[open-archaeology] [Antiquist] Re: Heritage Method Store Proposal
leifuss at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 21 09:58:24 UTC 2010
interesting thread! I thought I'd thrown in a couple of quick thoughts
and leave it at that seeing as I don't know anything about geophysics
- I think Ben's thoughts on a wiki article design are great. It might
well be worth checking out the work on Pattern Langauges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language. If you set up a
template people can fill in different elements as and when they have
- As a separate issue, a few of us have been toying with the idea of
setting up a Stack Exchange site for Technology in the Humanities
(http://area51.stackexchange.com/). This would have to be quite a
large affair in order to work (i.e. we'd need to rope in antiquisters,
digital classicists, HASTACers, and so on in order to reach a
functioning scale) but it's Q&A format would nicely complement both
the mailing lists (which are good for announcements and making
personal contacts) on the one hand and more substantial knowledge
articles such as the proposed methods wiki on the other. In any case,
if anyone is interested in the initial phase of getting it off the
ground please get in touch offlist.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Anthony Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Quick update:
> I have now submitted this as a project proposal to OKFN. I have requested
> hosting, technical and developer resource (there may be some legal elements
> as well).
> I also exchange e-mails with Mike Heyworth at the Council for British
> Archaeology last night. Mike/CBA are happy to commit some resources to the
> initiative. Given the community and outreach focus of CBA and the high
> esteem in which it is held it would seem sensible if we undertake this
> jointly between OKFN and CBA. I've included a direct link to Stuart Jeffrey
> at the ADS.
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Anthony Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oops. Didn't realise my work account wasn't registered
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Anthony Beck <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" <open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>,
>> "Michael Doneus (michael.doneus at univie.ac.at)"
>> <michael.doneus at univie.ac.at>, "rachel.opitz at googlemail.com"
>> <rachel.opitz at googlemail.com>, "wlodekra at amu.edu.pl" <wlodekra at amu.edu.pl>,
>> "nina.heiska at tkk.fi" <nina.heiska at tkk.fi>, "gianluca.cantoro at gmail.com"
>> <gianluca.cantoro at gmail.com>, "dart-investigators at comp.leeds.ac.uk"
>> <dart-investigators at comp.leeds.ac.uk>, "Dr. Axel Posluschny"
>> <posluschny at rgk.dainst.de>, Cameron Neylon <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>,
>> "jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk" <jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk>, Dave Cowley
>> <Dave.Cowley at rcahms.gov.uk>, "j.p.mills at newcastle.ac.uk"
>> <j.p.mills at newcastle.ac.uk>, "remondino at fbk.eu" <remondino at fbk.eu>, Keith
>> Challis <k.challis at bham.ac.uk>, "ahzcb at granby.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk"
>> <ahzcb at granby.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>, "anthony at discoveryprogramme.ie"
>> <anthony at discoveryprogramme.ie>, "robert at discoveryprogramme.ie"
>> <robert at discoveryprogramme.ie>, "mikeheyworth at britarch.ac.uk"
>> <mikeheyworth at britarch.ac.uk>, "antiquist at googlegroups.com"
>> <antiquist at googlegroups.com>
>> Cc: "ant.beck at gmail.com" <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>.
>> Best wishes and many thanks for all your help and support
>> Anthony Beck
>> Research Fellow
>> DART Project
>> School of Computing
>> University of Leeds
>> DART has 3 fully funded PhD studentships advertised. More details at
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Antiquist" group.
> To post to this group, send email to antiquist at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> antiquist+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
More information about the open-archaeology