Professor Julian Richards Open Data in European Archaeology

• Context: The Open Agenda • Past Reality – the development of data sharing • The current state of play

– National data sharing infrastructures – International e-infrastructures in archaeology

• Why should we share our data - Sticks • Why should we share our data - ..and Carrots

Outline

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Open Scholarship

Open Access

Open Bibliography

Open Citation

Open Data

Open Educational Resources

Open Research

Open Knowledge Foundation

Open Source

Software

Open Agenda Wikimedia Foundation

Course materials

Learning objects

Content modules

Linked Open Data

Research Data

Management

Open Notebook

Science

myExperiment.org

Open Spending

Wikipedia

Wikimedia Commons

Operating system

Applications

Open Data

• Open data is the idea that certain data should be freely available to everyone to use and republish as they wish, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control (Wikipedia, 9 June 2013)

• Open data tradition and archaeology

The Open Data Movement

• Related to Open Access movement for publications

• Data.gov & Data.gov.uk • "A piece of data is open if anyone is free to

use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike”

Linked Open Data Cloud

Linked Open Data in Archaeology

Open Data in Science

• The concept of open access to scientific data was institutionally established in preparation for the International Geophysical Year of 1957-8.

The International Council of Scientific Unions established several World Data Centers to minimize the risk of data loss and to maximize data accessibility, further recommending in 1955 that data be made available in machine-readable form.

• The Open-science-data movement long predates the Internet

Open Data in Archaeology: Pros

• “Past belongs to everyone” – democratisation of knowledge

• Accelerated pace of new knowledge • Economic benefit of Open Data • Public benefit of Open Data

– Community engagement in heritage e.g. Finds.org.uk; Europeana;

– Justification of taxpayer investment

Open Data in Archaeology: Challenges

• Privacy issues – site location; indigenous peoples; personal data

• Misuse of data • Funding of data management & data

infrastructures • Importance of provenance • Legitimate concerns of information providers

Creative Commons licensing

• Context: The Open Agenda • Past Reality – the development of data sharing • The current state of play

– National data sharing infrastructures – International e-infrastructures in archaeology

• Why should we share our data - Sticks • Why should we share our data - ..and Carrots

Outline

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

The Reality The prehistory of (non-)sharing

Rahtz, Sebastian 1988 `Reflections on an Archaeological Information Exchange' Archaeol Comput Newslett 16, 10-15

“The AIE in operation at Southampton University contains so far: mailing list; distribution service for data and/or software; and an on-line service. Problems include: the labour-intensive nature of the mailing list; little use of the service by archaeologists as opposed to UNIX-addicts....”

Harrison Eiteljorg, II 1994 ‘Archaeological Data Archive Project’, CSA Newsletter VII(3) Harrison Eiteljorg, II 2002 ‘The Archaeological Data Archive Project Ceases Operation’, CSA Newsletter XV (2)

“There appear to be two insurmountable problems with the archives. One is the absence of any real possibility for assembling a large enough body of material to be truly useful within a reasonable time. This reflects primarily the unwillingness of scholars to deposit materials in the archive......”

“The second is the inability of the Archaeological Data Archive to become self-sufficient within the next decade or so.... Data depositors may be willing to pay for deposit and long-term preservation, but there has been no evidence of that for the near term....... Archaeologists have too often treated their objects and their data as privately owned...... Archaeology is hardly alone in finding it impossible to fund an archive for digital data. Archaeologists will, however, be taken to task more strongly than many scholars because their data cannot be recreated, once lost.”

• “I need to tidy my data” (“I worry that people will think my data is poor quality”) • “I’ll do it when the research is finished / published” (“I worry that people will steal my credit”) • “It’s too expensive” (“I forgot to budget for it”) • “I haven’t got permission” (“I can’t be bothered/ haven’t got the time”)

Common excuses....

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

13 June 2013 – European parliament ratifies new rules on Open Data - includes cultural heritage data

Open Data in Europe

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

G8 Open Data Charter unveiled

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

18 June 2013: “a new era in which people can use open data to generate insights, ideas, and services to create a better world for all.”

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

The Five Principles

1. Open Data by Default 2. Increase Quality and Quantity for re-use 3. Usable by All 4. Releasing Data for improved Governance 5. Releasing Data for Innovation

• Context: The Open Agenda • Past Reality – the development of data sharing • The current state of play

– National data sharing infrastructures – International e-infrastructures in archaeology

• Why should we share our data - Sticks • Why should we share our data - ..and Carrots

Outline

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

National Preservation Infrastructures

• UK: Archaeology Data Service • Netherlands: eDNA • Sweden: SNDS • Germany: IANUS • United States: tDAR

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

National Preservation Infrastructures

• Founded 1996, University of York

• 17 staff • Collections

• 1,300,000 metadata records

• 25,000+ unpublished fieldwork reports

• 700+ rich archives • Guides to Good Practice • DPC Decennial Award

2012

The Archaeology Data Service Archaeology Data Service

Netherlands: eDNA

• 2004-6 pilot study – DANS & Leiden University

• 2007 eDNA • 2 members of staff, plus

DANS infrastructure • 2011 – 17,000 fieldwork

reports

Sweden: SND

• Swedish National Data Service, University of Gothenburg

• 2012 first archaeological archives, in collaboration with Uppsala University – GIS files, Östergötland

• Swedish Rock Art archives

Germany: IANUS

• 2012 – DAI scoping project

• Initial staff of two

Italy: MAPPA project

• 2011 onwards • University of Pisa • Network of systems,

including spatial handling

• MAPPAopenDATA • DOIs • CC-BY-SA

United States: Open Context

• Alexandria Archive Institute

• 2007+ • 2 staff members • Primarily data

publication tool • California Digital Library

provides long term preservation

United States: tDAR

• 2009+ • Mellon start-up grant • Based Arizona State

University • Digital Antiquity

consortium • 4+ staff members

Canada: Sustainable Archaeology • 2010+ • Western & McMaster

universities • c.3 staff members • Funded by Canadian

Foundation for Innovation / Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation

• Physical and digital infrastructure

Australia: FAIMS • Federated Archaeological

Information Management System

• 2012+ • University of New South

Wales • Funded by Australian

government NECTAR programme

• Mobile apps • Using instance of tDAR as

repository infrastructure

Interoperability & Data Integration

Hansen, H.J., 1992 'European archaeological databases: problems and prospects', in J. Andresen et al. (eds) Computing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Aarhus. 229-37.

ARENA: Archaeological Records of Europe: Networked Access.

ARENA 2002-4

• Culture 2000 programme

• Six European partners • Portal and exemplar

archives • Z39.50 & OAI

technology

07/03/2015 http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Z39.50 & OAI Search

Set When Query

Set What Query

Where Query Optional Search Map

DARIAH: ARENA2 2009-10 Technical demonstrator Web services architecture

What: When: Where search

ADS: DANS: CIMEC

Europeana: CARARE

FASTIONLINE

• Established 2000 • AIAC/ LP

Archaeology • Database of

excavations for classical archaeology

• 12,000 excavation reports

arachne

• DAI central object database

• 300,000 images • Metadata mapped to

CIDOC-CRM

PELAGIOS Classical Archaeology : Open Linked Data

ARIADNE

Why ARIADNE • Huge number of archaeological data

available in digital format • Large number of non-communicating

archaeological datasets – the “information silos”

• Increasing interest of the research community for data sharing, both passive (“access”) and active (“provide”)

• Social pressure for opening data vaults

What is ARIADNE • ARIADNE is a Research Infrastructure project

aiming at the integration of archaeological datasets in Europe

• Four years’ duration • Starting 1st February 2013 • 23 partners from 17 countries • Coordinated by PIN-U. of Florence (IT) • Affiliated to DARIAH

The ARIADNE Partnership

• Coordinator • Partner • Associate

Project Goals • Shape the research community • Share, access, use and re-use archaeological data • Overcome fragmentation • Foster/support interoperability • Establish accepted standards and common protocols • Enable resource discovery and faceted searches • Explore new methods • Create useful tools for searching and browsing

Connect, not assemble Make data discoverable, accessible, understandable, usable

Progress in the first year Joint Research • Creation of the ACDM (ARIADNE Catalogue

Data Model) and of the Registry describing archaeological digital resources

• Designing dataset integration • Working on an extension of CIDOC-CRM

suitable for archaeological documentation – Mapping metadata schemas to CIDOC-CRM – Draft proposal for excavation data

Success stories • Agreement with PACTOLS (multilingual French

thesaurus) for integration in the ARIADNE system • Mapping the Italian documentation system on the

ARIADNE standard • Progress into incorporating SITAR (archaeological

datasets on Rome) • DAI implementing the novel ARIADNE extension for

new datasets • ARIADNE inspiring new research projects in Austria • and more…

SITAR • Geographic coverage: Rome (incl. Ostia) and Fiumicino • Temporal coverage: from Paleolithic to present • Georeferenced dataset • Open Data • 3100 reports • Images, documents, etc. • Unique of its kind in Italy

• Context: The Open Agenda • Past Reality – the development of data sharing • The current state of play

– National data sharing infrastructures – International e-infrastructures in archaeology

• Why should we share our data - Sticks • Why should we share our data - ..and Carrots

Outline

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Why should we share our data? The Sticks

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

• Because governments and funding bodies tell us to....

• And invoke sanctions if we don’t

• Research Councils – EPSRC

• Published research papers should include a short statement describing how and on what terms any supporting research data may be accessed.

• Research organisations will ensure that EPSRC-funded research data is securely preserved for a minimum of 10-years

Sticks in the UK

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication. Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download, for anyone with an internet connection. The requirement applies only to journal articles and conference proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number.

Mandated Deposition Mandated deposition

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk 62 http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Open Data: Case Study - Archaeology Data Service

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

• Context: The Open Agenda • Past Reality – the development of data sharing • The current state of play

– National data sharing infrastructures – International e-infrastructures in archaeology

• Why should we share our data - Sticks • Why should we share our data - ..and Carrots

Outline

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Why should we share our data? The Carrots

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

• Professional ethics “Excavation as

destruction” • Academic reputation • International impact/

exposure • Re-use • Feedback

Why should we share our data? The Carrots

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Plus, increasingly: • Data citation i.e.

DOIs • Publication citation

e.g. Data papers • Research Impact

credit

• Cool, H. E. M. & Bell, M. (2011) Excavations at St Peter’s Church, Barton-upon-Humber [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] <doi: 10.5284/1000389>

• NB http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1000389

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Sample citation

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

DOIs within archives

Internal references to other collections

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

DOIs within Collections too

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Data Papers

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Transparent refereeing

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Other data paper initiatives

• Is there a difference? • The archive tradition • The archive as part of dissemination strategy • Linking publication and archive • Supporting and testing • Supplementary data – needs to be archived

Open Access vs Open Data

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

LEAP: Linking Electronic archives and publications

British Archaeological Awards 2008 Best Archaeological Innovation

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Year on year usage 1997-2011

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Grey Literature Library

Re-use statistics

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Who is using ADS?

Primary use of data

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

“The Value and Impact of the ADS” September 2013

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

Neil Beagrie Charles Beagrie Ltd. John Houghton Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University

The KRDS Benefits Framework

– Framework arranged on 3 dimensions with two sub-divisions each

– Individual benefits identified and assigned within this

Internal External

WHO BENEFITS?

Benefitfrom

Curation ofResearch Data

Traditional Value

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

The Economic Impact of the ADS

07/03/2015 http://archaeologydataservice

.ac.uk 97

Return over 30 years? Increase in returns on investment in data and related infrastructure arising from additional use facilitated by ADS

ADS Value/Impact Analysis

£1 cost provides up to £8.30 return

How to achieve integration Data sharing requires: •Suitability of someone else’s data •Interoperability of datasets •Trust in data collected by others •Guarantee of data “provenance” •Suitable licensing agreements •Suitable repositories

Looking to the future • 50% of all journals now require data to be

deposited in an archive • Need a new metaphor for publication • Blurring of publication and other forms of

dissemination • Data management not for its own sake – no

preservation without re-use