Proposed grand challenge:
Bringing the past to life for the citizen
David Arnold,
University of Brighton
1. Character and Rationale
“The past is all around us. We live our lives, whether consciously or not,
against a rich backdrop formed by historic buildings, landscapes and other
physical survivals of our past. But the historic environment is more than just a
matter of material remains. It is central to how we see ourselves and to our
identity as individuals, communities and as a nation. It is a physical record of
what our country is, how it came to be, its successes and failures. It is a
collective memory, containing an infinity of stories, some ancient, some
recent: stories written in stone, brick, wood, glass, steel; stories inscribed in
the field patterns, hedgerows, designed landscapes and other features of the
countryside.” [1]
Many people have an undeniable fascination with the past. Evidence ranges broadly
from the continuing popularity of stories told of the past (manifest in popular film,
novel and theatre); to the significance of historic environments in determining
tourists’ destination choices (WTO; to the frantic pressure on the recently-mounted
online national census data (with the associated wide-spread hobby of tracing family
trees); and even the impact of heritage on the value of properties in a district. There
are in excess of 10,000 museums and visitor centres in the UK, most dealing with
particular aspects of the past and recording vast amounts of data.
Much of the evidence that we have of the past relates to contentious material – most
often conflict and religion – about which there are inevitably differing perspectives,
affecting perception of the events themselves (and the participants in them) as well as
the modern day observers with their own current ethical, philosophical and social
contexts. Cultural heritage professionals are often, rightly, loathe to settle on
particular interpretations of the significance of events or heritage artefacts, preferring
to present a range of interpretations. They are also suspicious of the media trivialising
and misrepresenting the past in the interest of a more entertaining and profitable reinterpretation. The emphasis is often on preservation and custodianship.
Computer scientists have become widely involved in attempting to assist cultural
heritage professionals in their tasks but, as with any data handling, the computing
professionals look for additional worth to be obtained from the existence of digital
records. At times these additional uses have appeared to cultural heritage
professionals as crass and insensitive, failing to address the real requirements of their
disciplines and spreading more confusion than light. 1.1 The vision
The long term vision is that the citizen should be able to witness events of the past
replayed interactively, but this is more than just a recreation, allowing the viewer to
explore and discover more about the circumstances and motivations of the
participants, linking the reconstruction to the modern day evidence if they choose and
receiving explanations of the differing socio-political perspectives which are relevant
to the events. 1.2 The tasks
This is a truly multi- and inter-disciplinary challenge. There are many intermediate
steps to achieving the long-term vision and many technological challenges to meet on
route, touching on a widely spread set of computing sub-areas and other disciplines.
At the extreme the challenge re-activates the Turing Test.
However computing science has already much to offer to the many interim
applications’ stages of discovery, recording, analysis, cataloguing, reconstruction,
interpretation, story-telling and communication of physical artefacts and records of
the past. Currently these offerings are somewhat fragmented with a huge range of
intermediate formats, many (mostly local) formats for classifying facts and
cataloguing collections and little by way of interchange formats ensuring the
persistence of the information specifically targeted at the preservation of the cultural
heritage content. Instead there are common formats for general geometric information
or GIS content or database/archive structures, but little specifically targeted at the
preservation and reuse of the cultural heritage content. There is also a huge body of
knowledge already archived in incompatible formats and often where the original data
collection cannot be repeated since the original sources have been lost or destroyed,
whether by acts of war, terrorism or simply the ravages of time or normal processes of
archaeological excavation.
Breaking down some of the component challenges that the complete vision would
need to address, the following seem key areas:
! ! An integrated infrastructure from data capture to deployment in cultural
heritage research and scholarship is required. The main challenges here are the
definitions of data formats to allow interoperability of tools and long term
applicability of the base data. This provides the framework for the rest of the
work.
Whilst the principles of meeting the Grand Challenge may be met without
completing digitisation of all historic information, there are significant
challenges in extracting and analysing existing non-digital collections
information – both artefacts and metadata. There are real challenges in
digitising and preserving existing collections – for example, the challenge of
digitizing and preserving the estimated 100,000,000 hours of Audio-visual
material from the 20th century is a significant production automation and
deployment challenge, quite probably involving research into viable
automation and preservation techniques. These are not in themselves viewed
as part of this Grand Challenge. There is also a parallel set of research
challenges in understanding how the content of such resources might be used ! ! ! ! within the Grand Challenge – data and metadata formats, content analysis,
semantic analysis of image and 3D data etc. The principles of using these data
will require exploration to meet the Grand Challenge, without completing the
digitisation process.
Intelligent interactive tools for use by non-IT professionals, which are tailored,
so that the cultural heritage professionals can work in their domain of
expertise rather than fighting to achieve particular effects using general
purpose tools. Such tools would also empower the myriad of voluntary groups
(preservation trusts etc) as a by-product.
Modelling and visualisation systems which differentiate interpretation and
evidentially-supported fact, so that viewers are not mislead by “pretty”
presentations into misconceptions of cultural heritage “knowledge”. These
tools need to operate at the interface between recording what remains and
reconstructing what is believed to have been there. Enormous progress has
been made in some areas of recording – e.g. laser scanning of sites and
artefacts, but there are very significant challenges in analysing such data as the
basis for interpreting the original state of the sites or objects. Visualisation
also involves reconstruction of the environment under which the originals
would have been viewed. Such visualisations will include the need to
understand historic lighting conditions and sound generation, as well as more
obvious retracing (for example uncovering Mayan Pyramids from the
subsequent ingress of vegetation)
Such recreations involve very large data sets, for example viewing whole
cities in detail including not only models of the original architectural detail but
also the population. Algorithms, data-structures and systems for efficient
visualisation of very large, animated, and detailed multimedia datasets are
therefore required. Whilst this challenge is shared with other potential
applications, one aspect that will improve the results is an understanding of the
common characteristics of historic artefacts. Understanding styles of
architecture and detailing allows efficient modelling and tailored level of
detail operation; knowing underpinning characteristics of fabric and fashion
will allow more efficient modelling and rendering.
There are a range of challenges here under a broader heading of “Natural
Language technologies” including systems that:
! Understand how to make story-telling effective in Virtual
Environments so that objective design criteria can be set for delivering
engaging experiences to end users and integrating the potential
exploration of the underlying data by the viewer.
! Use Natural Language understanding with thesauri of appropriate
terms and standardised ontologies applied to content drawn from
heterogeneous digitized collections and catalogues spread over many
sites. This sub-area also includes the analysis of historic sources – the
descriptions of previously recorded collections - data mining of large,
heterogeneous data collections to assist in cultural heritage scholarship
and in assembly of interesting virtual collections from disparate
sources.
! Ultimately incorporate cultural and emotional interpretation, and
potential historic language constructs, in particular where use of
language may have had different cultural or social connotations than
similar language now. Imagine the role playing experience that ! ! allowed the user to experience the different interpretations that people
of Christian or other religious persuasions might place on events,
purely by selecting from a potential set of backgrounds. This is
probably the longest time horizon of any of the component challenges
listed here, but there are also many interim achievements that would
enable in successful projects, short of the full vision. Interim solutions
would include parameterised, but pre-scripted interpretations authored
by experts in appropriate fields with interactive systems making
selections.
Working with experts from cultural heritage fields to demonstrate value added
to traditional methods, in order to show the real value of ICT developments for
cultural heritage professionals. This would have to include a better
understanding of the long-term implications of digital artefacts varying from
the physical media used for storage to data management and version control.
Standards similar in objectives to Digital Object Identifiers and attention to
issues such as standardised recording of provenance of digital artefacts, as
well as addressing legal, copyright and fair-trade agendas so that socioeconomic benefits are suitably returned to those whose heritage and artefacts
are involved.
Although the intellectual Grand Challenge may appear ot have been solved
when there is the first exemplar of an event which is suitably “living” the full
challenge specifically includes the phrase “for the citizen”. This aspect will
not be solved until there are sustainable business models – when the
production of such experiences is achievable economically and hence allows
them to be experienced by a reasonable proportion of citizens. It is imperative
for technological solutions to be cheap both in initial capital and in operations
costs if they were to have a widespread impact on CH operations, although it
is admittedly a later stage than proving it is possible technically to produce
such solutions at all. Some of the technological challenges arise in order that the credibility of the
objectives of the Grand Challenge to Cultural Heritage Professionals. 1.3 Differences from existing six proposals
The current proposal overlaps marginally with perhaps three of the existing six Grand
Challenges, for different reasons.
Probably the closest is “Memories for Life” in that some of the technologies of
organising heterogeneous data sources and extracting and interpreting information
would have some overlap with the technologies involved in the interrogations of
metadata and collections information. The challenge lists topics in “Data and
Databases,” “Information Retrieval,” “Artificial Intelligence,” and “Human-Computer
Interfaces” all of which overlap to an extent with the lists of sub-topics above.
However in all cases the characterisation of the technologies listed above assumes a
degree of domain specific knowledge that would be different from the domainspecific knowledge required in Memories for Life. Similarly the Machine Learning
component of Memories for Life would probably be distinct from the dialogue
management aspects of the Natural Language technologies described above. The second potential overlaps might be seen as with “In vivo – in silico” although the
overlap here is primarily philosophical – the current proposal is to build a Grand
Challenge which is targeted at quite specific application domains. The content is
however clearly distinct. In some senses the objective of modelling nature is also
shared – the environments to be modelled would incorporate flora and fauna as well
as communicating virtual humans.
The third potential overlap is with “The Architecture of Brain and Mind” where some
of the cognitive processes listed (e.g. “understanding language”; “deciding what to
do”) would be part of the more advanced versions of “Bringing the Past to Life for the
Citizen”. These challenges are not envisaged as addressed in the context of this
proposal until significant progress has been made in the many other aspects. Should
the general problem have been addressed by the Architecture of Brain and Mind then
this proposal would continue to need to map the generic solutions into those
appropriate to recreations of the past. This is expected to be a similar challenge
comparable to many of the others above where base-line technologies may have been
developed but proper integration into the domain-specific requirements has not yet
been achieved. In addition it is not obvious from the current description how GC5 will
deal with such factors as “cultural influence,” “belief,” and multi-lingual ambiguity
(ie where terms have no correspondence in other languages or where interpretations of
closest matches overlap).
Each of these potential overlaps would need discussion during the full definition
process for the Grand Challenge. 2 Proposers
During a fairly short gestation period in this form the proposal has been backed in
principle by the following:
Professor David Arnold, University of Brighton
Professor Alan Chalmers, University of Bristol
Professor Andrew Day, University of East Anglia
Professor David Duce, Oxford Brookes University
Professor Phil Willis, University of Bath 3 Evidence of a UK community
The following Universities are already engaged in a Network of Excellence which
addresses some of these issues – Brighton, Bristol, Brunel, Kent, Oxford, Surrey,
Sussex, UEA, Warwick, and York, with Southampton and King’s College, London
joining. In some cases the participants are not from Computer Science departments,
reflecting the multi- and inter-disciplinary make-up of that NoE. This proposal
overlaps significantly with the motivation and objectives of that Network, but the
proposal also targets radically more ambitious targets over a timescale that extends
many years and concentrates on those aspects with a strong computer science
element. The NoE concerned (EPOCH – www.epoch-net-org) is funded by the
European Commission until 2008. The current proposal would have the impact of
creating a longer term Computing Science agenda for the existing Network and other participants in the Grand Challenge as well as demonstrating UK commitment and
contribution to the developing international agenda. Other UK partners are known to
be active in relevant fields. 4 Developing the proposal to full status
There is much to do to scope the outline sub-topics listed above and identify teams
willing and able to develop the agenda further within the holistic framework offered
by the Grand Challenge. 5 Matching the Characteristics of a Grand Challenge
a. b. c. d. International scope.
The proposed GC has a undoubted international dimension at many levels.
Every culture has a past and many geographic locations have multiple
contributing cultures. The UK as a multi-cultural society ought to be well
placed to offer leading contributions to advancing the field and indeed ought
to benefit from anything that assists in inter-cultural education and
understanding.
Ambition can be far greater than that of a single research team/grant.
As is obvious from the list of UK universities involved in the current NoE.
The NoE itself has almost 90 partners with significant clusters of computer
science research institutions in many European countries
The grand challenge should be directed towards a revolutionary advance.
Success in this Grand Challenge would be a revolutionary advance and would
have a major impact on the public and on future generation’s educational and
leisure experiences. Although it might be considered related to industry
sectors where there are substantial commercial interests (e.g. computer games
or other entertainment sectors) it is very important for the credibility of the
research that the technologies developed are firmly embedded in the search for
truth about the past (or multiple valid interpretations) which is the goal of
historical research. There are too many examples of the commercial interests
of the entertainment sector re-interpreting the evidence, which would lead the
credibility of the work proposed here were it to be seen as an off-shoot of the
entertainment sector (“Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story”).
The topic for a grand challenge should emerge from a consensus of the
general scientific community, to serve as a focus for curiosity-driven research
or engineering ambition, and to support activities in which they personally
wish to engage, independent of funding policy or political considerations.
The proposed Grand Challenge is grounded in widespread work already being
undertaken which would contribute towards the early stages of creating the
vision. There are clear political agendas (for example widening Europe) which
would be served by the ability to explain the past from the multiple
perspectives of different cultures. For example the re-unification of Germany
or the issues surrounding the division of Cyprus and its desire to join the EU
are very real examples of a past which has been contentious between social
groupings who now have a desire (at least at some level) to share a common
future. The example of Northern Ireland is perhaps closer to home and very real too. The sensitivity of exploring such contentious situations means that
they should probably remain off the radar for many years and well beyond the
establishment of effective technologies to support the story-telling etc. but the
presentation techniques that are an inevitable consequence of meeting the
interim challenges will remain useful in presenting authored experiences to
public audiences. In addition the usability studies that would be necessary to
determine effectiveness with public audiences would also provide contained
experimental results. 6 Comments on Criteria of Maturity
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) It arises from scientific curiosity about the foundation, the nature or the limits
of a scientific discipline.
As indicated above the proposed GC is peppered with unsolved computing,
science problems as well as interactions with many other disciplines.
It gives scope for engineering ambition to build something that has never been
seen before.
Clearly this is the case
It will be obvious how far and when the challenge has been met (or not).
This area needs scoping, in particular the various stages short of a selfscripting system using fully autonomous agents could be anticipated in much
shorter timescales and would be much more likely to find acceptance in the
Cultural Heritage community. They would also still be very interesting and
challenging. Experimentation with public reactions, learning and
understanding in using systems of less capability would be needed to build
progressive confidence in the interim results, before attempting more
ambitious agendas became acceptable.
It has enthusiastic support from (almost) the entire research community, even
those who do not participate and do not benefit from it.
See above. Further canvassing of opinions can be undertaken as necessary and
would be part of any discussion of the proposal at GC06
It has international scope: participation would increase the research profile of
a nation.
See above.
It is generally comprehensible, and captures the imagination of the general
public, as well as the esteem of scientists in other disciplines.
In considering the current list of Grand Challenges the current proposal would
appear in many ways the easiest to explain to a public audience. The public
are thirsty for such content:
“In a recent survey undertaken in England it was found that “More
than half (52%) of people in a nationwide poll in 2003 had visited a
historic park or garden in the last twelve months, and 46% had visited
a historic building. According to the same poll more people had
watched a TV programme about history or archaeology over the same
period (66%) than had visited the cinema (51%)” [3]
The resulting applications in tourism, education and edutainment would be
substantial. (see quotations below)
It was formulated long ago, and still stands.
Telling stories of the past is as old as society itself. Many early examples of
rock art present pictorial interpretations of the past and the tradition of oral
heritage passed from generation to generation is part of the tradition of (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) language. Hand-written and printed histories and novels reflect various levels
of interpretation. Theatre, cinema and television represent a progression of
media but all have dealt with themes drawn from history and varying levels of
accuracy. An understanding of what makes an engaging interactive experience
which nevertheless imparts understanding is at best not well understood and
quite probably not understood. Evidence of this would be the limited success
of books with “goto’s” – take a decision for the character and move to defined
page as a result. Even in linear text the number of courses in creative writing
and the volume of remaindered and unpublished novels attests to the
complexity of the problems.
It promises to go beyond what is initially possible, and requires development
of understanding, techniques and tools unknown at the start of the project.
See above
It calls for planned co-operation among identified research teams and
communities
The proposal would require contributions from research teams working in
many areas of computing science and in other disciplines related to cultural
heritage, including media, museology, archaeology, history, religious studies,
art history, etc – the list would go on.
It encourages and benefits from competition among individuals and teams,
with clear criteria on who is winning, or who has won.
Whilst this would inevitably be the case in terms of the individual component
technologies as clear theme of the work proposed is that the components
should fit together and be developed with proper understanding of the cultural
heritage domain. As such inter-disciplinary teams are a virtually inevitable
condition for successful contributions and assume a great deal of cooperation.
It decomposes into identified intermediate research goals, whose achievement
brings scientific or economic benefit, even if the project as a whole fails.
There are many intermediate stages which would bring major benefit socioeconomic benefits. Tourism is a huge market sector and historic interest is a
major factor in determination of choice of venue. (see quotations below)
It will lead to radical paradigm shift, breaking free from the dead hand of
legacy.
Then paradigm shift in terms of the traditional dissemination of the evidence
of the past would be substantial. Visitor experiences would allow a level of
engagement with the contents of, and knowledge about, collections and a stepchange in augmenting the educational value of artefacts.
It is not likely to be met simply from commercially motivated evolutionary
advance.
Generating investment for preservation of the past from commercial sources is
usually regarded as an appeal for charitable donations. Politicians are
increasingly looking for justifications for investments in cultural heritage in
terms of socio-economic impact and investment in pure preservation or
conservation is less likely to find favour than investments which promote
access to the heritage. Access (tourism, education, etc) is where the economic
contribution is most easy to observe, even if hard to measure. Other social
effects (such as a decrease in graffiti and vandalism in well-maintained
historic environments) have been observed but not widely quantified. The
perception is that the heritage sector is populated more by social enterprises where profit is not the lead motivator and hence commercial in...

• 1493972952-citizen.pdf

SuperTutor

(15)

Status NEW Posted 05 May 2017 08:05 AM My Price 20.00

-----------

Attachments

file 1493972957-Solutions file.docx preview (56 words )

S-----------olu-----------tio-----------ns -----------fil-----------e -----------Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k y-----------ou -----------for----------- yo-----------ur -----------int-----------ere-----------st -----------and----------- bu-----------yin-----------g m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l b-----------e q-----------uic-----------kly----------- on-----------lin-----------e a-----------nd -----------giv-----------e y-----------ou -----------exa-----------ct -----------fil-----------e a-----------nd -----------the----------- sa-----------me -----------fil-----------e i-----------s a-----------lso----------- se-----------nt -----------to -----------you-----------r e-----------mai-----------l t-----------hat----------- is----------- re-----------gis-----------ter-----------ed -----------on�-----------�th-----------is -----------web-----------sit-----------e. ----------- H-----------YPE-----------RLI-----------NK -----------&qu-----------ot;-----------htt-----------p:/-----------/wo-----------rkb-----------ank-----------247-----------.co-----------m/&-----------quo-----------t; -----------\t -----------&qu-----------ot;-----------_bl-----------ank-----------&qu-----------ot;----------- -----------Tha-----------nk -----------you----------- -----------

Not Rated(0)

• Buy Answer