Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- Contributors
- Glossary
- Introduction
- Part 1 Why and what to preserve: creativity versus preservation
- Part 2 The memory institution/data archival perspective
- Part 3 Digital preservation approaches, practice and tools
- Part 4 Case studies
- Part 5 A legal perspective
- Part 6 Pathfinder conclusions
- Index
13 - Ecologies of research and performance: preservation challenges in the London Charter
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- Contributors
- Glossary
- Introduction
- Part 1 Why and what to preserve: creativity versus preservation
- Part 2 The memory institution/data archival perspective
- Part 3 Digital preservation approaches, practice and tools
- Part 4 Case studies
- Part 5 A legal perspective
- Part 6 Pathfinder conclusions
- Index
Summary
Introduction
This chapter has two primary concerns. First, it asks what the London Charter for the Computer-based Visualization of Cultural Heritage has to say that is relevant to the preservation of complex digital objects? Second, it looks at the nature of some of the complex objects (note, not just complex digital objects) that are produced by multifaceted projects – in this instance, projects with both humanities research and artistic dimensions – as well as projects that span digital and non-digital materials.
The London Charter
The London Charter started off in February 2006 with a symposium and workshop called ‘Making 3D Visual Research Outcomes Transparent’, which was held at both the British Academy and King's College London as part of our ‘Making Space’ AHRC ICT Strategy Project. There was, at that time, no international consensus or standard about the type or level of documentation needed to communicate to scholarly audiences the methods and outcomes of visualization-based research projects. A computer visualization of an historical monument or object is really no more than a picture unless we also communicate to people what has gone into the making of that visualization: what is the evidence, how reliable is the evidence, what decisions have been made in order to create this digital object. Without such information, the visualization cannot be properly understood or evaluated.
At this symposium in 2006, the question was posed: ‘How do we move from the idea of good practice to a culture of good practice within the heritage visualization domain?’ I suggested that we needed a ‘Charter’, which would enable us to draw the community's attention to a formal, consensus-based statement of best practice for heritage visualization. A working group was established and released the first version of the London Charter in March 2006, with a more detailed version (Draft 2.1) being published in February 2009 (London Charter, 2009). All the drafts of the Charter, together with its detailed history and an introduction, can be seen on the London Charter website.
The Charter has six principles, each of which addresses a specific topic:
• Principle 1, ‘Implementation’, addresses the scope of the Charter's applicability.
• Principle 2 discusses the importance of making aims and methods cohere with each other.
• Principle 3, ‘Research Sources’, discusses the importance of publishing the evidence upon which research visualizations are based, and of demonstrating the systematic and rigorous evaluation of that evidence.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Preserving Complex Digital Objects , pp. 169 - 184Publisher: FacetPrint publication year: 2015