42
Archäologie und Informationssysteme
If archaeological data is to be viewed as a dynamic
resource it is important to consider the relationships
between the different data, information and
knowledge objects. Archaeology deals with a variety
of different data which are integrated to gain insights
into the past. For simplicity these have broken these
down into three groups:
- Physical observations - measurement and Observa-
tion data (many of which can not be replicated
again) including sensor and laboratory measure-
ments (such as geophysical and soil measure-
ments). This data does not change over time. For
example a sherd of pottery may have a location,
context, dimensions and can be attributed with
form and fabric Classification descriptors.
- The structuring knowledge/classification environ-
ment - the knowledge (or Classification) frame-
works which can be attributed to the physical
observations. These frameworks reflect clusterings
and groupings in the data. This data is dynamic.
For example the pottery form and fabric sequence
(and their associated dating implications) change
when new data is added to the corpus or specia-
lists refine their points of view. A similar position is
observed with radiocarbon dates and the body of
knowledge that provides calibration for the raw
dates. There should be a tight relationship bet-
ween these relationships and the physical observa-
tions which together represent a dynamic
knowledge base which can be fed into research,
policy, practice and management. Currently this
relationship is not formally represented and is nor-
mally decoupled.
- Analysis, interpretations and synthesis - a layering
of multiple interpretative points of view based on
hypotheses and bodies of theory and evidence.
It should be noted that in recent years this contrast
has rightly been subject to revision, as various com-
mentators have noted the widely acknowledged fact
that all stages of archaeological practice involve theo-
ry-laden assumptions, and hence that data collection
and Interpretation are closely entwined. Irrespective
of this broader debate, each of these components
require additional metadata that describes the
methods of Observation, collection and analysis so
that subsequent re-users can understand issues per-
taining to scale, uncertainty and ambiguity that are
essential when datasets are integrated. Being able to
link, and therefore integrate and query, the different
data resources means that heterogeneous resources
can be treated as one. This is close to becoming
Linked Data (2012). The Linked Data ethos (Bizer,
Heath, and Berners-Lee 2009) underpins the develop-
ment of the Semantic Web which aims to transform
the unstructured, document focussed, web into a
'web of data' (Wikipedia 2012).
This dynamism could have profound implications for
archaeological data collection, consumption and
engagement. For example, in addition to many other
things pottery provides essential dating evidence for
archaeological contexts. However, pottery sequences
are developed on a local basis by individuals with an
imperfect knowledge of the global Situation. This
means there is overlap, duplication and conflict bet-
ween different pottery sequences which are periodi-
cally reconciled (your Type llb sherd is the same as my
Type IVd sherd and hence the dating ränge can be
refined). This is the perennial processes of lumping
and Splitting inherent in any Classification System. The
semantic Integration of localised sequences can
potentially Support more robust pottery frameworks.
In addition, as the pottery data is linked (and not
decoupled and stale) then updated pottery classifica-
tions and dating implications immediately update the
dating probability density function for a context or
group. One can also automatically reason over the
data to find out which contexts, relationships and
groups are impacted by a change in the dating
sequences either by proxy or by logical inference (a
change in the date of a context produces a logical
inconsistency with a stratigraphically related group).
In a Semantic Web (Wikipedia 2012e) scenario then
the logical consistency in the physical and Stratigra-
phie relationships can be automatically verified using
reasoning Software (such as Prolog). As all of the data
is stored as Linked Data, this means that all the prima-
ry data archives are linked to their supporting
knowledge frameworks (such as a pottery sequence).
When a knowledge framework changes the implicati-
ons are propagated through to the related data dyna-
mically. This means that, in theory, the implications of
minor changes in the structuring knowledge environ-
ment can be tracked dynamically through to the
underlying observations and their impact observed in
interpretations. The feedback mechanism implied by
Linked Data and the Semantic Web can profoundly
alter the way archaeologists, and others, engage with
their data and derived resources.
Deposition is no longer the final act of the excavation,
or any other, process: rather it is where the dataset
can be integrated with other digital resources and
analysed as part of the complex tapestry of heritage
data. The data does not have to go stale: as the sour-
ce data is re-interpreted and Interpretation frame-
works change these are dynamically linked through to
the archives. Hence, the data sets retain their integri-
ty in light of changes in the surrounding and suppor-
ting knowledge System. This means that any policy,
Archäologie und Informationssysteme
If archaeological data is to be viewed as a dynamic
resource it is important to consider the relationships
between the different data, information and
knowledge objects. Archaeology deals with a variety
of different data which are integrated to gain insights
into the past. For simplicity these have broken these
down into three groups:
- Physical observations - measurement and Observa-
tion data (many of which can not be replicated
again) including sensor and laboratory measure-
ments (such as geophysical and soil measure-
ments). This data does not change over time. For
example a sherd of pottery may have a location,
context, dimensions and can be attributed with
form and fabric Classification descriptors.
- The structuring knowledge/classification environ-
ment - the knowledge (or Classification) frame-
works which can be attributed to the physical
observations. These frameworks reflect clusterings
and groupings in the data. This data is dynamic.
For example the pottery form and fabric sequence
(and their associated dating implications) change
when new data is added to the corpus or specia-
lists refine their points of view. A similar position is
observed with radiocarbon dates and the body of
knowledge that provides calibration for the raw
dates. There should be a tight relationship bet-
ween these relationships and the physical observa-
tions which together represent a dynamic
knowledge base which can be fed into research,
policy, practice and management. Currently this
relationship is not formally represented and is nor-
mally decoupled.
- Analysis, interpretations and synthesis - a layering
of multiple interpretative points of view based on
hypotheses and bodies of theory and evidence.
It should be noted that in recent years this contrast
has rightly been subject to revision, as various com-
mentators have noted the widely acknowledged fact
that all stages of archaeological practice involve theo-
ry-laden assumptions, and hence that data collection
and Interpretation are closely entwined. Irrespective
of this broader debate, each of these components
require additional metadata that describes the
methods of Observation, collection and analysis so
that subsequent re-users can understand issues per-
taining to scale, uncertainty and ambiguity that are
essential when datasets are integrated. Being able to
link, and therefore integrate and query, the different
data resources means that heterogeneous resources
can be treated as one. This is close to becoming
Linked Data (2012). The Linked Data ethos (Bizer,
Heath, and Berners-Lee 2009) underpins the develop-
ment of the Semantic Web which aims to transform
the unstructured, document focussed, web into a
'web of data' (Wikipedia 2012).
This dynamism could have profound implications for
archaeological data collection, consumption and
engagement. For example, in addition to many other
things pottery provides essential dating evidence for
archaeological contexts. However, pottery sequences
are developed on a local basis by individuals with an
imperfect knowledge of the global Situation. This
means there is overlap, duplication and conflict bet-
ween different pottery sequences which are periodi-
cally reconciled (your Type llb sherd is the same as my
Type IVd sherd and hence the dating ränge can be
refined). This is the perennial processes of lumping
and Splitting inherent in any Classification System. The
semantic Integration of localised sequences can
potentially Support more robust pottery frameworks.
In addition, as the pottery data is linked (and not
decoupled and stale) then updated pottery classifica-
tions and dating implications immediately update the
dating probability density function for a context or
group. One can also automatically reason over the
data to find out which contexts, relationships and
groups are impacted by a change in the dating
sequences either by proxy or by logical inference (a
change in the date of a context produces a logical
inconsistency with a stratigraphically related group).
In a Semantic Web (Wikipedia 2012e) scenario then
the logical consistency in the physical and Stratigra-
phie relationships can be automatically verified using
reasoning Software (such as Prolog). As all of the data
is stored as Linked Data, this means that all the prima-
ry data archives are linked to their supporting
knowledge frameworks (such as a pottery sequence).
When a knowledge framework changes the implicati-
ons are propagated through to the related data dyna-
mically. This means that, in theory, the implications of
minor changes in the structuring knowledge environ-
ment can be tracked dynamically through to the
underlying observations and their impact observed in
interpretations. The feedback mechanism implied by
Linked Data and the Semantic Web can profoundly
alter the way archaeologists, and others, engage with
their data and derived resources.
Deposition is no longer the final act of the excavation,
or any other, process: rather it is where the dataset
can be integrated with other digital resources and
analysed as part of the complex tapestry of heritage
data. The data does not have to go stale: as the sour-
ce data is re-interpreted and Interpretation frame-
works change these are dynamically linked through to
the archives. Hence, the data sets retain their integri-
ty in light of changes in the surrounding and suppor-
ting knowledge System. This means that any policy,