUNDOWNER AFTER THE EVENT

If you would like to speak to Ian or Mike or the other speakers after the event from 4:30PM or so we hope to offer a small sundowner at the meeting space of Innovation Central, Level 2, Engineering Pavilion Building 216. More details at the event but just a note you can also find it at http://properties.curtin.edu.au/maps/

 

Landscape Data, Art/Artefacts & Models as Linked Open Data Perth, Australia

For those interested in the above, please keep Friday 27 July 2018, open for an all-day free event in Perth.

We will be inviting speakers to talk on Australia-specific cultural issues and digital (geo) projects in relation to the above event.

More details to follow shortly and announced via http://commons.pelagios.org/:

So there is an Australian working group for Pelagios – Linked Open Data. We will run an event on 27 July at Curtin. News to follow.

http://commons.pelagios.org/2018/05/its-international-workers-day-announcing-our-2018-working-groups/

Australia LAMLOD Group: led by Erik Champion (UNESCO Chair of Cultural Visualisation and Heritage, Curtin University) and Susan Fayad (City of Ballarat), this WG seeks to address the problem of linking materials between academic research and cultural heritage in an Australian context. This is not so much about extending Pelagios linked data practice to an entirely new continent, though that is important; the problem this WG seeks to address is the multi-layered and contentious representation of cultural heritage, namely: the vast scale of Australian landscapes and historic journeys; the local and highly specific Aboriginal ways of describing, navigating and experiencing the landscapes with hundreds of different languages; and the specific problem of integrating UNESCO designated built and natural heritage with its surrounding ecosystems. The LAMLOD WG will create landscape data and visualisation displays, investigate related cultural artefact knowledge (Indigenous and colonial), and build towards the integration of linked open data and 3D models.

 

abstract for CDH 2018

Centre for Digital Heritage meeting 2018:
3D archives, (re)use and Knowledge production, Lund 18–20 June 2018

Our abstract:

Integrating 3d Models and GIS for Digital Cultural Heritage

Recent advances in technology have helped make the capture and modelling of 3D digital cultural objects increasingly affordable. Ever growing numbers of cultural institutions have been digitizing their digital artefacts and sites. Regards the availability of 3D geometric modelling methods and 3D file formats, there are hundreds to choose from. However, an extremely challenging task is to identify the most appropriate 3D geometric modelling method and file format for the specific purposes of digital cultural heritage. In order to overcome those challenges, this paper first summarizes the most-common 3D geometric modelling methods such as constructive solid geometry, non-uniform rational B-splines, triangle meshes, and discusses their advantages, disadvantages and their typical application in the digital cultural heritage domain. Second, various 3D file formats are systematically analysed and discussed, with particular reference to architecture, to archaeology and to heritage studies. Third, future possibilities of 3D file formats and their potential for linking with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and geospatial databases are outlined. What are the successful exemplars but also major challenges for linking GIS, 3D models and heritage aims? Where do these modelling methods, formats, aims and disciplines converge or diverge? Would such combinations create major problems for archives?

Keywords: 3D geometric modelling, 3D file formats, 3D archives, digital cultural heritage

Ikrom Nishanbaev, Erik Champion, Hafizur Rahaman, Mafkereseb Bekele

Critical Archaeological Gaming Workshop UCLA

The Critical Archaeological Gaming Workshop was held 25-26 January at UCLA Los Angeles and I was lucky enough to be invited (at short notice). Luckily LA is only two flights for me, one via the ancestral homeland and it was a great opportunity to hear about archaeology games, digital heritage projects, and some criticism of digital (urban) history..

Speakers:

  1. Willeke Wendrich Welcome and purpose of the workshop
  2. Tara Copplestone Rethinking Archaeology Through Game Design
  3. Erik Champion The Sin of Completeness versus the Lure of Fantasy in Contested Possibility-Spaces
  4. Eddo Stern Subjectivity, creativity and polemics in historical game design

  5. Willeke Wendrich Walking through Empty Buildings, Everybody Wears the Same Shoes
  6. Rosa Tamborrino The sense of Time in Videogames: Fragments and Lack of Dynamics in Historical Environment Reconstructions
  7. Hannah Scates Kettler Jumping into the Animus: Revisiting old video games to create new ones

  8. David Fredrick Secrets in the Garden: Modeling Vulnerability and Information Exchange in the House of Octavius Quartio

To answer some people, I don’t think there will be a publication but here are links to some of the projects discussed:

In the demo session I also saw some of the things Chris Johanson (UCLA) is working on with the UCLA Romelab plus also Lynn Dodson’s VR tour of Catalina Island.. If you are near Washington DC 11-15 April 2018, Lynn is organizing a panel on Virtual Heritage Ethics at the annual meeting of SAA..(Society for American Archaeology)

Experiencing the Experience of the Past

Experiencing the Experience of the Past and

Experiencing Exhibition Portals of the Future from the Past.

[Notes on a potential future article of speculative/manifesto-oriented content, but where it fits with journals or conferences, I do not know].

Keywords: Experience, heritage, 3D models, experience of experience, Heidegger

In creating virtual heritage models and sites there is a typically recurring problem seldom discussed. In the midst of so many technical, conceptual and social problems I wish to highlight one of the most difficult, the experiencing of experiences.

Charters into digital heritage usually relate back to UNESCO’s concepts of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. And UNESCO’s concepts are predicated on the notion of communicating (local, past) cultural significance of the site: what was valuable and significant about it and how do we communicates its values?

Conversely, exhibition architecture celebrates the new, the inspiring, they act as gateway to a visionary future. How do we preserve communicate or re-establish their function and impact, as portals between past and future? They are generally forgotten and dismantled. But the experience of encountering them is never fully recorded, transmitted or preserved.

For Heidegger, the work of art (say, a Greek temple), does not just sit there, it provides a perceptual threshold through which the perceiver can suddenly encounter the shadow-furrowed outline of their past silhouetted against the blinding light of their future.

The power of the sudden vista is such that the very material of the temple (be it marble or some other shiny material) “causes it to come forth for the very first time” [PLT 46]. That is, on the edge of the bringing-forth of the work of art, one is carried away by the impression that the moment is unique: that the work is appearing before one in a way that will never quite be “caught” again.

Such an opening is not an object that is unrelated to the perceiver’s self-guided interests (as one might view the situation in terms of a Kantian disinterestedness), it is the revealing of those very same to all past theories of art and aesthetics. And in the very act of creating this realm, Heidegger claims that it might be significantly more tempting and worthwhile to the perceiver than even the phenomenal world that actually (tangibly) lies before them:

“Towering up within itself, the work opens up a world and keeps it abidingly in force…The world worlds, and is more fully in being than the tangible and perceptual realm in which we believe ourselves to be at home.” [PLT 44-45]

Can we recapture this? The problem, in other words, is how to communicate the experience, historically situated, in how people then experienced what was then fresh, new, revolutionary.

There are paintings, news clippings, sometimes audio interviews. But nothing together in an experiential gestalt that helps communicate what was new to them. Presence research does not help, it aims for a universal not situated measure of presence and immersivity. My concept of cultural presence also does not go very far, it may only apply to certain sites, and…

Do 3D models help? No, they are limited in terms of backstory, paradata (context), not experientially rich, lacking in interactivity and agency (not the same thing), no multimodality or gestalt framework (for reasons I will elaborate), and seldom have feedback. Here I will explain why the most basic elements of games, theme (fantasy, imagination), challenge (engaging difficulty), optional strategies that help develop intrinsic game-related growth and change…

But museums? Museums don’t have the time to enable the above! Well, they don’t have the freedom to allow users to develop the above (references to follow). Growth, deep understanding, all take time and reflection. The monumental, forgotten impact of old museums is disappearing…

There are examples in architecture (embodiment: Kathadaw Pagoda, caryatids; expression: Colosseum; innovation: Duomo of Florence, Hagia Sophia, Pantheon; sensory overload and uniqueness: Crystal Palace).

SO how can we relay and transmit the above?

  1. Biofeedback
  2. Paradata trails
  3. Backstory (incorporate witness and expert interviews)
  4. Historical mementos from different eras recapturing the apparent newness of the event
  5. Shareable experience indicators

References

Charitos, D. (1996). “Definining Existential Space in Virtual Environments”, Proc. Virtual Reality World 96, (Stuttgart: IDG Publications).

Heidegger, Martin, (translated by Albert Hofstadter), Poetry, Language, Thought, Harper and Row, New York 1975 [PLT]

ICOMOS, (1999).‘The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance’, http://www.icomos.org/australia/burracharter.html.

Nitsche, Michael. 2008, Video Game Spaces Image, Play, and Structure in 3D Game Worlds, MIT Press, USA.