Otvoreni istraživački podaci u području arheologije
Main Article Content
Sažetak
Cilj. Otvoreni istraživački podaci postaju bitan čimbenik istraživačkog procesa u svim znanstvenim disciplinama, pa tako i u arheologiji koja je predmet ovoga rada. Samim tim dio su i procesa oblikovanja novoga znanja. Cilj je ovog istraživanja utvrđivanje i opis čimbenika oblikovanja istraživačkih podataka povezanih s arheologijom i otvorenom znanosti kojima se može utjecati na unaprjeđenje kvalitete otvorenih istraživačkih podataka u svrhu njihove ponovne uporabe u novim istraživanjima i arheološkoj zajednici.
Pristup/metodologija/dizajn. Istraživanje je provedeno metodom sadržajne analize dostupnih članaka i publikacija koji su proizašli iz znanstvenih istraživanja te projekata u području arheologije i otvorene znanosti.
Rezultati. Pregledom i sadržajnom obradom relevantnih članaka ukazuje se na najznačajnije odrednice istraživačkih podataka te na tradiciju primjene digitalne tehnologije u arheologiji. Kroz istraživanje je definirano sedam faza primjene digitalne tehnologije koje je moguće percipirati kao razine zrelosti primjene digitalne tehnologije. Otvoreni istraživački podaci i njihova ponovna uporaba od interesa su za istraživačku, ali i širu zajednicu. Kao čimbenici istraživačkih podataka u arheologiji utvrđeni su arheološki podaci, arheološki zapis, životni ciklus istraživačkih podataka, digitalni objekt, strukturirani i povezani otvoreni podaci, citiranje otvorenih istraživačkih podataka, digitalni repozitorij i kvaliteta otvorenih istraživačkih podataka. Kod svakog od navedenih čimbenika istraženi su, opisani i povezani pojedini fenomeni. Proces je bitan jer se samo tako može osigurati povjerenje korisnika u istraživačke podatke za ponovnu uporabu, odnosno osigurati potrebna razina kvalitete otvorenih istraživačkih podataka. Utvrđena su daljnja područja istraživanja s obzirom na granularnost trajnog identifikatora u području arheologije i dimenzije kvalitete istraživačkih podataka za ponovnu uporabu.
Ograničenja. U okviru ovog istraživanja u obzir su uzeti samo radovi koji su objavljeni na hrvatskome ili engleskom jeziku, pa nisu uključeni rezultati relevantnih istraživanja predstavljenih na drugim jezicima. Istraživanja o otvorenim istraživačkim podacima u mnogim su sredinama u začetku. Veći broj istraživanja koji je proveden i objavljen u publikacijama za područje arheologije temelji se na studijima slučaja ili na prigodnim uzorcima. Ovim istraživanjem nisu detaljnije istraženi metapodaci.
Praktična primjena. Kreiranje otvorenih istraživačkih podataka zahtijeva sudjelovanje istraživača ili stručnjaka iz područja arheologije, ali i informacijskih znanosti. Rezultati ovog istraživanja mogu im pomoći u razumijevanju primjene digitalne tehnologije te unaprjeđenju procesa nastajanja, pohrane, dugotrajnog očuvanja, kao i ponovne uporabe otvorenih istraživačkih podataka.
Originalnost/vrijednost. Istraživanja o otvorenim istraživačkim podacima na području Hrvatske u početnoj su fazi. Nedostaju istraživanja o tome kako je moguće kreirati otvorene istraživačke podatke i kako ih ponovno upotrijebiti. Ovaj rad daje doprinos u proširenju spoznaja o digitalnom tijeku pohranjivanja istraživačkih podataka u arheologiji, čimbenicima oblikovanja otvorenih istraživačkih podataka te dimenzijama kvalitete za njihovu ponovnu uporabu.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a KreativniCommons Attribution-NonCommercial Međunarodne licence.
Autori zadržavaju autorska prava za članke objavljene u časopisu, no svojim pristankom na objavljivanje daju časopisu pravo prvog objavljivanja u tiskanom te elektroničkom formatu. Čitatelji mogu radove čitati, preuzeti, raspačavati, umnožavati i koristiti u prezentacijama u nekomercijalne svrhe.
Ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.
Reference
Altman, M. and Crosas, M. (2013). The Evolution of Data Citation: From Principles to Implementation. IASSIST Quarterly, 37:62–70.
Banning, E. B. (2002). The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berker, P. (2002). Tehnike arheološkog iskopavanja. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenik; Zadar: Filozofski fakultet u Zadru, Odsjek za arheologiju.
Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked Data – Design Issues. [citirano: 2023–02–12]. Dostupno na: https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.
Buccellati, G. (2017). A Critique of Archaeological Reason Structural, Digital and Philosophical Aspects of the Excavated Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781107110298.
Börjesson et al. (2022). Börjesson, L.; Sköld O.; Friberg Z.; Löwenborg D.; Pálsson G. and Huvila I. Re-purposing Excavation Database Content as Paradata: An Explorative Analysis of Paradata Identification Challenges and Opportunities. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 6, 3. https://dx.doi.org/10.18357/kula.221.
Chippindale, C. (2000). Capta and Data: On the True Nature of Archaeological Information, American Antiquity. Society for American Archaeology, 65, 4:605–612. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2694418.
Data Citation Synthesis Group (2014). Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles. Martone M. (ur.) San Diego: Force 11. https://dx.doi.org/10.25490/a97f-egyk.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, and Innovation (2018). Turning FAIR into reality: final report and action plan from the European Commission expert group on FAIR data. Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1524.
Fowler, D. D. and Givens D. R. (1995). The Records of Archaeology. In: Silverman S., Parezo N. J. (eds.) Preserving the Anthropological Record 2nd ed, (pp. 97-106). New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
Faniel et al. (2013). Faniel F.; Kansa, E. and Kansa, S. W. The Challenges of Digging Data: A Study of Context in Archaeological Data Reuse. JCDL ’13 Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. (pp. 295-304). New Work: ACM. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467712.
Gattiglia, G. (2018). Databases in Archaeology. The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences. (pp.1–4). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119188230.saseas0147.
Geser et al. (2022). Geser, G.; Richards, J. D.; Massara, F. and Wright, H. Data Management Policies and Practices of Digital Archaeological Repositories. Internet Archaeology, 59. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.59.2.
Green, K. and Moore, T. (2010). Archaeology: An Introduction 5th Edition, New York: Routledge.
Gunnarsson, F. (2018). Archaeological Challenges Digital Possibilities: Digital Knowledge Development and Communication in Contract Archaeology. Lnu Licentiate Thesis No. 21, Department of Cultural Sciences, Linnaaeus University, Växjö: Linneaues University Press.
Hacıgüzeller et al. (2021). Hacıgüzeller, P.; Van Daele K.; Carpentier. F and Ribbens, R. Digital Archiving of Archaeological Resources in Flanders (Belgium): a brief review. Internet Archaeology, 58. https://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.7.
Hacıgüzeller et al. (2023) Hacıgüzeller, P.; Taylor, J and Perry, S. Erratum to “On the Emerging Supremacy of Structured Digital Data in Archaeology: A Preliminary Assessment of Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Left Behind”. Open Archaeology, 7, 1:20230099. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar-2023-0099.
Hiebel et al. (2021). Hiebel, G.; Goldenberg, G.; Grutsch, C.; Hanke, K. and Staudt, M. FAIR data for prehistoric mining archaeology, International Journal on Digital Libraries, 22:267-277. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00799-020-00282-8.
Huggett, J. (2022). Data Legacies, Epistemic Anxieties, and Digital Imaginaries in Archaeology. Digital, 2:267-295. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/digital2020016.
Huggett, J. (2020). Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge. Information, 11, 5:278. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info11050278.
Huvilla, I. and Sköld, O. (2021). Choreographies of Making Archaeological Data, Open Archaeology, 7, 1: 1602-1617. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0212.
Hollander, H. (2021). Digital Dutch Archaeology: Future perspectives, Internet Archaeology, 58. https://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.28.
Holdaway et al. (2019). Holdaway, S. J.; Emmitt, J.; Phillipps, R. and Masoud-Ansari, S. A Minimalist Approach to Archaeological Data Management Design. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 26: 873–893. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9399-6.
Kansa, E. C. (2014) Open Context and Linked Data, [citirano: 2022–12–01]. Dostupno na: http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/7/kansa.
Kansa, E. C. and Kansa, S. W. (2022). Promoting data quality and reuse in archaeology through colloborative identifier practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 119, 43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109313118.
Kansa at al. (2007). Kansa, S. W; Kansa, E. C. and Schultz, M. J. (2007). An Open Context for Near Eastern Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, 70, 4: 187–193.
Kallinikos et al. (2010). Kallinikos, J.; Aaltonen, A. and Marton, A. A theory of digital objects. First Monday, 15, 6. https://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i6.3033.
Kuna et al. (2015) Kuna, M; Hasil, J.; Novák, D; Boháčová, I; Čulíková, L; Demján P., Dreslerová D. i suradnici. Structuring archaeological evidence, The Archaeological Map of the Czech Republic and related information systems. Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague.
Limp et al. (2011). Limp, F.; Payne, A.; Simon, K.; Winters, S. and Cothren, J. Developing a 3-D Digital Heritage Ecosystem: from object to representation and the role of a virtual museum in the 21 st century. Internet Archaeology, 30. https://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.30.1.
Lucas, G. (2012). Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845772.
Marwick, B. and Birch, S. E. P. (2018). A Standard for the Scholarly Citation of Archaeological Data as an Incentive to Data Sharing. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6, 2:125–143. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.3.
Moody et al. (2021). Moody, B.; Dye T.; May, K.; Wright H. and Buck C. Digital chronological data reuse in archaeology: Thre case studies with variying purposes and perscpectives. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 40, A. https://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103188.
Moore, R. and Richards, J. (2015). 3 Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Open Access, Open Data and Digital Preservation. In: Wilson A. T.; Edwards B. (ed.), Open Source Archaeology, Warsaw: De Gruyter Open Poland, pp. 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440171-004.
Mudge et al. (2008), Mudge, M.; Malbender, Malzbender, T.; Chalmers, A.; Scopigno, R.; James, D.; Wang, O. i suradnici. Image-Based Empirical Information Acquisition, Scientific Reliability, and Long-Term Digital Preservation for the Natural Sciences and Cultural Heritage, Eurographics 2008, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/egt.20081050.
Muckle, R. J. (2006) Introducing Archaeology. Ontario: Broadview Press.
Patrik, L. (1985). Is There an Archaeological Record?. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Springer, 8: 27-62.
Perreault, C. (2019). The quality of the archaeological record. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago: London.
Peroni, S. (2022). OpenCitations: a short introduction. In T. Backes, A. Iurshina, & P. Mayr (Eds.), ULITE 2022 - Understanding literature references in academic full text - Proceedings of the Workshop on Understanding Literature references in academic full TExt co-located with ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries 2022 (Cologne, Germany and Online) (pp. 1–6). Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3220/keynote.pdf
Pintarić, N. (2020). Razvoj i optimizacija metapodatkovne sheme za otvorene istraživačke podatke u području arheologije, Disertacija, Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:162:122471.
Richards, J. D. (2021). Archiving Archaeological Data in the United Kingdom. Internet Archaeology, 58. https://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.21.
Richards, J. D. and Ryan, N. S. (1985). Data Processing in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson et al. (2021). Richardson, J. D.; Jakobsson, U.; Novák, D.; Štular, B. and Wright, H. Digital Archiving in Archaeology: The State of Art. Introduction, Internet Archaeology, 58. https://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.23.
Rüegg et al. (2014) Rüegg, J.; Gries. C.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Bowen, G. J.; Felzer, B. S.; McIntyre, N. E.; Soranno, P. A. i suradnici. Completing the data life cycle: using information management in macrosystems ecology research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12, 1:24–30. https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120375.
Saračević, T. (2007). Relevantnost i kako se istraživala, Vjesnik bibliotekara Hrvatske, 2007, 50, 1-2:1-15.
Schwardmann, U. (2020). Digital Objects – FAIR Digital Object: Which Services Are Required?. Data Science Journal, 19, 1:15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-015.
Silvello, G. (2018). Theory and Practice of Data Citation. Journal of the Society for Information Science and Technology, 69, 1:6–20. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23917.
Sirovica, F. (2016). Digitalizacija arheološke terenske dokumentacije Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 49:281-301.
Svensson, J. and Guillen P. O. (2020). What is Data and What Can it be Use For? Key Questions in the Age of Burgeoning Data-essentialism. Journal of Digital Social Research, 2, 3:65-83.
Schmidt et al. (2022). Schmidt, S.C.; Thiery, F. and Trognitz, M. Practices of Linked Open Data in Archaeology and Their Realisation in Wikidata. Digital, 2:333–364. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/digital2030019.
Smith, J. R. (2000). Database Design, Archaeological Classification and Geographic Information Systems: a Case Study From Southeast Queensland. University of Queensland. Brisbane, Australia.
Štular, B. (2019). The Zbiva Web Application: a tool for Early Medieval archaeology of the Eastern Alps. In J. D. Richards & F. Niccolucci, (eds.), The ARIADNE Impact, (pp. 69–82). Archaeolingua, Budapest. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3476712.
Štular et al. (2021). Štular, B.; Pleterski, A. and Belak, M. Zbiva, Early Medieval Data Set for the Eastern Alps. Data sub-set (1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5761811.
Tsang, C. (2021). Red Sky at Night: digital archiving in England 2020, Internet Archaeology, 58. https://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.6.
Watrall, E. (2016). Archaeology, the Digital Humanities, and the „Big Tent“, In. Gold M. K. & Klein L. F. (ed.) Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, University of Minnesota Press, str. 345-358, https://dx.doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1cn6thb.31.
Wittenburg, P. (2019). From Persistent Identifiers to Digital Objects to Make Data Science More Efficient, Data Intelligence, 1:6-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00004.