将挖掘资料库内容重新用作Paradata

Lisa Börjesson, Olle Sköld, Zanna Friberg, Daniel Löwenborg, G. Pálsson, Isto Huvila
{"title":"将挖掘资料库内容重新用作Paradata","authors":"Lisa Börjesson, Olle Sköld, Zanna Friberg, Daniel Löwenborg, G. Pálsson, Isto Huvila","doi":"10.18357/kula.221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although data reusers request information about how research data was created and curated, this information is often non-existent or only briefly covered in data descriptions. The need for such contextual information is particularly critical in fields like archaeology, where old legacy data created during different time periods and through varying methodological framings and fieldwork documentation practices retains its value as an important information source. This article explores the presence of contextual information in archaeological data with a specific focus on data provenance and processing information, i.e., paradata. The purpose of the article is to identify and explicate types of paradata in field observation documentation. The method used is an explorative close reading of field data from an archaeological excavation enriched with geographical metadata. The analysis covers technical and epistemological challenges and opportunities in paradata identification, and discusses the possibility of using identified paradata in data descriptions and for data reliability assessments. Results show that it is possible to identify both knowledge organisation paradata (KOP) relating to data structuring and knowledge-making paradata (KMP) relating to fieldwork methods and interpretative processes. However, while the data contains many traces of the research process, there is an uneven and, in some categories, low level of structure and systematicity that complicates automated metadata and paradata identification and extraction. The results show a need to broaden the understanding of how structure and systematicity are used and how they impact research data in archaeology and in comparable field sciences. The insights into how a dataset’s KOP and KMP can be read is also a methodological contribution to data literacy research and practice development. On a repository level, the results underline the need to include paradata about dataset creation, purpose, terminology, dataset internal and external relations, and eventual data colloquialisms that require explanation to reusers.","PeriodicalId":425221,"journal":{"name":"KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-purposing Excavation Database Content as Paradata\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Börjesson, Olle Sköld, Zanna Friberg, Daniel Löwenborg, G. Pálsson, Isto Huvila\",\"doi\":\"10.18357/kula.221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although data reusers request information about how research data was created and curated, this information is often non-existent or only briefly covered in data descriptions. The need for such contextual information is particularly critical in fields like archaeology, where old legacy data created during different time periods and through varying methodological framings and fieldwork documentation practices retains its value as an important information source. This article explores the presence of contextual information in archaeological data with a specific focus on data provenance and processing information, i.e., paradata. The purpose of the article is to identify and explicate types of paradata in field observation documentation. The method used is an explorative close reading of field data from an archaeological excavation enriched with geographical metadata. The analysis covers technical and epistemological challenges and opportunities in paradata identification, and discusses the possibility of using identified paradata in data descriptions and for data reliability assessments. Results show that it is possible to identify both knowledge organisation paradata (KOP) relating to data structuring and knowledge-making paradata (KMP) relating to fieldwork methods and interpretative processes. However, while the data contains many traces of the research process, there is an uneven and, in some categories, low level of structure and systematicity that complicates automated metadata and paradata identification and extraction. The results show a need to broaden the understanding of how structure and systematicity are used and how they impact research data in archaeology and in comparable field sciences. The insights into how a dataset’s KOP and KMP can be read is also a methodological contribution to data literacy research and practice development. On a repository level, the results underline the need to include paradata about dataset creation, purpose, terminology, dataset internal and external relations, and eventual data colloquialisms that require explanation to reusers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":425221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

尽管数据重用者要求提供有关如何创建和管理研究数据的信息,但这些信息通常不存在或仅在数据描述中简短地涵盖。在考古学等领域,对这种背景资料的需求尤其重要,因为在这些领域,在不同时期通过不同的方法框架和实地工作记录实践创建的旧遗产数据保留了其作为重要信息源的价值。本文探讨了考古数据中上下文信息的存在,特别关注数据来源和处理信息,即para。本文的目的是在野外观测文件中识别和说明para - ata的类型。所使用的方法是探索性细读考古发掘的实地数据,其中包含丰富的地理元数据。分析涵盖了技术和认识论的挑战和机会在para ata识别,并讨论了在数据描述和数据可靠性评估中使用已识别的para ata的可能性。结果表明,可以识别与数据结构相关的知识组织范式(KOP)和与实地工作方法和解释过程相关的知识制造范式(KMP)。然而,虽然数据包含了许多研究过程的痕迹,但在某些类别中,结构和系统性水平不均衡,甚至较低,这使得自动元数据和para识别和提取变得复杂。结果显示需要扩大的理解如何使用结构和系统性以及它们如何影响在考古学和类似领域的科学研究数据。关于如何读取数据集的KOP和KMP的见解也是对数据素养研究和实践发展的方法论贡献。在存储库级别上,结果强调需要包含有关数据集创建、目的、术语、数据集内部和外部关系以及需要向重用者解释的最终数据俗语的para - ata。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-purposing Excavation Database Content as Paradata
Although data reusers request information about how research data was created and curated, this information is often non-existent or only briefly covered in data descriptions. The need for such contextual information is particularly critical in fields like archaeology, where old legacy data created during different time periods and through varying methodological framings and fieldwork documentation practices retains its value as an important information source. This article explores the presence of contextual information in archaeological data with a specific focus on data provenance and processing information, i.e., paradata. The purpose of the article is to identify and explicate types of paradata in field observation documentation. The method used is an explorative close reading of field data from an archaeological excavation enriched with geographical metadata. The analysis covers technical and epistemological challenges and opportunities in paradata identification, and discusses the possibility of using identified paradata in data descriptions and for data reliability assessments. Results show that it is possible to identify both knowledge organisation paradata (KOP) relating to data structuring and knowledge-making paradata (KMP) relating to fieldwork methods and interpretative processes. However, while the data contains many traces of the research process, there is an uneven and, in some categories, low level of structure and systematicity that complicates automated metadata and paradata identification and extraction. The results show a need to broaden the understanding of how structure and systematicity are used and how they impact research data in archaeology and in comparable field sciences. The insights into how a dataset’s KOP and KMP can be read is also a methodological contribution to data literacy research and practice development. On a repository level, the results underline the need to include paradata about dataset creation, purpose, terminology, dataset internal and external relations, and eventual data colloquialisms that require explanation to reusers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信