Tag Archives: Canada

North and South American research centres in cultural heritage, digital heritage, virtual heritage

USA

  1. Virginia Scholar`s Lab http://www.scholarslab.org/ and Virtual World Heritage Laboratory http://vwhl.clas.virginia.edu/
  2. UCLA http://www.cdh.ucla.edu/ and ETC (http://etc.ucla.edu/) and related library project http://www.cni.org/topics/digital-preservation/laboratory-for-digital-cultural-heritage/
  3. Stanford (archaeology: https://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/cgi-bin/drupal/about-stanford-archaeology-center) and  many DH centres http://humanexperience.stanford.edu/digital
  4. Berkeley-Digital Heritage Egypt http://townsendlab.berkeley.edu/taxonomy/term/330 and courses such as http://anthropology.berkeley.edu/content/studio-multimedia-authoring-archaeology-investigating-past-through-new-media-technologies
  5. Indiana http://iri.informatics.iupui.edu/
  6. MSU http://chi.anthropology.msu.edu/
  7. MIT hyperstudio http://hyperstudio.mit.edu
  8. George Mason University Department of History and Art History, Center for History and New Media (CHNM)

CANADA

  1. Concordia http://digitalhistory.concordia.ca/ and http://storytelling.concordia.ca/ and http://storytelling.concordia.ca/oralhistory/projects/stories-matter2.jpg
  2. Simon Fraser Intellectual Property Issues http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/
  3. nb virtual museum of Canada http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/index-eng.jsp and Canadian Heritage Information Network http://www.rcip-chin.gc.ca/sgc-cms/nouvelles-news/anglais-english/
  4. Western Ontario http://www.history.uwo.ca/gradstudies/publichistory/digitalhistory.html
  5. Lavel UNESCO chair in cultural heritage http://www.unesco.org/en/university-twinning-and-networking/access-by-region/europe-and-north-america/canada/unesco-chair-in-cultural-heritage-408/

    NB Issues by IMA http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/eng/00244.html

SOUTH AMERICA (more to be added)

  1. Brazil (research notes) http://webscience.org.br/wiki/images/d/d5/Dodebei.dantas.pdf

Digital Humanities, 3 functions, 5 major requirements for basic infrastructure

http://coreyslavnik.com/ojs/index.php/JournalOfViralAnalytics/article/viewFile/15/25
also presented at Digital Humanities 2010 in London, where Geoffrey  Rockwell was paraphrased as saying

Three points in particular [sic] where made with regards to how the value of Digital Humanities could best be demonstrated. Perhaps the most important one is that DH can be described as an enabling field, in the sense that it allows other fields to do research that would otherwise not have been possible. The second one was that DH can help academics to dramatically increase their outreach, especially beyond academia (in particular in relation to crowdsourcing, social media etc. As Geoffrey Rockwell put it: We help the Humanities reach a broader public. Last, but not least DH helps to prepare students and young researchers for the new challenges they are going to face in their careers, for instance in the media content industry, but also in many other fields. It was also Geoffrey who formulated a list of requirements for the basic infrastructure that has to be made available by any university that is serious about supporting (digital) research:

  • Social lab for projects and meetings
  • Digitisation facilities and specialised hardware
  • Support for utilities (lists, blogs, wikis…)
  • Virtual machines for projects
  • Advising and long term technical support

CFP : Taking Archaeology Digital, A Conference on the Use of New Technologies in Archaeology

University of Puget Sound, Oct. 25-28, 2012, Canada
URL: http://archaeology.pugetsound.edu/RedfordConference2012/index.html

Technology is changing our world in ways that previous centuries could not have imagined, and it is a constant struggle for us to keep up with these frequent changes and innovations. While archaeology is a very old practice, only in the later 20th century was it given serious methodological consideration, and now, in the 21st century, this explosion in the availability of technological tools offers the potential to transform the practice of archaeology. But the mere existence of a new tool, no matter how fun and exciting it might seem, does not necessarily translate into good use of that tool. This is the theme we hope to address in the upcoming Redford Conference in Archaeology at the University of Puget Sound, October 25-28, 2012.

We invite proposals for papers and presentations that explore the question of how archaeologists can best make use of the vast range of possibilities that technology opens up. We are particularly interested in presentations from people who may have already had some experiences in trying to fit new technologies into archaeological practice. Often those who study the past have had difficulty adapting their practice to the existence of new tools, and one goal is to help us learn from the experiences of others.

Some issues we hope to address include:

  • How do technological tools allow archaeologists not only to do their work differently, but better?
  • What kinds of new questions do these tools allow us to ask, and why are those questions useful to a broader understanding of the ancient world?
  • How is the processing of archaeological material after an excavation affected from archiving data through to publication?
  • How can we maximize the possibilities offered by the new digital technology?

While all areas relating to the question of how to make technology work best for archaeologists are open, we anticipate focusing our discussions on three areas and especially encourage submissions that relate directly to them:

  • Fieldwork: How do traditional archaeological methods intersect with digital technologies? What problems can technology help us solve in the field? And just as important, perhaps, how might the limitations of these technologies hinder us or, at the very least, not help us in our fieldwork?
  • Archiving: If technology increases the amount of information we gain from the field, how can this information be stored so that it can be efficiently accessed again in the future? How can we account for future changes in technology that might make current storage techniques obsolete? How can we avoid the loss of data when that happens, and mitigate any problems that the technological change-over might present?
  • Publication: What possibilities for publication are opened up by digital technology? How can we make these new electronic publications more valuable, and increase the quality and not just the quantity of the published material? Is peer review still important, and how will it be connected to the new publication possibilities?

The conference will include both demonstrations of technological innovations as well as critical discussion of the value of such innovations. Confirmed speakers include:

  • Nick Eiteljorg II, Center for the Study of Architecture
  • Sebastian Heath, Institute for the Study of the Ancient World
  • Norbert Zimmerman, Vienna Academy of Sciences

Proposals for papers should be sent to Eric Orlin at eorlin. The deadline for receipt of proposals is April 1, 2012. Some subsidies may be available to help offset travel costs for speakers.