As part of the project, we want to gather user requirements for a data service which successfully underpins and supports research in the Arts and Humanities. The results of the survey will input into the design of a national data infrastructure that strengthens UK researchers as global players.
The survey is still open and can be found here: https://survey.chws.brighton.domains/index.php/862148?lang=en (it takes 10-15 minutes to complete the survey).
During our recent workshop in London on which we focused on understanding user requirements, stakeholders had the chance to contribute their vision on opportunities and risks for researchers creating complex 3D datasets. In particular, attendees shared their vision into the future for the following 10 years during a focus group session.
From being able to easily generate 3D datasets with smartphones, to crowdsourcing and automatically generating 3D datasets of our everyday environment, there is a clear indication that the use of 3D datasets for everyday life and for research will only increase.
Also envisaged were the availability of more storage, better printing technologies and ways to automate metadata generation for 3D datasets.
It was also acknowledge that 3D, as other types of data, also run the risk of becoming obsolete if other types of data supersede their use.
There was also the opportunity to identify areas of interest which any 3D data service should address. Three primary categories emerge as fundamental – Discovery, Re-use, and Public Engagement. All other concerns are associated with these major areas.
Clearly, there is an implicit connection between the interest on enabling discovery and re-use of the data. Re-use has two distinctive interpretations – for research, and for derivative works. Connected to this, is the usability and workflows required to produce and ingest the data into such infrastructure. These areas are also linked to the research functionalities that such platforms will provide, but emphasise deposition workflows which streamline the processes of creating metadata. Instead research functionalities are envisaged as a set of analytical tools available for researchers to enquiry, manipulate and visualise the data. Content creation is a catch-all category for those stakeholders that wish to create derived content for any category of media.
Compliance is a category that has distinctive perspectives – compliance with any licensing or copyright restrictions, compliance with mandated deposition requirements, compliance with insurance terms etc. – and thus straddles the major categorical interests. Public Engagement concerns intersect with education and accessibility and this graphic has incorporated the impact of the datasets into public engagement category for simplicity. Although it is acknowledged that impact is more broader than the general public and include other stakeholders.
On the 29th of March, the project team and partners met at the National Gallery in London for the Workshop “Digital Infrastructure and User Requirements”. In this, we discussed the aims of the project and the activities proposed as well as the initial set of requirements for a trusted 3D data service. After two years of the pandemic, it was very positive to meet in a hybrid modality to share experiences, needs and visions for the future.
The workshop described initial project findings looking at how complex 3D data resulting from AHRC research remains difficult to find and possibly disappears after a few years. The workshop also explored various examples of projects which generate complex 3D datasets, and the needs for infrastructure to store, manage and access these large multi-part, and multi-format datasets which describe the creation process, as in the various steps involved in the digitisation of an artefact into a 3D model, or the project files for their visualisation in an immersive environment or a simulation.
We referred to this content as complex multidimensional representational data and describe its complexity by describing its according to two axes: 1) the type of data (e.g. 2D/3D/4D), and 2) whether it is produced by a digitisation process or born digital.
Other examples of infrastructure were presented including European-wide and national infrastructure. The US MorphoSource infrastructure, which we are fortunate to have as part of the research project, was also presented to attendees who had a chance to ask practical questions on setting up and using such infrastructures. Julie Winchester presented MorphoSource infrastructure, which will be tested during the scoping activities.
We also explored synergies with the IIIF-3D community group, which is also part of the team and is currently developing an interoperable framework for viewing, searching, discovering, and annotating 3D data.
The workshop also involved round tables where partners, including GLAM and HEI institutions, had the opportunity to identify stakeholders and discuss their future research needs.
For more information and to get involved in the project, please get in touch.
We are inviting expressions of interest to attend our workshop on “Visual Datasets in the Arts and Humanities”, where you will have the opportunity to input into the project development and learn more on how to get involved.
