Sharing archaeological data across national borders and between previously unconnected
systems ... more Sharing archaeological data across national borders and between previously unconnected
systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that
support sharing of archaeological research data. Ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM are an appropriate
instrument to harmonize different data structures and thereby support data exchange.
Before integrating data by mapping to ontologies it is crucial to establish where the shared meaning of the
data lies and to understand the methodology used to record the data. As the largest proportion of
archaeological data are derived from excavations or field investigations the initial focus falls on the
documentation of these “raw data”. But documentation often varies depending on country-specific guidelines,
different excavation methods and technologies, project management requirements, budget, etc. Therefore
an analysis of the different recording forms should prove helpful to identify the common meanings of
concepts and terms used in archaeological fieldwork.
This paper will show first results of research based on the collection of excavation report forms and manuals
from different countries which cover a range of fieldwork methodologies (e.g. single context recording,
palaeolithic excavations, etc.). The aim is to analyse and compare the different methodologies, the
archaeological concepts involved and the data records, perhaps for the first time on an international level.
We want to discuss the challenges of integrating different concepts, terms and vocabularies, often in
different languages, and whether problems with integrating such archaeological data could be addressed by
additional archaeological extensions to the CIDOC CRM.
Sharing archaeological data across national borders and between previously unconnected
systems ... more Sharing archaeological data across national borders and between previously unconnected
systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that
support sharing of archaeological research data. Ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM are an appropriate
instrument to harmonize different data structures and thereby support data exchange.
Before integrating data by mapping to ontologies it is crucial to establish where the shared meaning of the
data lies and to understand the methodology used to record the data. As the largest proportion of
archaeological data are derived from excavations or field investigations the initial focus falls on the
documentation of these “raw data”. But documentation often varies depending on country-specific guidelines,
different excavation methods and technologies, project management requirements, budget, etc. Therefore
an analysis of the different recording forms should prove helpful to identify the common meanings of
concepts and terms used in archaeological fieldwork.
This paper will show first results of research based on the collection of excavation report forms and manuals
from different countries which cover a range of fieldwork methodologies (e.g. single context recording,
palaeolithic excavations, etc.). The aim is to analyse and compare the different methodologies, the
archaeological concepts involved and the data records, perhaps for the first time on an international level.
We want to discuss the challenges of integrating different concepts, terms and vocabularies, often in
different languages, and whether problems with integrating such archaeological data could be addressed by
additional archaeological extensions to the CIDOC CRM.
Uploads
Papers by Anja Masur
systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that
support sharing of archaeological research data. Ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM are an appropriate
instrument to harmonize different data structures and thereby support data exchange.
Before integrating data by mapping to ontologies it is crucial to establish where the shared meaning of the
data lies and to understand the methodology used to record the data. As the largest proportion of
archaeological data are derived from excavations or field investigations the initial focus falls on the
documentation of these “raw data”. But documentation often varies depending on country-specific guidelines,
different excavation methods and technologies, project management requirements, budget, etc. Therefore
an analysis of the different recording forms should prove helpful to identify the common meanings of
concepts and terms used in archaeological fieldwork.
This paper will show first results of research based on the collection of excavation report forms and manuals
from different countries which cover a range of fieldwork methodologies (e.g. single context recording,
palaeolithic excavations, etc.). The aim is to analyse and compare the different methodologies, the
archaeological concepts involved and the data records, perhaps for the first time on an international level.
We want to discuss the challenges of integrating different concepts, terms and vocabularies, often in
different languages, and whether problems with integrating such archaeological data could be addressed by
additional archaeological extensions to the CIDOC CRM.
systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that
support sharing of archaeological research data. Ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM are an appropriate
instrument to harmonize different data structures and thereby support data exchange.
Before integrating data by mapping to ontologies it is crucial to establish where the shared meaning of the
data lies and to understand the methodology used to record the data. As the largest proportion of
archaeological data are derived from excavations or field investigations the initial focus falls on the
documentation of these “raw data”. But documentation often varies depending on country-specific guidelines,
different excavation methods and technologies, project management requirements, budget, etc. Therefore
an analysis of the different recording forms should prove helpful to identify the common meanings of
concepts and terms used in archaeological fieldwork.
This paper will show first results of research based on the collection of excavation report forms and manuals
from different countries which cover a range of fieldwork methodologies (e.g. single context recording,
palaeolithic excavations, etc.). The aim is to analyse and compare the different methodologies, the
archaeological concepts involved and the data records, perhaps for the first time on an international level.
We want to discuss the challenges of integrating different concepts, terms and vocabularies, often in
different languages, and whether problems with integrating such archaeological data could be addressed by
additional archaeological extensions to the CIDOC CRM.