| one publication added to basket [285665] | A geodata infrastructure for archaeology: flexibility in management and analysis
De Roo, B.; Van Ackere, S.; Lonneville, B.; Bourgeois, J.; De Maeyer, P. (2016). A geodata infrastructure for archaeology: flexibility in management and analysis, in: Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing, Conference Proceedings, Volume III, Cartography & GIS. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM, : pp. 561-576
In: (2016). Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing, Conference Proceedings, Volume III, Cartography & GIS. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM. STEF92 TECHNOLOGY LTD: Sofia. ISBN 978-619-7105-60-5. 682 pp. https://dx.doi.org/10.5593/sgem2016B23, more
In: International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM. SGEM: Sofia. ISSN 1314-2704, more
|  |
| Available in | Authors |
|
Document type: Conference paper
|
| Keyword |
|
| Author keywords |
Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI); Web-based GIS; Data Model;Archaeological Data Infrastructure |
| Abstract |
To come to well-grounded conclusions, spatial, semantic and administrative data need to be handled simultaneously in archaeology. This data integration is still not fully accomplished today due to the increasing time-pressure imposed by the capitalistic market and the maladjustment of GIS to archaeological data. Furthermore, exchanging and integrating archaeological data is hampered by the diverse organization- or project specific databases. The reuse of archaeological data is consequently very limited, although valuable information is likely to result from it. Therefore, an archaeological geodata infrastructure that allows for the integration of spatial, semantic and administrative data will contribute to the data management, analysis, reuse and exchange. This paper demonstrates that the flexible Archaeological DAta Model (ADAM) can form the basis for an archaeology-specific geodata infrastructure by means of two case studies. The first case, SeArch project, focusses on the integration of different data sources and a user-friendly WebGIS and management tool for marine archaeological heritage. The second case concerns the design of an archaeological infrastructure useful for registration, management and analysis of urban excavations. By implementing the points for improvement and ideas for extension indicated by the potential end-users, the value of the application for both management and research will even increase. |
|
