1 / 44

Assessment of Methods and Tools for Monument Documentation and Risk Assessment

This presentation provides an overview of the results and future steps of the assessment of methods and tools used for monument documentation and risk assessment. It includes the identification of key players in the collection and storage process, evaluation of existing tools, and establishment of selection criteria for efficient methods and tools.

erinhoffman
Download Presentation

Assessment of Methods and Tools for Monument Documentation and Risk Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EU-CHIC Meeting Olimje, May 2011 Assessment of methods and tools (WP 4)

  2. Presentation of the outcome of WP 4 • Johanna Leissner, Jan Valek, Emanuele Piaia • Overview and presentation of the results and future steps • Questions

  3. WP tasks and objectives • T 4.1 Identification of MTTs for data collection and presentation (ITAM, Fraunhofer, UL, BBRI, ITAM, IIT) • T4.2 Assessment, evaluation and presentation of MTTs (Fraunhofer, UL, IIT, NTUA, IPPT) • T4.3 Establishing of criteria for selection of efficient MTTs to render proposed indicators (UNIFE, UL, IIT, NTUA, IPPT)

  4. WP 4 Assessment of methods and tools WP leader: Fraunhofer Deliverable 4.2 Report on assessment, evaluation and presentation of MTTs and establishment of criteria for their selection FGH@M20 – Apr. 2011

  5. Presentation of the outcome of WP 4 Overview and presentation of the results and future steps - • DoW: WP4 - Assessment of methods and tools • , • the aim of this WP is to identify all methods, techniques and tools used to collect and store data regarding monument documentation and risk assessment • assessment, evaluation and presentation of MTTs • establishing of criteria for selection of efficient MTTs to render proposed indicators and identification of key players in the collection and storage process

  6. Task 4.1: • the aim is to identify the MTTS used to collect data • the MTTs to be identified include expert systems, databases, VR and GIS models and physical support • the identification will be based on past and running methodologies, as well as in European and non European experiences • analysis of the different methods used to collect and share information among different stakeholders and the tracking systems developed to follow where the information is collected

  7. Work performed • for the identification of MTTS used to collect data, a questionnaire with two tables was created and completed by the project partners • the first table gives an overview of the IS already in use and collected in this project and obtained the following further information about these information systems: • main objectives/purposes of existence of the information system • main attributes and principal features of the information system, divided in core data and main data • future steps and developments, goals and enlargements of the information system

  8. the second table deals with the categories of data collection to identify the MTTS, the expert systems, databases, VR and GIS models and other physical support • categories and subcategories of necessary information about cultural heritage objects are suggested and the following points were filled in by the partners for each category: • MTTs used for obtaining data • short description/details/method followed (standards, guidelines) or specification of what is used • limitation of the MTTs in use • are these MTTs implemented or is it suggested to be included/considered

  9. WP 4.1 Jan Valek ITAM Czech Republic Eu-CHIC WORKSHOP 2 Olimia (Slovenia)

  10. Scope WP 4.1 • Review and classification of MTTs of Information Systems on CH • Available dataset to study National information systems on CH described and identified in WP2 and WP3 • Each IS • Identification of the MTTs used for data collection/management • Links between MTTs / information elements and objectives of the IS • Links between information elements and MTTs • Internationally recognized activities, examples and recommendations – Established domains • Linking MTTs and CHIC – practical considerations

  11. Results WP4.1 Description of the current position of IS in relation to MTTs for data collection/managementand presentation Overview of MTTs used in national IS and linked to categories of data collection and overall objectives of the Information Systems Basis for assessment, evaluation and presentation of MTTs Links to established international activites For selection of the appropriate MTTs the following points should be known: Definition of the information elements Availability of data Data management and presentation tools

  12. Exploitation of the results • Contribution to development of EU CHIC • Basic data for evaluation and assessment within WP4 • Identification of future needs and potentials for research and collaboration • Direct use of the deliverable ? • National CH authorities – comparison of differences in other states • NGOs or anybody who starts with a design of a database on Cultural Heritage

  13. Task 4.2: • the aim of this task is to have a multidisciplinary overview and an overall approach to evaluate the most recommendable tools for data storage • a presentation of the existing methods and techniques in the field of cultural heritage has to be defined • the data collected and analysed in task 4.1 will be evaluated and classified to reach a preliminary assessment of existing tools • during the evaluation process all the criteria for the assessment of existing models will be documented

  14. Work preformed • after the questionnaires were filled in by the partners, UNIFE started analysing the second table of the questionnaire and prepared a first overview of all collected information by classifying the categories in a new way • the studying of these first analyses of the questionnaire shows that giving an evaluation and realistic overview is infeasible due to the possibility to add categories and subcategories by the partners • a new questionnaire with all the collected categories of the second table was created to address this issue • first key-players that are using the tools and are involved in the methods could be identified and will be obtained with the new questionnaire

  15. to identify the most efficient methodologies, three indicators/ criteria are developed and queried in the questionnaire: • Difficulty level of using the tool … in terms of time • … in terms of economic cost • … in terms of knowledge • for this new questionnaire the words method, tool and technique are defined to clarify what these words in this WP stand for and to handle these words in a better way • METHOD - general definition: A series of steps taken to perform a task. • WP4 has to find all useful and required methods (information/ data/ knowledge) that can be used to collect information about a cultural heritage building, e.g. general description of an object.

  16. TOOL - general definition: A tool is a device that can be used to produce an item or achieve a task, but that is not consumed in the process and can be used in particular fields or activities. WP4 has to find all the needed, useful and efficient tools and the key players to get the information for the methods, e.g. the tool photograph is important for several methods, including general description and historical development. TECHNIQUE - general definition: A technique is a procedure used to accomplish a specific activity or task. In WP4 the technique is the way in which databases and/or expert systems are used to collect, store and share the data.

  17. for the presentation of all collected MTTs, an interactive presentation will be created in the near future • this presentation will give an overview of all methods, techniques, tools, key-players, criteria for usage in a ranking order and existing guidelines/standards and their linkages • the interactive presentation will present the status quo and should have the possibility to add new MTTs that have not been recorded yet • the results of the old and new questionnaire will be combined and summarised in a web database and could be shared with the public to inform persons who are interested in cultural heritage inventory, protection and conservation methodologies

  18. Task 4.3: • this task will compare existing methodologies and tools to implement knowledge and reach a complete and flexible procedure that should be followed by future innovation research projects • criteria and indicators to define which, regarding cultural heritage, are the most efficient methodologies have to be developed • the key-players who will store the data in the system, as Ministries Superintendents and Municipalities, and to the way on where and how the information is collected and shared will be identified • it is significant to delineate which are the characteristics for the basis of a proper intervention and to establish future research priorities to be developed at international level

  19. WP 4.3 Emanuele Piaia University of Ferrara – Department of Architecture Eu-CHIC WORKSHOP 2 Olimia (Slovenia)

  20. WP 4 – Task 3 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF EFFICIENT METHODS, TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS TO RENDER PROPOSED INDICATORS 01/19

  21. LEADER: • UniFe - University of Ferrara (Italy) • PARTICIPANTS: • FRAUNHOFER (Germany) • ITT – Technion Israel Institute of Technology (Israel) • NTUA - National Technical University of Athens (Greece) • IPPT PAN – Institute of Fundamental Technological Research Polish Academy of Sciences (Poland) 02/19

  22. AIMS OF THE WP 4.3: • Development of criteria and indicators to define which are the most efficient MTTs regarding the cultural heritage; • Identification of key-players; • Definition of “where” and “how” the information will be collect and share by the key players and final users. 03/19

  23. 04/19

  24. An hypothesis of criteria that will select the most efficient MTTs for the cultural heritage are represented by: the difficulty level of use of the MTTs in “terms of time”; the difficulty level of use of the MTTs in “terms of economic cost”; the difficulty level of use of the MTTs in “terms of knowledge”. Three different typologies of answer: low medium high 05/19

  25. QUESTIONNAIRE COLLECTED: • Italy (UniFe – UniBo); • Greece (NTUA); • Poland (IPPT PAN); • Germany (FRAUNHOFER); • Slovenia (UL); • Israel (ITT); • Norway (T. Nypan). 06/19

  26. METHODOLOGIES OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSE In comparison of the questionnaire we want to collocate the MTTs like the OBJECT of the analyse with the scope of identify WHAT INFORMATION WE COULD OBTAIN WITH THE USE OF SPECIFIC MTTs? 07/19

  27. SUB-CATEGORY OF DATA CATEGORY OF DATA MTTs HISTORIC NAME NAME AND LEGAL REGULATION HISTORY OF OWNER-SHIP CONTEXT AND LANDSCAPE GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION TYPOLOGY-ARCHITECTURAL STYLE ORIGINAL USE GENERAL DESCRIPTION DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVIE RESEARCH INTERIOR DECORATION YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDE LINES (hand-book, norm, law, bibliography) CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND ELEMENTS TECHNICAL INFORMATION BUILDING TECHNIQUES PREVIOUS CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES STRUCTURAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT 08/19

  28. Subsequently we will analyses the questionnaire in order to define for any MTTs: WHO ARE THE MAIN TECHNICAL KEY-PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE USE OF THE MTTs? 09/19

  29. DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVIE RESEARCH CULTURAL HERITAGE IDENTITY CARD TECHNICAL KEY-PLAYERS THAT REALIZE “DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVIE RESEARCH” IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE DATA INFORMATION HISTORIAN (ART, BUILDING, TECHNOLOGY) ARCHITECT CONSERVATOR ENGINEER ARCHIVIST MONUMENT OWNER ARCHEOLOGIST NATIONAL CADASTER TECHNICIAN REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR SECTOR ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 01. NAME AND LEGAL REGULATION 02. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION 03. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 04. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 05. … 10/19

  30. NOT ALL MTTs HAVE THE SAME “LEVEL OF DIFFUSION” IN THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND DON’T HAVE THE SAME “LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY OF USING” IT 11/19

  31. WE PROPOSE THAT THE CHOICE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MTTs FOLLOW AN ARITHMETICAL AVERAGE. WE ASSIGN A SPECIFIC VALUE TO THE ANSWER OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE LOW= 0 MEDIUM= 0.5 HIGH= 1 We will make an average for any answer question concerning the level of difficulty in terms of: time, cost and knowledge for each MTTs 12/19

  32. DIFFICULTY OF USE IN TERMS OF TIME FOR ANY SUB-CATEGORY HISTORIC NAME DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVIE RESEARCH MEDIUM GERMANY 0,5 LOW ITALY 0,0 LOW GREECE 0,0 MEDIUM POLAND 0,5 MEDIUM SLOVENIA 0,5 AVERAGE 0,3 13/19

  33. HISTORIC NAME α DIFFICULTY OF USE IN TERMS OF TIME FOR ALL MTTs HISTORY OF OWNER-SHIP β CONTEXT AND LANDSCAPE γ TYPOLOGY-ARCHITECTURAL STYLE δ ORIGINAL USE ε TOTAL AVERAGE = λ DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVIE RESEARCH INTERIOR DECORATION ζ YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION η CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND ELEMENTS θ BUILDING TECHNIQUES ι PREVIOUS CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES κ 14/19

  34. THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MTTs BECOME RESULT OF A SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VALUES OF: 1.TIME 2. ECONOMIC COST 3. KNOWLEDGE IN THESE TERMS THE MOST EFFICIENCY MTTs WILL BE THE METHODS THAT WILL CONSENT TO OBTAIN THE AIMS (INFORMATION IN THE SUB-CATEGORY OF DATA) WITH THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF “ENERGY USE”, IN COMPARISON OF THE REAL NEEDS OF Eu-CHIC. 15/19

  35. LEVEL OF DIFFICULT OF THE MMTs: DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVIE RESEARCH IN TERMS OF TIME KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) HISTORIC NAME KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) HISTORY OF OWNER-SHIP KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) CONTEXT AND LANDSCAPE KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) TYPOLOGY-ARCHITECTURAL STYLE KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) ORIGINAL USE KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) INTERIOR DECORATION KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND ELEMENTS KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) BUILDING TECHNIQUES KEY-PLAYERS (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) EXISTING DATA-BASE (ITA., GER., POL., SLO., GRE.) PREVIOUS CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES 16/19

  36. THE FUTURE DELIVERABLES COULD INCLUDE A SINGULARE PAPER OF THE MOST EFFICENT MTTs, THAT DESCRIBE: THE MAIN TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MTTs THE INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN OBTAIN THANKS TO THE MTTs THE TECHNICAL KEY-PLAYERS THAT USE OR APPLY THE MTTs BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDIES (ANNEX) 17/19

  37. 18/19

  38. 19/19

  39. How, where and how long to store the data… Long-term storage is one of the central tasks of public libraries and archives. Digital archiving, however, bears numerous risks, among them electromagnetic influences, changing soft- and hardware standards, manipulation or a total loss. Taking into account that data has to be stored over periods of several hundred years, this procedure turns out to be very expensive, too.

  40. Collection of data from Europe & Egyptclimatemicroclimatebuilding observed damages KYBERTEC Ltd. 2010

  41. http://www.cultnat.org/Programs/Architectural%20Heritage/Application/Pages/Application_New.aspxhttp://www.cultnat.org/Programs/Architectural%20Heritage/Application/Pages/Application_New.aspx http://www.cultnat.org/Programs/Architectural%20Heritage/Application/Pages/Application_New.aspx

More Related