treehugginghippycrap » HER

heritage.data.gov.uk …?

Paul — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:50:22 +0000

The Linking Open Data dataset cloud by Fenng

Exciting news for UK data this week as the new UK data website, www.data.gov.uk, had its official launch. It’s been in beta for a while but is now fully functional and open for business, providing access to a range of datasets. Importantly, as well as the more traditional download of files in formats such as Comma Seperated Variable (csv) text files, the site promises to provide information in the form of Linked Data. This is a massive advance towards the semantic web with data freely available to be used and reused by all manner of web apps, promising virtually limitless potential; graphed, mapped, and mashed up in a myriad of ways.

This news follows hot on the heels of the consultation document on the future of Ordnance Survey data which promises to make more high quality map resources far more widely available. So in addition to having access to government data such as crime, education and health statistics, we will soon (assuming the consultation goes the way it ought to) have access to basemaps to plot it all on and administrative area boundaries to analyse by.

Of course, this is not the end of the story, just the beginning. Whilst the Linked Data approach works well for simple discreet datasets such as numeric/statistical publications and the accessibility of map data is largely a political issue, there is still some way to go before much more complex datasets will be available in this way; Whilst many datasets can be provided as Linked Data and mapping can be delivered as WMS/WFS, both providing mechanisms for exposing data and making it interoperable, there are a couple of big outstanding issues pertaining to cultural heritage information.

Firstly, the semantic clarity with which we record and have recorded information. Concepts are frequently complex and compound and often indistinct or inconsistent; the notion of period (eg Bronze Age) for example encapsulates a spatial element and a temporal element. For resource discovery, disambiguating the colour bronze from the material bronze may be essential; not all bronze (material) objects are bronze (colour) whilst some non-bronze (material) objects are bronze in colour. What one expert refers to as a bronze knife is to another a bronze dagger. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg with the variation in classifications used, levels of atomicity in recording schemas and the legacy of how heritage datasets came into being. So simply converting a digital site archive or other archaeological record to a pile of RDF triples, providing URIs and exposing the data will not magically take us into a world of semantically interoperable heritage data but it is possible to see how it will/can work for some heritage datasets such as eg Oasis records, records of archaeological activities, events and publications or many of the discreet project archives lodged with the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) with some care and attention to detail. There will undoubtedly need to be some additional mediating frameworks to facilitate access to data, conceptual frameworks such as ontologies capable of rationalising semantic conflicts and terminological differences, but such frameworks are being developed/implemented (for example the CIDOC Conteptual Reference Model) and can help to resolve some of the semantic issues associated with heritage data.

The other major obstacle for much heritage data is politics. Currently, the primary sources of archaeological data for sites and monuments are the Historic Environment Records (HER) or Sites and Monuments Records (SMR), typically held within local authorities. Increasingly, these resources have implemented strict data licensing conditions and charge for supply of data. This is not only counter to the whole open data concept but the income streams generated by restricting and controlling access must be appealing to local authorities as a way of making heritage resources self funding rather than being a drain on limited resources. The result of this is that local authorities are going to protect what they see as their intellectual property which has monetary value. Sound familiar? Where HER/SMR data is made more freely available it is typically through local authority online portals in order than control can still be exerted over the data both with respect to content, modes of presentation and interaction. Even the Heritage Gateway, the exemplar of opening up heritage data which has tremendous potential and is an amazing resource, only provides limited access to partial datasets from participating originators with individual originators retaining control over what is presented and how. Why can’t we all have access to the data within the held by HER/SMRs and indeed the National Monuments Record (NMR) using similar techniques as are being used for other government datasets, aiming towards heritage.data.gov.uk as successor to the Heritage Gateway…?

So, it looks like attitudes towards government data are changing; data will become more openly available, leveraging recent developments such as Linked Data and heading some way towards a semantic web of sorts. With any luck, heritage data will get carried along and we will start to see more opportunities for novel heritage research off the back of this. But, the semantics of heritage data are by far more complex than anything emerging to date and will provide us with considerable challenges to make this information truly interoperable so one day we can indeed have a semantic web of the entire corpus of knowledge regarding how we got to where we are today.

Public Access through technology; Using archaeological computing to interact with wider audiences in new and engaging ways

Paul — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:30:09 +0000

A talk given earlier this year at Strode College based largely on a talk given earlier this year at the IfA conference. The main aim was to show the students some of the ways in which technology is used in contemporary archaeological practice to help disseminate findings, with numerous examples from all over the place; credits to all those people and organisations mentioned. Topics covered included data standards, GIS, ontologies and terminology through to innovative uses of the web and so-called web2.0 services such as blogs, twitter, flickr and the like. Videos from the day are over on Vimeo.

Slides on Slideshare:

View more presentations from paul cripps.

Presentation on Vimeo:

Strode College Archaeology Conference 09 – Paul Cripps. from Henry Rothwell on Vimeo.

Paul Cripps of Wessex Archaeology (www.wessexarch.co.uk) speaks on the subject of infomatics, HER/SMR storage and access, and covers a considerable amount of ground concerning information technology in relation to archaeological data.
Well worth a look.

Time’s up for the Ordnance Survey…?

Paul — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:12:33 +0000

Some news regarding the Ordnance Survey and spatial data in the UK has come to me via the wonders of GIS User and my work. Once again, OS licensing is the key issue but now there is a another driving force on the scene which may have an impact.

The concept of service provision…?

For a while now, I’ve been getting frustrated with the Ordnance Survey. Not in terms of the data they provide, it is of the utmost quality, rather the prohibitive costs associated with using their data, the way in which it is delivered and the draconian licensing arrangements (which the OS themselves recognise).Yes, there is Googlemaps but the quality just isn’t there for cartographic work and I have argued previously that the OS should improve access to their map data and cut through the nightmare of red tape that is OS licensing.

There have been small signs of the OS bending to public pressure from campaigns such as Free Our Data and input from influential figures like Ed Parsons (of Google and formerly the OS) when they recently did a u-turn and re-enabled access to OpenSpace from a KML based application by Gavin Brock. This application allows OS data from OpenSpace to be viewed in GoogleEarth and was deemed contary to the OpenSpace developer licensing agreement and hence disabled. Of course, the initial response of the OS was to threaten (remember the Met Police crime map fiasco?) then block, then bow to public pressure and make excuses after Ed Parsons blogged about it and a large contingent of interested parties from all walks of life who found the application useful bombarded the OS with complaints (but note, the OS still shrouded this u-turn in legalise, denied it was their fault and blamed Google!). Hardly fostering innovation through effective use of licensing.

Recently, it emerged that some Historic Environment Records (or Sites and Monuments Records as they used to be called) have started to demand that users of their spatial data have current OS licenses, presumably due to the old chestnut of OS ‘derived’ data and their need to comply with their OS license agreements: Pretty much anything that has been captured against any OS map base is arguably derived data and hence OS copyright and therefore cannot be reused under the terms of OS license agreements. So, to obtain archaeological spatial data created and maintained at tax-payers expense it is necessary (in some areas) to buy or obtain an OS license for the area in question. Similar to the news that some local authorities are charging for Local Plan maps , this is a more close to home example where the OS is affecting the cultural heritage sector through it’s ridiculous licensing restrictions. Whilst most academics can access OS data through Edina licenses on an institutional subscription basis, everyone else must jump through hoops and pay to ensure they have appropriate licensing in place else face the wrath of the OS. And this must be done every time there is a need to obtain archaeological spatial data from those authorities where the Local Authority GIS/legal teams have interpreted OS licensing in such a way as to demand a current OS license. Incidentally, this is by no means all Local Authorities, highlighting how the complexity of the OS licensing agreements leads to inconsistent interpretation and implementation.

A viable alternative…?

But now it appears a saviour may be on the horizon, a mapping provider with an alternative view on spatial data. The UKMap from the GeoInformation group is a resource to rival that provided by the OS. Not only are they looking to develop delivery services based around OGC standards (WMS/WFS) suitable for dynamic inclusion in my GIS, but they have stepped away from the ridiculous, convaluted licensing models used by the OS. Yes, the OS have developed OpenSpace in response to GoogleMaps but this is explicitly for non-commercial use, not a means of delivering data to customers.

“The GeoInformation® Group, publishers of UKMap® the new large-scale topographic mapping and address database for the UK, today announces a new strategic partnership with STAR-APIC, a world leader in delivering and managing mapping databases. The partnership will see STAR-APIC build and maintain the online delivery service for UKMap. The system that has been developed also offers the capability of delivering UKMap data via the Internet conforming to Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) web mapping WMS and WFS standards. The system is designed to offer traditional file based data delivery with the requirement for online delivery expected to increase through time.” (from the UKMap news pages).

And as regards the data available, if you thought no-one could possibly rival the OS, in addition to the 1:1000 topographic map base and overlay layers, the UKMap product comprises:

Addresses
Points of interest including retail and commercial data
BLPUs
Aerial photography
Terrain
Land Use
3D buildings

Plus a 1:5000 thematic raster map product suitable particularly for web-mapping applications. So that’s a pretty comprehensive list then! Especially given everything bar the thematic product is shipped as one product, no need for licensing of individual products. Plus the UKMap team handle contractor licenses, elimanating the nightmare that is the OS Subcontractor licensing scenario, an adminstrative nightmare. Plus, there is no derived data issue: data created by users belongs to users: “UKMap offers users the rights to retain any derived data they may create through using UKMap so increasing corporate assets and reducing investment costs” and “Share derived data and UKMap data with partners, sub contractors and consultants through simple licensing options” (quotes from the UKMap website). Furthermore, the data is delivered in useable formats so (in my case, as an ArcGIS user) no need to purchase the ESRI (UK) Productivity Suite Conversion tools simply to access the data.

The end is nigh…?

Obviously, I have yet to see what these licensing arrangements are for this new product and associated services, but the very fact that UKMap are thinking in terms of sharing and reuse is the polar opposite of the OS who claim rights over pretty much anything and are positively obstructive to the sharing of data (see the examples of SMR/HERs and Local Plan data above). I also haven’t seen the costs yet, but I doubt they could be as expensive as OS products. And of course, coverage will be an issue until the UKMap can provide full national coverage. But all this is, to an extent, beside the point. There is now another provider in the market and if local authorities such as Brent can see the benefits and move across, this should give the OS a bit of a push to get with the programme and realise they cannot simply hide behind licensing as they have done up till now.

So, just when I thought my dreams of having high quality mapping at a reasonable price delivered direct to my desktop GIS and web-based systems were little more than that, just dreams, along comes a light at the end of tunnel. So perhaps not exactly time’s up for the OS, indeed I would hate to see that happen, but hopefully this will shake them up a bit. Wake up Ordnance Survey, you’ve got competition now!