Archeofoss XIV 2020: Open Software, Hardware, Processes, Data and Formats in Archaeological Research: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, 15-17 October 2020 (English and Italian Edition)

Cover\nTitle Page\nCopyright Page\nContents Page\nForeword\nArcheoFOSS 2020 Committees\nStrumenti digitali open-source per la documentazione della cultura visuale\n	Michele Pellegrino, Donato Coppola\n		Figura 1: a) Henri Breuil: rilievo diretto di un graffito parietale; b) riproduzione a pastello di bovidi presso la Grotta di Altamira (Groenen 2018: figg. 10, 22).\n		Figura 2: Grotta di Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni, BR): a) saggio di scavo archeologico (anno 2016); b) supporti calcarei con sintassi decorative geometrico-lineari rinvenute nel corso della campagna di scavo 2016 (Coppola et al. 2017: Figura 8).\n		Figura 3: Grotta di Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni, BR): a) RTIbuilder, fase di detecting sphere; b) RTIviewer: visualizzazione in modalità Specular Enhancement.\n		Figura 4: Grotta di Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni, BR): a) Blender: lightdome virtuale con camera ortografica e mesh dell’oggetto; b) RTIviewer: visualizzazione in Specular Enhancement del procedimento v-RTI.\n		Figura 5: Grotta di Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni, BR): a-b) visualizzazione del dettaglio di un supporto calcareo con incisioni lineari non-figurative (SMA-test_2) in modalità Specular Enhancement [a) d.c. 90, sp. 05, h. s. 95; b) d.c. 0, sp. 30, h. s. 1\nValutazione integrata delle dinamiche di rischio di erosione del suolo\n	Stefano De Angeli et al\n		Figura 1: Struttura generale del sistema RESEARCH: catene di processamento e piattaforma Web-GIS (@RESEARCH Project).\n		Tabella 1: Valori di vulnerabilità ed esposizione alla minaccia delle varie tipologie di evidenze archeologiche.\n		Figura 2: Falerii Novi, area campione. Modello USPD: DTM finale con variazioni dei valori di altitudine (@RESEARCH Project).\n		Figura 3: Falerii Novi, area campione. Mappa di minaccia dell’erosione del suolo (@RESEARCH Project).\n		Figura 4: Falerii Novi, area meridionale. Restituzione 2D delle evidenze archeologiche individuate con valori di profondità dei singoli pixel (@RESEARCH Project).\n		Figura 5: Falerii Novi, area meridionale. Mappa di vulnerabilità archeologica correlata alla minaccia di erosione del suolo (@RESEARCH Project).\n		Figura 6: Falerii Novi, area campione. Mappa di rischio finale (@RESEARCH Project).\nRome – NE Palatine slopes\n	Emanuele Brienza, Giovanni Caratelli, Lorenzo Fornaciari, Cecilia Giorgi\n		Figure 1: Rome, NE Palatine slopes. Orthophotomosaic produced by CNR at the end of the 2012 excavation campaign.\n		Figure 2: Rome, NE Palatine slopes. Orthographic view of the new 3D model representing the ‘Baths of Elagabalus’ and Vigna Barberini’s substructions.\n		Figure 3: Rome, NE Palatine slopes. (a) Portion of the 3D model recently reprocessed with the CNR photographic archive, using multi-image photogrammetry; (b) the same portion of 3D model integrated by processing dataset acquired in the last topographic an\n		Figure 4: Rome, NE Palatine slopes. The new database on PostgreSQL/PostGIS performed on QGIS.\n		Figure 5: Rome, NE Palatine slopes. A first WebGIS development carried out thanks to the gishosting service of the Gter company (https://www.gishosting.gter.it/home/).\n		Figure 6: Rome, NE Palatine slopes. An example of exporting data in KML format and their integration in Google Earth platform.\nUn workflow open-source per l’elaborazione delle immagini termiche da drone\n	Gabriele Ciccone\n		Figura 1: Esempi di immagine RGB e IR e schema dei voli effettuati.\n		Figura 2: Schema del workflow con software proprietari per l’elaborazione di immagini termiche.\n		Figura 3: Schema del workflow con software free e open-source per l’elaborazione di immagini termiche.\n		Figura 4: (a) Ortofoto in 4 bande (R, G, B, IR); (b) Ortofoto nella singola banda IR.\n		Figura 5: Confronto di ortofoto in banda IR in differenti orari della stessa giornata.\nAnalysis of urban mobility in 18th-century Rome\n	Renata Ago, Domizia D’Erasmo\n		Figure 1: a) A section of the strada della Valle as depicted in Nolli’s map; b) Example of a path that involves passing through a courtyard of a building in piazza Navona (base map: Nuova Topografia di Roma).\n		Figure 2: Result of the vectorization of all analysed paths by GIS platform.\n		Table 1: Extract of the first ten records of the table of attributes of private citizens’ paths.\n		Figure 3: a) List of ten paths of private citizens passing through a street adjacent to piazza della Rotonda; b) vectorization result; c) list of returned records (base map: Nuova Topografia di Roma).\n		Figure 4: a) Vectorized paths around piazza della Rotonda; b) transformation of lines into points set 10 m apart; c) Kernel analysis (Base map: Nuova Topografia di Roma).\n		Figure 5: Heatmap of ceremonial paths (14) of the 18th century (base maps: Nuova Topografia di Roma and Bing Satellite).\n		Figure 6: a) Heatmap of home-business paths in 1739; b) heatmap of home-business paths in 1749; c) heatmap of home-business paths in 1739; d) heatmap of home-business paths in 1749 (base maps: Nuova Topografia di Roma and Bing Satellite).\nTowards FreeCAD experimentation and validation\n	Filippo Diara, Fulvio Rinaudo\n		Figure 1: Knowledge processes: from metric survey (A) to stratigraphic survey and analysis (B and C), until the parametric model construction (D).\n		Figure 2: FreeCAD platform and parametric model of the refectory with stratigraphic units.\n		Figure 3: Stratigraphic diagrams implemented as semantic data (Harris Matrix of north wall of the refectory of medieval Staffarda Abbey).\n		Figure 4. SQL query by using Reporting workbench and statement configuration: selection of stone elements and their description (result on CSV).\nFLOS for Museums: open solutions to train communities and manage heritage sites\n	Paolo Rosati\n		N.\n		Name\n		Description\n		1\n		Evolution\n		To evolve the museum space and its exhibits digitally, and mediate a new kind of knowledge (STEAM).\n		2\n		Empowering\n		To empower the scientific segments and the editorial management of the heritage institution, writing about new discoveries and filing patents.\n		3\n		Interconnection\n		To build an interconnection between the museum and the neighbors of the city, creating stable and operative communities nearby the institution.\n		4\n		Economic growth\n		To teach self-employment techniques helping family economies from a start-up level.\n		5\n		Return school\n		To reach out to young people prone to early school leaving, projecting open spaces with a FLOS habitat for them, which can stimulate their curiosity and spirit of believing in themselves.\n		6\n		Lifestyle rank\n		To increase in the museum communities the need of a plain cultural existence and growth in lifestyle ranking.\n		7\n		Deep study\n		To explore deeply with the communities the collections.\n		8\n		Museum Economy\n		To enrich the museum economy with new editorial products, open-access, online catalogues, linked open-data for projecting new web services for the online communities.\n		9\n		Research\n		To let to the citizens, investigate the daily fundamental role of the researchers and rise the appreciation on the great developments of science.\n		10\n		Challenges\n		To educate communities in solidarity, equality, environmental      importance, and green habits (as reuse, recycling and self-made skills).\n		Table 1: Top 10 practices for the 21st-century museums, based on the study of the author during the case studies (infra 3).\n		N.\n		Museum/\n		Archaeological site\n		Project name\n		Place/s\n		Year/s\n		Main activities\n		1\n		2\n		3\n		4\n		5\n		6\n		Table 2: The six activities by Una Quantum in cultural heritage management using FLOSS tools.\n		Classroom Name\n		Number of Classes\n		Software/code\n		Average age\n		Participants\n		Coding\n		3\n		JavaScript\n		32\n		9\n		Photogrammetry\n		6\n		Regard 3DMesh LabCloud Compare\n		25\n		31\n		3D modelling\n		5\n		Blender\n		23\n		29\n		Geographical Information Systems (GIS)\n		6\n		QGISPyarchinit\n		26\n		50\n		Virtual Tour 360°\n		3\n		Pannellum\n		23\n		15\n		Tot. classrooms\n		Tot. courses\n		Tot. FLOSS Software\n		Average age\n		Tot.\n		Participants\n		5\n		23\n		7\n		25.8\n		134\n		Table 3: FLOSS classrooms in two-year activities at MUCIV, Rome.\n		Table 4: Free access classrooms at MNETRU of Rome during the ‘Circuiti’ program\n		Table 5: The digital excavation field-school.\n		Table 6: Summer camp at the Museo Civico Archeologico Rodolfo Lanciani in Guidonia (Rome).\n		Table 7: Building the Museo delle Culture ‘Villa Garibaldi (MUDECU), GNU’ site. Some free licensed CMS for museum sites.\n		Table 8: Overview of FLOS software used, debugged, developed for training and labs in public museums.\n		Table 9: Utility of FLOSS technologies in heritage-institution management.\n		Table 10: The business model for developing techno-creative spaces.\nThe virtual countryman. A GRASS-GIS tool for ancient cultivation recognition\n	Augusto Palombini\n		Figure 1: Virtual reconstruction of Iron Age and Roman landscapes in the Upper Tiber Valley (Arnoldus-Huydzendveld et al. 2012; Pietroni et al. 2013).\n		Figure 2: Flowchart of the landscape reconstruction pipeline, as conceived by the CNR Virtual Heritage Lab after the Tiber Valley Project.\n		Figure 3: Main tabs of the GRASS-GIS graphic user interface of the r.countryman module (Basic, Advanced, Optional).\n		Figure 4: Map of the data sets considered in the analysis. The water-streams net (blue, with the modified Tiber path), The road net (white), the late imperial Roman sites (black crosses). The central square represents the extension of the DEM obtained by\n		Figure 5: Maps resulting from running r.countryman module, giving different weights to the parameters, specified in the Table 1, in comparison to the traces of Roman centuriation identified in the archaeological landscape (see part 4 and table. 1 for deta\n		Table 1: Features of different output maps compared to the Roman centuriation: they are shown in square meters, the entity of centuriae falling into the cells of different parameters weight, and the relative cell values. Map c has the largest space on the\nLittle Minions and SPARQL Unicorns as tools for archaeology\n	Timo Homburg, Florian Thiery\n		Figure 1: The SPARQLing Unicorn QGIS Plugin (T. Homburg/F. Thiery CC BY 4.0).\n		Table 1: Limes data set (example).\n		Table 2: Trade network data set (example).\n		Figure 2: The German Upper Limes combined with data from LOD resources, e.g. Nomisma, Roman Open Data and Linked Open Samian Ware (F. Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LOD_Upper_German_Limes.png).\n		Figure 3: Itinerarium Antonini trade network combined with data from LOD resources, e.g. Nomisma, Roman Open Data and Linked Open Samian Ware (F. Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LOD_Itinerarium_Antonini.png)\n		Figure 4: German Upper Limes extended with Wikidata information (elevation above sea level) (F. Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LOD_Upper_German_Limes_Wikidata_Enriched_Height.png).\n		Figure 5: Example of a semantic uplift process (T. Homburg CC BY 4.0).\n		Figure 6: Integrated data shown in the GeoPubby Linked data browser interface (T. Homburg/F. Thiery CC BY 4.0).\nThe ArchAIDE Archive\n	Francesca Anichini, Gabriele Gattiglia\nSITAR: a new open-data infrastructure for a public archaeology of Rome\n	Mirella Serlorenzi, Ascanio D’Andrea, Riccardo Montalbano\n		Figure 1: Example of life-cycle of the three main Sitar platform components.\n		Figure 2: Server and services schema.\n		Figure 3: SITAR service scalability.\n		Figure 4: SITAR Tech Stack.\n		Figure 5: SITAR communities: the main stakeholders.\n		Figure 6: SITAR open data services.\nSPARQLing Publication of Irish Ogham Stones as LOD\n	Florian Thiery, Sophie C. Schmidt, Timo Homburg\n		Figure 1: Ogham Stone CIIC 81, left: stone in the Stone Corridor at University College Cork (UCC); right: drawing of CIIC 81 (Florian Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIIC81_UCC_Drawing.png).\n		Figure 2: Linked Data Principles (Florian Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linked_Data_Principles.png).\n		Figure 3: 5 Star Linked Open Data (Florian Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:5_Star_LOUD.png).\n		Figure 4: The Wikidata Ogham Workflow (Florian Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ogham_Wikidata_Workflow.png).\n		Figure 5: The RDF Ogham Workflow (Florian Thiery CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ogham_RDF_Workflow.png).\nTowards an ontology of the Museum of Archaeology of the University of Catania\n	Nicola Laneri et al\n		Figure 1: MAUC: finds from the collection on permanent display.\n		Figure 2. Legacy data available for the digitization process of the MAUC’s collection.\n		Figure 3. The chronology digitization process: from the legacy data to the standardization of vocabularies.\n		Figure 4. The conceptual model with the entities identified: the main Find entity (in grey) and the others related to their topography (in blue), characteristics (in purple) and documentation (in yellow).\n		Figure 5. Partial model of the MAUC ontology concerning pottery.\nFieldnotes for the development and publication of open standards\n	Julian Bogdani\n		Figure 1: A graphical representation of digital resources powering the Atlas of Coptic Literature.\n		Figure 2: Screenshot of PAThs documentation and data portal, https://docs.paths-erc.eu.\n		Figure 3: Different representations of the basilica of Pbou (http://paths.uniroma1.it/atlas/places/68) encoded using SVP.\n		Figure 4: A screenshot from https://docs.paths-erc.eu/data/demo/#paths.places.16-Elephantine/BGQ6JNX2-186 showing the temple of Knum at Elephantine (blue) and the Late Antique garrison structures (in orange) on left and a 2.5D automatic representation of\n		Figure 5: From SVP to GeoJSON-T: in the left-upper part the graphical representation of the basilica of Pbou encoded using SVP; in the left-middle part the SVP attribute list (excerpt); in the left-lower part a flat table mapping phases to absolute chrono\nAnalysis and comparison of open and non-open spatial formats\n	Andrea D’Andrea, Francesca Forte\n		Figure 1: Resources available for ‘Archaeological Monuments’ (https://data.yorkopendata.org/dataset/archaeological-monuments, accessed 13/10/2021).\n		Figure 2: Table of all file types accepted for GIS by ADS (https://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/, accessed 13/10/2021).\n		Figure 3: Different geometries and attribute tables of archaeological area in Lazio Region, shown in QGIS interface.\n		Figure 4: Comparison between the two datasets in shapefile (on top) and GeoJSON (down).\n		Figure 5: The dataset uploaded on geojson.io.\n		Figure 6: The GeoJSON file uploaded into OpenStreetMap Editor.\n	Alessandra Caravale, Alessandra Piergrossi, Irene Rossi\nOpen Data, Open Knowledge, Open Science\n	Figure 1: The FAIR guiding principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016).\n		Figure 2: A&C in Europeana (https://www.europeana.eu/it).\n		Figure 3: Map showing A&C Etruscan sites (Cantone and Caravale 2019).\nFOSS, Open-Data e archeologia\n	Marco Ciurcina, Piergiovanna Grossi\n		Figura 1: Schema 5 stelle dei formati Open Data. Tratta da: https://5stardata.info/en/ (CC0-Public Domain).\n		Figura 2: Schema 5 stelle degli Open Data. Tratta da: https://docs.italia.it/italia/daf/lg-patrimonio-pubblico/it/stabile/modellodati.html (accesso 13/10/2021).\n	Julian Bogdani, Federico Sciacca\nAn introspective, incomplete, view on the activity of the FLOS community\n	Figure 1: Years elapsed from the conference edition to the publication of its proceedings. Question marks indicate volumes that have never, or have not yet, been published. At the time of writing (2021), the 2019 proceedings are in press.\n		Figure 2: Licensing of the publications.\n		\n		Figure 3: Availability of the source code of applications, software packages, plugins and scripts presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences.\n		\n		Figure 4: Explicit licensing of applications, software packages, plugins and scripts presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences.\n		\n		Figure 5: Survival rate of applications, software packages, plugins and scripts presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences.\n		\n		Figure 6: Longevity of applications, software packages, plugins and scripts presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences.\n		\n		Figure 7: Total number of commits for applications, software packages, plugins and scripts presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences, as available in the public repository. GRASS with more than 20,000 commits has been excluded from the chart.\n		\n		Figure 8: Online availability of Databases, GIS, webGIS and data portals presented at ArcheoFOSS.\n		\n		Figure 9: De facto data access policy for Databases, GIS, webGIS and data portals presented at ArcheoFOSS.\n		Table 1: ArcheoFOSS conferences and the publishing of the proceedings, with indication of the license, source: https://github.com/jbogdani/af-introspection/blob/master/data/publications.js (accessed 16/6/2021).\n		Table 2: Applications, software packages, plugins and scripts presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences, source: https://github.com/jbogdani/af-introspection/blob/master/data/applications.js (accessed 16/6/2021).\n		Table 3: Databases, GIS, webGIS and data portals presented at ArcheoFOSS conferences, source:https://github.com/jbogdani/af-introspection/blob/master/data/webgis.js (accessed 16/6/2021).