[open-archaeology] Fwd: Heritage Method Store Proposal

Tue Sep 21 07:22:25 UTC 2010

Thanks for your efforts, Ant, it looks like this really could work. I agree with you, I think we should start simple; while a method indexing service in wiki-format may not be everything we want, it will be a good starting point and it will be the easiest entry for non-specialists, pointing them to working solutions as well as problem areas. General discussions on the kind of tools and improvements that are desired, or a question-and-answers forum could well be a part of this. The trick would then be to connect this to the other tools you mention that the specialists can use to actually collaborate. I guess this may be the most difficult to organize; I can imagine that developers will not always be eager to share software code and ideas for the simple reason that they need to make money and produce scientific papers, even when they are committed to open source solutions. But since I'm not a developer myself, it would be interesting to hear their opinion on this.

Best,

Philip

From: open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Beck
Sent: maandag 20 september 2010 17:30
To: open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
Subject: [open-archaeology] Fwd: Heritage Method Store Proposal

Oops. Didn't realise my work account wasn't registered

Best

Ant
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Beck <A.R.Beck at leeds.ac.uk<mailto:A.R.Beck at leeds.ac.uk>>
Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Subject: Heritage Method Store Proposal
To: "open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>" <open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>>, "Michael Doneus (michael.doneus at univie.ac.at<mailto:michael.doneus at univie.ac.at>)" <michael.doneus at univie.ac.at<mailto:michael.doneus at univie.ac.at>>, "rachel.opitz at googlemail.com<mailto:rachel.opitz at googlemail.com>" <rachel.opitz at googlemail.com<mailto:rachel.opitz at googlemail.com>>, "wlodekra at amu.edu.pl<mailto:wlodekra at amu.edu.pl>" <wlodekra at amu.edu.pl<mailto:wlodekra at amu.edu.pl>>, "nina.heiska at tkk.fi<mailto:nina.heiska at tkk.fi>" <nina.heiska at tkk.fi<mailto:nina.heiska at tkk.fi>>, "gianluca.cantoro at gmail.com<mailto:gianluca.cantoro at gmail.com>" <gianluca.cantoro at gmail.com<mailto:gianluca.cantoro at gmail.com>>, "dart-investigators at comp.leeds.ac.uk<mailto:dart-investigators at comp.leeds.ac.uk>" <dart-investigators at comp.leeds.ac.uk<mailto:dart-investigators at comp.leeds.ac.uk>>, "Dr. Axel Posluschny" <posluschny at rgk.dainst.de<mailto:posluschny at rgk.dainst.de>>, Cameron Neylon <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>>, "jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk<mailto:jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk>" <jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk<mailto:jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk>>, Dave Cowley <Dave.Cowley at rcahms.gov.uk<mailto:Dave.Cowley at rcahms.gov.uk>>, "j.p.mills at newcastle.ac.uk<mailto:j.p.mills at newcastle.ac.uk>" <j.p.mills at newcastle.ac.uk<mailto:j.p.mills at newcastle.ac.uk>>, "remondino at fbk.eu<mailto:remondino at fbk.eu>" <remondino at fbk.eu<mailto:remondino at fbk.eu>>, Keith Challis <k.challis at bham.ac.uk<mailto:k.challis at bham.ac.uk>>, "ahzcb at granby.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:ahzcb at granby.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>" <ahzcb at granby.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:ahzcb at granby.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>>, "anthony at discoveryprogramme.ie<mailto:anthony at discoveryprogramme.ie>" <anthony at discoveryprogramme.ie<mailto:anthony at discoveryprogramme.ie>>, "robert at discoveryprogramme.ie<mailto:robert at discoveryprogramme.ie>" <robert at discoveryprogramme.ie<mailto:robert at discoveryprogramme.ie>>, "mikeheyworth at britarch.ac.uk<mailto:mikeheyworth at britarch.ac.uk>" <mikeheyworth at britarch.ac.uk<mailto:mikeheyworth at britarch.ac.uk>>, "antiquist at googlegroups.com<mailto:antiquist at googlegroups.com>" <antiquist at googlegroups.com<mailto:antiquist at googlegroups.com>>
Cc: "ant.beck at gmail.com<mailto:ant.beck at gmail.com>" <ant.beck at gmail.com<mailto:ant.beck at gmail.com>>

Apologies for cross posting:

Dear All,

At the Aerial Archaeology Research Group conference I suggested we produce a methodology store. The aim of such a resource is to stop the community "re-inventing the wheel" by sharing methodologies and algorithms, to provide a place where methodology can be discussed and developed, to provide an audit trail for developments and an ability to "fork" methodologies in light of different localities, technologies, to be able to provide links between methodologies developed at different scales or for different environments etc. I discussed this with colleagues and collaborators at the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF: particularly the Open Archaeology group - which I recommend you join), the Remote Sensing and Photogrametry Society (RSPSoC), the Council for British Archaeology and colleagues with a professional interest in these topics (Jo Walsh at Edina and Cameron Neylon at the Science and Technology Facilities Council). In addition members of the EU funded ArchaeoLandscapes project (http://www.archaeolandscapes.eu<http://www.archaeolandscapes.eu/>), which had a meeting directly after AARG, were also supportive. The support for this initiative has been overwhelming. The above constitutes the what and why for a heritage methodology store: the issue seems to be not a matter of "if" we do this but of where, how and who.

For the Where I would suggest we do this under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKFN: http://okfn.org/). This means that it's clear that the resource is about openness and applies to all methodologies rather than just the specifics about a single interest group. Jonathan Gray is the community co-ordinator for OKFN. Jonathan: What do you think? Is this possible/desirable? What are the cost/resource implications. Comments from anyone else?

The How is likely to be the most difficult questions. We can use a range of different technologies. Stefano Costa has suggested a wiki, which is a simple and easy tool. At the other end of the spectrum we could use something like MyExperiment or GitHub (software management). MyExperiment allows the production of digital workflows that can transform data with algorithms (something that would be very useful for those of us doing numerical analyses - like the heritage remote sensing specialists). However, this may provide too much clutter for other users. Between these two tools are a spectrum of other technologies that may be useful (Stack Overflow, Mahara, etc.). However, the point is to build a community around the content that are prepared to discuss and improve methodologies (hence - an indexing service of available methods is not adequate). In the short term I feel that we should use tools that are accessible to a large audience rather than exclusive to a technologically sophisticated audience. This stops us being too prescriptive and allows us to extend tools as the community requires them. I'm sure a number of you have much more experience than I do in this area: please feel free to comment on this?

For the who, I'm happy to run with this in conjunction with the DART PhD students. I'll put up a shout if things become difficult.

For completeness I have also included members of Antiquist in this discussion. Please feel free to forward this e-mail to your own heritage special interest groups. However, it would be good if conversations were threaded to the Open Archaeology list at open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org><mailto:open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>>.

Best wishes and many thanks for all your help and support

Ant
---------------------------------------
Anthony Beck
Research Fellow
DART Project
School of Computing
University of Leeds

DART has 3 fully funded PhD studentships advertised. More details at www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/dart<http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/dart><http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/dart>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20100921/f0a84c62/attachment-0001.html>