{"title":"遗产三维可视化在线平台的科学严谨性","authors":"Nataska Statham","doi":"10.4995/VAR.2019.9715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"3D visualisations –including 3D scans and 3D reconstructions–designed as part of larger archaeology, history or cultural heritage projects are commonly shared with the public through online platforms that were not necessarily designed to host heritage representations and often fail to contextualize them. This paper seeks to evaluate whether five online platforms commonly used today to share 3D visualisations of heritage (Google Arts & Culture, CyArk, 3DHOP, Sketchfab and game engines) offer features that facilitate their scientific rigour and community participation, based on guidelines from International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS)and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). The author starts by summarizing recommendations from 32 international guidelines that are relevant to the 3D visualization of heritage, condensing them into nine key criteria: multi-disciplinary teams, objective-driven methodology and tools, careful documentation, type of reconstruction and level of certainty, authenticity, alternative hypotheses, multiple historical periods, respectful use of the heritage, and community engagement. The author proceeds to review the platforms above comparing their features with these nine recommendations and concludes that, while there are currently available features that could help to elevate the scientific rigour of the 3D visualisations and their contextualization to the public, they are not mandatory and are seldom used. The paper finishes with a recommendation for an information package to support3D visualisations of heritage on public online platforms.Highlights:Online platforms for the 3D visualization of heritage fail to disclose what type of reconstruction it is and its level of certainty, struggling to balance community engagement vs scientific rigour of their contents.ICOMOS and UNESCO recommendations regarding heritage are loosely followed on the reviewed platforms, and supporting documentation is often lacking.Scientific rigour on these platforms could be elevated with supporting textual fields to disclose further information about each visualisation.","PeriodicalId":44206,"journal":{"name":"Virtual Archaeology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific rigour of online platforms for 3D visualization of heritage\",\"authors\":\"Nataska Statham\",\"doi\":\"10.4995/VAR.2019.9715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"3D visualisations –including 3D scans and 3D reconstructions–designed as part of larger archaeology, history or cultural heritage projects are commonly shared with the public through online platforms that were not necessarily designed to host heritage representations and often fail to contextualize them. This paper seeks to evaluate whether five online platforms commonly used today to share 3D visualisations of heritage (Google Arts & Culture, CyArk, 3DHOP, Sketchfab and game engines) offer features that facilitate their scientific rigour and community participation, based on guidelines from International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS)and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). The author starts by summarizing recommendations from 32 international guidelines that are relevant to the 3D visualization of heritage, condensing them into nine key criteria: multi-disciplinary teams, objective-driven methodology and tools, careful documentation, type of reconstruction and level of certainty, authenticity, alternative hypotheses, multiple historical periods, respectful use of the heritage, and community engagement. The author proceeds to review the platforms above comparing their features with these nine recommendations and concludes that, while there are currently available features that could help to elevate the scientific rigour of the 3D visualisations and their contextualization to the public, they are not mandatory and are seldom used. The paper finishes with a recommendation for an information package to support3D visualisations of heritage on public online platforms.Highlights:Online platforms for the 3D visualization of heritage fail to disclose what type of reconstruction it is and its level of certainty, struggling to balance community engagement vs scientific rigour of their contents.ICOMOS and UNESCO recommendations regarding heritage are loosely followed on the reviewed platforms, and supporting documentation is often lacking.Scientific rigour on these platforms could be elevated with supporting textual fields to disclose further information about each visualisation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virtual Archaeology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virtual Archaeology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4995/VAR.2019.9715\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virtual Archaeology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4995/VAR.2019.9715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Scientific rigour of online platforms for 3D visualization of heritage
3D visualisations –including 3D scans and 3D reconstructions–designed as part of larger archaeology, history or cultural heritage projects are commonly shared with the public through online platforms that were not necessarily designed to host heritage representations and often fail to contextualize them. This paper seeks to evaluate whether five online platforms commonly used today to share 3D visualisations of heritage (Google Arts & Culture, CyArk, 3DHOP, Sketchfab and game engines) offer features that facilitate their scientific rigour and community participation, based on guidelines from International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS)and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). The author starts by summarizing recommendations from 32 international guidelines that are relevant to the 3D visualization of heritage, condensing them into nine key criteria: multi-disciplinary teams, objective-driven methodology and tools, careful documentation, type of reconstruction and level of certainty, authenticity, alternative hypotheses, multiple historical periods, respectful use of the heritage, and community engagement. The author proceeds to review the platforms above comparing their features with these nine recommendations and concludes that, while there are currently available features that could help to elevate the scientific rigour of the 3D visualisations and their contextualization to the public, they are not mandatory and are seldom used. The paper finishes with a recommendation for an information package to support3D visualisations of heritage on public online platforms.Highlights:Online platforms for the 3D visualization of heritage fail to disclose what type of reconstruction it is and its level of certainty, struggling to balance community engagement vs scientific rigour of their contents.ICOMOS and UNESCO recommendations regarding heritage are loosely followed on the reviewed platforms, and supporting documentation is often lacking.Scientific rigour on these platforms could be elevated with supporting textual fields to disclose further information about each visualisation.
期刊介绍:
Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR) aims the publication of original papers, interdisciplinary reviews and essays on the new discipline of virtual archaeology, which is continuously evolving and currently on its way to achieve scientific consolidation. In fact, Virtual Archaeology deals with the digital representation of historical heritage objects, buildings and landscapes through 3D acquisition, digital recording and interactive and immersive tools for analysis, interpretation, dissemination and communication purposes by means of multidimensional geometric properties and visual computational modelling. VAR will publish full-length original papers which reflect both current research and practice throughout the world, in order to contribute to the advancement of the new field of virtual archaeology, ranging from new ways of digital recording and documentation, advanced reconstruction and 3D modelling up to cyber-archaeology, virtual exhibitions and serious gaming. Thus acceptable material may emerge from interesting applications as well as from original developments or research. OBJECTIVES: - OFFER researchers working in the field of virtual archaeology and cultural heritage an appropriate editorial frame to publish state-of-the-art research works, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions. - GATHER virtual archaeology progresses achieved as a new international scientific discipline. - ENCOURAGE the publication of the latest, state-of-the-art, significant research and meaningful applications in the field of virtual archaeology. - ENHANCE international connections in the field of virtual archaeology and cultural heritage.