Search

In this article we analyse 3D models of cultural heritage with the aim of answering three main questions: what processes can be put in place to create a FAIR-by-design digital twin of a temporary exhibition? What are the main challenges in applying FAIR principles to 3D data in cultural heritage studies and how are they different from other types of data (e.g. images) from a data management perspective? We begin with a comprehensive literature review touching on: FAIR principles applied to cultural heritage data; representation models; both Object Provenance Information (OPI) and Metadata Record Provenance Information (MRPI), respectively meant as, on the one hand, the detailed history and origin of an object, and - on the other hand - the detailed history and origin of the metadata itself, which describes the primary object (whether physical or digital); 3D models as cultural heritage research data and their creation, selection, publication, archival and preservation. We then describe the process of creating the Aldrovandi Digital Twin, by collecting, storing and modelling data about cultural heritage objects and processes. We detail the many steps from the acquisition of the Digital Cultural Heritage Objects (DCHO), through to the upload of the optimised DCHO onto a web-based framework (ATON), with a focus on open technologies and standards for interoperability and preservation. Using the FAIR Principles for Heritage Library, Archive and Museum Collections [1] as a framework, we look in detail at how the Digital Twin implements FAIR principles at the object and metadata level. We then describe the main challenges we encountered and we summarise what seem to be the peculiarities of 3D cultural heritage data and the possible directions for further research in this field.

One of the main goals of Open Science is to make research more reproducible. There is no consensus, however, on what exactly "reproducibility" is, as opposed for example to "replicability", and how it applies to different research fields. After a short review of the literature on reproducibility/replicability with a focus on the humanities, we describe how the creation of the digital twin of the temporary exhibition "The Other Renaissance" has been documented throughout, with different methods, but with constant attention to research transparency, openness and accountability. A careful documentation of the study design, data collection and analysis techniques helps reflect and make all possible influencing factors explicit, and is a fundamental tool for reliability and rigour and for opening the "black box" of research., Comment: Accepted to the AIUCD2024 Conference: https://aiucd2024.unict.it/ - will be published in conference proceedings

As per the objectives of Project CHANGES, particularly its thematic sub-project on the use of virtual technologies for museums and art collections, our goal was to obtain a digital twin of the temporary exhibition on Ulisse Aldrovandi called "The Other Renaissance", and make it accessible to users online. After a preliminary study of the exhibition, focussing on acquisition constraints and related solutions, we proceeded with the digital twin creation by acquiring, processing, modelling, optimising, exporting, and metadating the exhibition. We made hybrid use of two acquisition techniques to create new digital cultural heritage objects and environments, and we used open technologies, formats, and protocols to make available the final digital product. Here, we describe the process of collecting and curating bibliographical exhibition (meta)data and the beginning of the digital twin creation to foster its findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. The creation of the digital twin is currently ongoing.

Purpose: This article describes the interviews we conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word "data" in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term. Methodology: We invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into 5 main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science, archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Findings: A list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term "data" does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported. Originality: Our findings confirm that "data" within the FAIR framework should include all types of input and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants to this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.