Mapping the future: Intelligent Heritage - The research perspective Professor David Arnold University of Brighton, UK 28th January 2003

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Introduction A personal perspective based on: –personal experience in research –personal understanding of the new instruments/program of work –a lot of conversations! Mix of “Hot topics” and “Making it stick” “Co-evolution of technologies and their applications” (quote - Work Program)

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Intelligent Cultural Heritage “Intelligence” used for two purposes –To improve integration of applications’ knowledge into interactive techniques used in building cultural heritage applications –To improve the look and feel for users, particularly for non-specialists users, of cultural heritage applications Target is more efficient applications (i.e. cheaper development and easier to use)

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Developing Applications Intelligence targeted at using application knowledge to improve interface –For example using knowledge of object types being recorded to speed up data capture Developing techniques to address interdisciplinary concern –For example developing non-photorealistic rendering techniques to represent uncertainty

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Continuing research issues Data Capture –Remote sensing (ground penetrating radar, shape from video, etc) –Accuracy v data volume and data acquisition time –Data refinement/extraction for particular uses (e.g. interactive internet viewing) –Underlying shape modelling techniques targeted at ICH

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Research issues (cont) Tools for reconstructions –Improved Tools for reconstruction from shards and fragments –Representing shape detail (decoration etc) –Improving texture capture/use –Rapid prototyping of reconstructions –Creating demonstrations of use of artefacts –Scripting and populating reconstructions for multilingual use

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK ICH & Generic Technologies My understanding of FP6 is that generic underpinning technologies should apply for research funding to other areas Emphasis here if the application raises specific research challenges E.g. language technologies not generally ICH but language technologies for cultural interest could be inside ICH

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Making it stick - also in NoEs Interdisciplinary issues - getting the stakeholders to share vision Already mentioned displaying uncertainty Tension between stakeholders in curatorship and economic exploitation Documenting provenance of digital artefacts, textures, models, characters, etc

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Networks of Excellence Emphasis on spreading the word –Engaging the sceptics and addressing their concerns (e.g. many archaeologists who are suspicious of technology) –Dissemination activities –Interdisciplinary collaborations –Demonstrating genuine markets –Advanced interdisciplinary training

David Arnold, University of Brighton, UK Conclusions Cultural heritage throws up unique technological challenges for CS to solve Lots of past progress that has yet to achieve its market penetration potential ICH must track development of generic technologies and adopt as appropriate to avoid sidelining by disruptive technologies Interdisciplinary actions are required