A white-box framework to oversee archaeological virtual reconstructions in space and time: Methods and tools

Abstract The goal of this paper is to present original methods and visual tools able to formally document the scientific processes behind an archaeological virtual reconstruction, namely a new version of the Extended Matrix (EM 1.1) and the Extended Matrix Framework (EMF 1.1). The proposed approach aims to improve the EM as well as methods and tools for 3D query, visualization, and inspection of extended matrices in order to solve current bottlenecks and issues with the integration of 3D virtual environments and rich semantic descriptions (EMF). A real case scenario is provided to present the steps involved in a reconstruction project using EM/EMF: the Great Temple of the ancient Roman town Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa.

[1]  Robert F. Tobler,et al.  Separating semantics from rendering: a scene graph based architecture for graphics applications , 2011, The Visual Computer.

[2]  Martin Doerr,et al.  CRMba a CRM extension for the documentation of standing buildings , 2015, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[3]  Andrew Pavlo,et al.  A parent-centered radial layout algorithm for interactive graph visualization and animation , 2006, ArXiv.

[4]  Daniel Dworak,et al.  3D Models on Triple Paths - New Pathways for Documenting and Visualizing Virtual Reconstructions , 2016, 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage.

[5]  Holly E. Rushmeier,et al.  CHER-Ob: A Tool for Shared Analysis in Cultural Heritage , 2016, GCH.

[6]  Frank Henze,et al.  First Experiences of Applying a Model Classification for Digital 3D Reconstruction in the Context of Humanities Research , 2016, EuroMed.

[7]  Marco Gaiani,et al.  3D reality-based artefact models for the management of archaeological sites using 3D Gis: a framework starting from the case study of the Pompeii Archaeological area , 2012 .

[8]  Daniele Ferdani,et al.  3D-GIS as a Platform for Visual Analysis: Investigating a Pompeian House , 2016 .

[9]  Sander Münster.  WORKFLOWS AND THE ROLE OF IMAGES FOR VIRTUAL 3D RECONSTRUCTION OF NO LONGER EXTANT HISTORIC OBJECTS , 2013 .

[10]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The unified modeling language reference manual , 2010 .

[11]  Maura Medri,et al.  Manuale di rilievo archeologico , 2003 .

[12]  Martin Doerr,et al.  The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata , 2003, AI Mag..

[13]  Markus Wacker,et al.  Simplifying Documentation of Digital Reconstruction Processes - Introducing an Interactive Documentation System , 2016, 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage.

[14]  E. Demetrescu.  Archaeological stratigraphy as a formal language for virtual reconstruction. Theory and practice , 2015 .

[15]  Patricia Martín-Rodilla,et al.  Extending an Abstract Reference Model for Transdisciplinary Work in Cultural Heritage , 2012, MTSR.

[16]  Pierre Gros,et al.  Hercule à Glanum. Sanctuaires de transhumance et développement urbain , 1995 .

[17]  Martin Doerr,et al.  CRMdig: A Generic Digital Provenance Model for Scientific Observation , 2011, TaPP.

[18]  Mieke Pfarr-Harfst,et al.  The Reconstruction - Argumentation Method - Proposal for a Minimum Standard of Documentation in the Context of Virtual Reconstructions , 2016, EuroMed.

[19]  Roberto Scopigno,et al.  3DHOP: 3D Heritage Online Presenter , 2015, Comput. Graph..

[20]  Fabrizio Ivan Apollonio,et al.  Classification Schemes for Visualization of Uncertainty in Digital Hypothetical Reconstruction , 2016, 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage.

[21]  Rachel S. Opitz,et al.  Interpretation at the Controller’s Edge: Designing Graphical User Interfaces for the Digital Publication of the Excavations at Gabii (Italy) , 2016 .

[22]  George Bruseker,et al.  Semantically Documenting Virtual Reconstruction: Building a Path to Knowledge Provenance , 2015 .

[23]  Marco Callieri,et al.  Digital reconstruction and visualization in archaeology: Case-study drawn from the work of the Swedish Pompeii Project , 2013, 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage).

[24]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Graph Markup Language (GraphML) , 2013, Handbook of Graph Drawing and Visualization.

[25]  Alexander Zipf,et al.  Show Me the Data!: Structuring Archaeological Data to Deliver Interactive, Transparent 3D Reconstructions in a 3D WebGIS , 2016, 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage.

[26]  Alexander Zipf,et al.  WEB-BASED VISUALIZATION AND QUERY OF SEMANTICALLY SEGMENTED MULTIRESOLUTION 3D MODELS IN THE FIELD OF CULTURAL HERITAGE , 2014 .

[27]  M. I. Romanowska Z. Wu P. Xu Zhou.  Adapting the Agile Process to Digital Reconstructions of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi , 2012 .

[28]  Sander Münster,et al.  A Model Classification for Digital 3D Reconstruction in the Context of Humanities Research , 2016, 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage.

[29]  Martin Ritz,et al.  Interactive Semantic Enrichment of 3D Cultural Heritage Collections , 2012, VAST.

[30]  Daniela Petrelli,et al.  Affective graphs: The visual appeal of Linked Data , 2015, Semantic Web.

[31]  Mieke Pfarr-Harfst.  Typical Workflows, Documentation Approaches and Principles of 3D Digital Reconstruction of Cultural Heritage , 2016, 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage.

[32]  Fabrizio Ivan Apollonio,et al.  A paradata documentation methodology for the Uncertainty Visualization in digital reconstruction of CH artifacts , 2015 .

[33]  Emanuel Demetrescu,et al.  Reconstructing the original splendour of the House of Caecilius Iucundus. A complete methodology for virtual archaeology aimed at digital exhibition. , 2016 .