You are on page 1of 13

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307637893

The Importance of Being Honest: Issues of


Transparency in Digital Visualization of
Architectural Heritage

Chapter · January 2017


DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0675-1.ch003

CITATIONS READS

3 141

1 author:

Stefano Brusaporci
Università degli Studi dell'Aquila
55 PUBLICATIONS 127 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Call for paper – Virtual Museums of Architecture and City View project

5th INTBAU Meeting Heritage, Place, Design: Putting Tradition into Practice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefano Brusaporci on 12 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Handbook of Research on
Emerging Technologies
for Architectural and
Archaeological Heritage

Alfonso Ippolito
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

A volume in the Advances in Religious and


Cultural Studies (ARCS) Book Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2017 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ippolito, Alfonso, 1968- editor of compilation.
Title: Handbook of research on emerging technologies for architectural and
archaeological heritage / Alfonso Ippolito, editor.
Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2017. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016023698| ISBN 9781522506751 (hardcover) | ISBN
9781522506768 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Historic buildings--Conservation and restoration--Research. |
Historic buildings--Conservation and restoration--Technological
innovations. | Architectural surveys. | Archaeological surveying. |
Architecture--Conservation and restoration--Research. |
Architecture--Conservation and restoration--Technological innovations. |
Antiquities--Collection and preservation--Research. |
Antiquities--Collection and preservation--Technological innovations.
Classification: LCC NA112 .H36 2017 | DDC 720/.47--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016023698

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Religious and Cultural Studies (ARCS) (ISSN: Pending;
eISSN: Pending)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data


A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.


66

Chapter 3
The Importance of
Being Honest:
Issues of Transparency in Digital
Visualization of Architectural Heritage

Stefano Brusaporci
L’Aquila University, Italy

ABSTRACT
The chapter presents a reflection on the concept of transparency in digital modeling and visualization of
Architectural Heritage. Moving from topics of transparency and from the experiences in using paradata
in different fields to state model’s source, the degree of reliability of virtual re-constructions, and to made
the digital model testable by other professionals, transparency and paradata are studied and declined
for a dedicated application to historical buildings. In fact paradata is useful for model’s design, use,
management, diffusion, archiving, and interoperability. This according to an aim of model’s intellectual
transparency, and scientific computing and visualization of historic buildings. Follows issues about: the
relationship between physical and digital heritage, the design of the digital 3D model and the database,
the communication of transparency through spatial visualizations and multiple windowed representa-
tions, the transparency as possible methodological workflow for scientific analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Etymologically, transparency derives from the Latin “Trans” & “Pareo”, i.e. being able to show what
lies behind. This arises two questions: What there is behind (the reality, the scholar, the digital system,
etc.) and how an interpretative model can be transparent.
In the Digital Age, the ICT growth, the decreasing cost and the ease of use of digital tools have made
the most advanced technologies available to a large number of users, thus favoring their practice and
experimentation. Digital representations and information systems have become powerful tools for the
study and communication of tangible heritage, in particular allowing the interrelation of information,
the scientific representation of research’s hypothesis, the simulation of complex systems. At the same
time, the multiplication of data and the diffusion of participatory cultural approaches raised questions
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0675-1.ch003

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Importance of Being Honest

of analysis, computing, sharing, and management of data and information. Follows issues on metadata
and paradata.
In particular – considering the fields that deal with tangible heritage – archaeology first looked
to computer based visualization as scientific methodology and, thus, posed questions of philological
interpretation of digital reconstructions of the past. It could be a reference for virtual reconstruction of
buildings that no longer exist or have been only designed: All these studies are based on the critique
interpretation of heterogeneous archival materials (old drawings, historical photographs, descriptions,
yard or competition documents, etc.). Similarly occurs in the definition of past configurations of exist-
ing buildings where, however, the archival apparatus have to be reflected on the reality, i.e. the physical
architectural document.
But the study, surveying, modeling, and visualization of architectural heritage highlight new issues
that are related to the whole process of surveying and critical historical analysis, to the visualization
of past configurations, to the re-construction of constructive systems, also with the aim to declare the
degree of reliability. Transparency allows the scholars to retrace critical decisions and test conclusions
on colleagues’ work of and on own research.

LOOKING THROUGH: THE BACKGROUND

Why Transparency?

The title of the well know book “The Transparent Society” (Vattimo, 1989) evokes the critical topic of
“interpretation”, typical of the postmodern culture, where a leading role is played by technology and
media. Day by day digital tools have changed and are still changing media, according to a dimension of
pervasive and continuous interrelation between reality and “digitality” (wording coined by Negroponte
in 1995). In our current “on line” life (The Onlife Manifesto, 2015), the concepts of “digital natives” and
“digital immigrants” (Prensky, 2001) blurs (Jenkins, 2007). “Hyperreality” (Baudrillard, 1976) has grown,
becoming simply a component of reality, and people have become shrewder in their relation with the sort
of state of “augmented reality” that involves us. The relationship with technology renews: Its outcomes
are constitutive of reality and of our culture, and therefore they requires knowledge, understanding, and
assessment. The claim for digital heritage preservation (UNESCO, 2003), and the statement of digital
heritage as common heritage ratifies the value and cultural importance of this new kind of artifacts, and
consequently their significance in our post-postmodern condition.
The philosophical line of new realism (Ferraris, 2012) is not unrelated to this context: New realism
roots on postmodern lesson and hermeneutics, but at the same time reckon with reality and perception;
the characteristic of perception of being “opaque”, requires the need to be represented, i.e. interpreted.
In this context the claim for transparency follows. And a request for transparency underlies also the
“European Charter of Rights of Citizens in the Knowledge Society” (aka “The Charter of eRights”) of
2005.

Metadata and Paradata

With the sprawl of digital tools and applications, metadata and paradata have become very important issues
in model’s design, use, management, diffusion, archiving. Last but not least for model’s transparency.

67

The Importance of Being Honest

2. Extrinsic Paradata: About the relation of the computer visualization with: Heritage’s nature and
characteristics, Archival documents, Scholar’s experiences, skills, and decisions. The paradata has
to describe the critical interpretation of sources by the scholar and, therefore, presets a degree of
reliability.

The model is affected by: Kind of source; Source completeness; Source reliability; Level of inter-
pretation of sources. Thus the model has a degree of Objectivity/Believability.
The scholar(s) has to define critical degrees of reliability of the 3D model for the following items:

• Geometry;
• Location/Position;
• Date/Age;
• Colour/Texture;
• Material/Constructive system;
• Context (urban – rural – natural) /Landscape.

Obviously intrinsic and extrinsic paradata are related, and both of them derives from scholar’s criti-
cal choices.
Follows reflection on context reliability. From a computing point of view, its simplified representation
is necessary (for example using impostor billboards); in territorial application different LOD visualization
are upload according to an interactive relation with the operator. Intending as “context” the surround-
ing background of architectural heritage, a simplified representation is conceptually acceptable, also to
let a better perception of the studied heritage. However, remembering that every building exist also in
relation to its context, its representation and the declaration of the critical choices made in its modeling
and visualization are not less important.
Last but not least we have to consider that, in architectural heritage visualization, models are used to
re-present also the future: that is the projects of restoration and management. Therefore also the degree
of reliability and paradata must be extended to the future, i.e. to the design.

Visualizing Transparency

Transparency could be interpreted as an issue of communication of a particular medium: The complex


informative model, made by 3D elements and data (and metadata, and paradata). From this point of view,
the communication of transparency becomes a problem of mediating data, information, and knowledge.
Let’s consider the double logic of immediacy and of hypermediacy of media in our culture, according
to the reflection on “mediation” made by Bolter and Grusin (1999). They don’t deal with transparency
but their lesson could suggest some approaches to define strategies for communicating transparency.
On one hand, virtual reality, 3D graphics, and graphical interfaces favor the logic of transparent
immediacy, that is «[…] the user is no longer aware of confronting a medium, but instead stands in an
immediate relationship to the contents of that medium» (p. 24).
On the other hand, media multiplies itself and «The multiple representations inside the windows
(text, graphies, video) create a heterogeneous space, as they compete for the view’s attention. Icons,
menus, and toolbars add further layers of visual and verbal meaning. […] Unlike a perspective painting
or three-dimensional computer graphic, this windowed interface does not attempt to unify the space

82

The Importance of Being Honest

Pomilio (2012) points out that in a communication we have a two-direction of information flow, where
equally important is the role of the “writer” and of the “reader”. In fact in our participatory culture the
user often becomes who produces information and, even if he plays only as reader, he filters informa-
tion in according to an active role. Then we have two filters of information: The first one made by the
scholar, the second defined by the user. In this way transparency becomes a playing field where all the
participants interact, and filter information. Both of them aim to reach knowledge.
In conclusion transparency is important not only for a subjective ethic need of the scholar or for sci-
entific rigor for its own sake (and this may already be enough), but moreover it’s ever more important
for the two following reasons: As methodological tool for communication; As methodology of research,
to aspire to IQ, knowledge, and wisdom. In fact transparency favor to go back over research’s steps and
validate the results; at the same time transparency could be the compass of the scholar to reflect on his
own paradigms, procedures, and outcomes. In this way transparency could be seen as possible architec-
ture of the research’s workflow, and therefore transparency could be interpreted as a scientific approach.
Therefore the definition of standards could be important, but in this way transparency configures as a
best practice.
Like in Oscar Wilde’s comedy – where we cannot be sure if the characters are earnest – we cannot
ensure an absolute “transparency”. But, to be honest, we should try to pursue clear and rigorous processes
and visualization modalities, to declare the way from data and information to knowledge and wisdom.
Perhaps Transparency is only a myth; but like all the myths it is necessary to bring out our purposes,
clarify our points of view, and (at least) understand ourselves and our work.

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From Data to Wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9.
Apollonio, F. I. (2012). Architettura in 3D. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.
Apollonio, F. I., Gaiani, M., & Sun, Z. (2013). Characterization of Uncertainty and Approximation in
Digital Reconstruction of CH Artifacts. In Proceeding of Le Vie dei Mercanti XI Forum Internazionale
di Studi (pp.860-869). Napoli: La Scuola di Pitagora.
Apollonio, F.I., Gaiani, M., & Zheng, S. (2012). BIM-based modeling and data enrichment of classical
architectural buildings. SCIRES-IT, 2(2).
Apollonio, F. I., & Giovannini, E. C. (2015). A paradata documentation methodology for the Uncertainty
Visualization in digital reconstruction of CH artifacts. SCIRES-IT, 5(1), 1–24.
Archaeology Data Service & Digital Antiquity. (2013). Caring for Digital Data in Archaeology: A Guide
to Good Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books.
Baudrillard, J. (1976). L’echange symbolique et la mort. Paris: Gallimard.
Beacham, R. (2008). ‘Oh, to Make Boards to Speak! There is a Task!’ Toward a Poetics of Paradata.
In M. Greengrass & L. Hughes (Eds.), The Virtual Representation of the Past (pp. 171-178). Farnham,
MD: Ashgate.

86

The Importance of Being Honest

Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H., & Baker, D. (Eds.). (2012). Paradata and Transparency in Virtual
Heritage. Farnham, MD: Ashgate Publishing.
Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation – Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Borra, D. (2004). Sulla verità del modello 3D. Un metodo per comunicare la validità dell’anastilosi
virtuale. In E. S. Malinverni (Ed.), Proceeding of eArcom04 Tecnologie per comunicare l’architettura
(pp. 132–137). Ancona: CLUA.
Brandi, C. (1963). Teoria del restauro di Cesare Brandi. Lezioni raccolte da L. Vlad Borrelli, J. Raspi
Serra e G.Urbani. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Brusaporci, S. (Ed.). (2010). Sistemi Informativi integrati per la tutela la conservazione e la valoriz-
zazione del patrimonio architettonico e urbano. Roma: Gangemi.
Brusaporci, S. (2015a). The Representation of Architectural Heritage in the Digital Age. In M. Khos-
row-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition (pp. 4195-4205).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch412
Brusaporci, S. (2015b). Handbook of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying,
Modeling, and Representation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2
Brusaporci, S. (2015c). On Visual Computing for Architectural Heritage. In S. Brusaporci (Ed.), Hand-
book of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying, Modeling, and Representation.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch003
Cameron, F. (2010). Beyond the Cult of the Replicant. In F. Cameron & S. Kenderdine (Eds.), Theoriz-
ing digital cultural heritage: a critical discourse (pp. 49-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cameron, F., & Kenderdine, S. (Eds.). (2010). Theorizing digital cultural heritage: a critical discourse.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Centofanti, M. (2010). Della natura del modello architettonico. In S. Brusaporci (Ed.), Sistemi informativi
integrati per la tutela, la conservazione e la valorizzazione del patrimonio architettonico e urbano (pp.
43–54). Roma: Gangemi.
Centofanti, M., & Brusaporci, S. (2012). Architectural 3D modeling in historical buildings knowledge
and restoration processes. In C. Gambardella (Ed.), Less More architecture design landscape. Naples:
La Scuola di Pitagora.
Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage . (2003). Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/
ev.php-URL_ID=17721&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
De Luca, L., Bussayarat, C., Stefani, C., Véron, P., & Florenzano, M. (2011). A semantic-based platform
for the digital analysis of architectural heritage. Computers & Graphics, 2(35), 227–241. doi:10.1016/j.
cag.2010.11.009
Denard, H. (2012). A New Introduction to The London Charter. In Paradata and Transparency in Virtual
Heritage (pp. 57–72). Farnham, MD: Ashgate Publishing.

87

The Importance of Being Honest

Docci, M. (Ed.). (2005). Metodologie innovative integrate per il rilievo dell’architettura e dell’ambiente.
Roma: Gangemi.
Docci, M., & Maestri, D. (2009). Manuale di rilevamento architettonico e urbano. Rome: Laterza.
Dore, C., & Murphy, M. (2015). Historic Building Information Modelling (HBIM). In S. Brusaporci
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying, Modeling, and
Representation (pp. 233–273). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch007
Ferraris, M. (2012). Manifesto del nuovo realismo. Roma, Bari: Laterza.
Ferrighi, A. (2015). Cities over Space and Time: Historical GIS for Urban History. In S. Brusaporci
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying, Modeling, and
Representation (pp. 425–445). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch015
Floridi, L. (2013). Information Quality. Philosophy & Technology, 26(1), 1–6. doi:10.1007/s13347-013-
0101-3 PMID:22657387
Forte, M. (2000). About Virtual Archaeology: Disorders, Cognitive Interactions and Virtuality. In Virtual
Reality in Archaeology (pp. 247-263). Oxford, UK: BAR International Series S843 (Archaeopress).
Forte, M. (2008). Introduzione. In M. Forte (Ed.), La Villa di Livia. Un percorso di realtà virtuale (pp.
1-36). Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
Forte, M., & Siliotti, A. (Eds.). (1996). Virtual Archaeology. Re-creating Ancient Words. New York:
Harry N. Abrams.
Frické, M. (2009). The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information
Science, 35(2), 131–142. doi:10.1177/0165551508094050
Frischer, B. (2008). From digital illustration to digital heuristic. In B. D. Frischer (Ed.), Beyond il-
lustration: 2d and 3d Digital Technologies As Tool for Discovery in Archaeology. Oxford, UK: British
Archaeological Reports.
Gaiani, M. (2006). Un viaggio attraverso gli strumenti e i metodi di produzione del progetto di disegno
industriale nell’epoca della progettazione digitale totale. In M. Gaiani (Ed.), La rappresentazione ricon-
figurata (pp. 23–57). Milano: Poli.Design.
Gaiani, M. (2012). Trattamento, tutela e comunicazione dei giacimenti documentalidell’architetturaant
ica. In P. Clini (Ed.), Vitruvio e il disegno di architettura (pp. 177–219). Venezia: Marsilio.
Garagnani, S. (2013). Building Information Modeling and real world knowledge: A methodological ap-
proach to accurate semantic documentation for the built environment. Proceedings of Digital Heritage,
1, 489–496.
Garagnani, S. (2015). Semantic Representation of Accurate Surveys for the Cultural Heritage: BIM Ap-
plied on the Existing Domain. In S. Brusaporci (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Emerging Digital Tools
for Architectural Surveying, Modeling, and Representation (pp. 292–310). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch009

88

The Importance of Being Honest

Geremia, F. (2014). Building on our losses: Principles and methodologies of virtual restoration applied
to Rome’s historic centre. Città & Storia, IX(1), 33–60.
Gilliland, A. J. (2008). Setting the Stage. In M. Baca (Ed.), Introduction to Metadata (pp. 1–19). Los
Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
Greengrass, M., & Hughes, L. (Eds.). (2008). The Virtual Representation of the Past. Farnham: Ashgate.
Gul, S., Tramboo, S. R., & Ahangar, H. (2015). Metadata Diversity in the Cultural Heritage Reposi-
tories. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (3rd ed.; pp.
1843–1854). Hershey, PA. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch178
Hermon, S. (2012). Scientific Method, chaîne opératoire and Visualization: 3D Modelling as a Research
Tool in Archaeology. In Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage (pp. 13–22). Farnham: Ashgate
Publishing.
Hermon, S., & Nicolucci, F. (2006). A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Realiability in Archaeological Virtual
Reconstruction. In S. Hermon & F. Nicolucci (Eds.), Beyond the Artefact. Digital Interpretation of the
Past (pp. 28–35). Budapest: Archaeolingua.
Huvila, I. (2013). The Unbearable Complexity of Documenting Intellectual Processes: Paradata and
Virtual Cultural Heritage Visualisation. Human IT, 12(1), 97–110.
Ippolito, A. (2015). Digital documentation for archaeology. Case studies on etruscan and roman heritage.
SCIRES-IT, 5(2), 71–90.
Jenkins, H. (2007). Reconsidering Digital Immigrants. Retrieved from www.henryjenkins.org/2007/12/
reconsidering_digital_immigran.html
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. New York: The Free Press.
Kreuter, F. (Ed.). (2013). Improving Surveys with Paradata. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118596869
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Manovich, L. (2013). Software Takes Command. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Murphy, M., McGovern, E., & Pavia, S. (2011). Historic building information modelling - adding intel-
ligence to laser and image based surveys. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXVIII-5/W16.
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck. The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Murray, J. H. (2012). Inventing the Medium. Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

89

The Importance of Being Honest

Nicolucci, F. (2012). Setting Standards for 3D Visualization of Cultural heritage in Europe and Beyond.
In Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage (pp. 23–36). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Osello, A., Acquaviva, A., Dalmasso, D., Erba, D., Del Giudice, M., Macii, E., & Patti, E. (2015). In S.
Brusaporci (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying, Model-
ing, and Representation (pp. 274–291). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch008
Parry, R. (Ed.). (2010). Museums in a Digital Age. Abingdon: Routledge.
Perry, R. (2003). Foreword. Digital Heritage: Agora and Agility. In E. Ch’ng, V. Gaffney, & H. Chapman
(Eds.), Visual Heritage in the Digital Age (pp. v–vii). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pomilio, F. (2012). La comunicazione come facilitatore etico. In F. Pomilio & D. Pasonetti (Eds.), Co-
municare la trasparenza (pp. 21–53). Bologna: Fausto Lupetti.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Principles of Seville . (2012). Retrieved from http://www.arqueologiavirtual.com/carta/?page_id=12
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Informa-
tion Science, 33(2), 163–180. doi:10.1177/0165551506070706
Spagnesi, G. (1984). Autonomia della Storia dell’architettura. In G. Spagnesi (Ed.), Storia e restauro
dell’architettura (pp. 7–10). Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani.
Stefani, C., De Luca, L., Véron, P., & Florenzano, M. (2010). Time indeterminacy and spatio-temporal
building transformations: An approach for architectural heritage understanding. International Journal
on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 4(1), 61–74. doi:10.1007/s12008-009-0085-5
Stone, R. J. (1999, November). Virtual heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Magazine, 18-20.
The London Charter . (2009). Retrieved from: http://www.londoncharter.org/
The Onlife Manifesto . (2015). Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/onlife-manifesto
US Department of Education. (2011). Paradata in 20 Minutes or Less. Retrieved from (https://docs.
google.com/document/d/1QG0lAmJ0ztHJq5DbiTGQj9DnQ8hP0Co0x0fB1QmoBco/edit?pli=1
Vattimo, G. (1989). La società trasparente. Milano: Garzanti.
Wurzel, G., Kowarik, K., & Reschreiter, H. (Eds.). (2015). Agent-based Modeling and Simulation in
Archeology. Cham: Springer.

ADDITIONAL READING

Albisinni, P., & De Carlo, L. (Eds.). (2011). Architettura. Disegno. Modello. Roma: Gangemi.
Benedetti, B., Gaiani, M., & Remondino, F. (2010). Modelli digitali 3D in archeologia: il caso di Pompei.
Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa.

90

The Importance of Being Honest

Bianchini, C. (2014). Survey 2.0: new technologies, new equipment, new surveyors? In P. Giandebiaggi
& C. Vernizzi (Eds.), Italian Survey & International Experiences (pp. 763–768). Roma: Gangemi.
Bianchini, C., Borgogni, F., & Ippolito, A. (2015). Advantages and disadvantages of digital approach in
archaeological fieldwork. In F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, & R. Show (Ed.). Proceed-
ings of the 42nd annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology
(pp. 95-106). Oxford: Oxuniprint.
Bianchini, C., Ippolito, A., & Bartolomei, C. (2015). The surveying and representation process applied
to architecture: non contact-methods for the documentation of Cultural Heritage. In S. Brusaporci (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying, Modeling, and Represen-
tation (pp. 45–93). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch002
Brusaporci, S. (2011). Modelli digitali per la rappresentazione dell’architettura. DisegnareCon, 8, 107–115.
Brusaporci, S. (2013). Modellazione e rappresentazione digitale per i beni architettonici. In S. Brusaporci
(Ed.), Modelli complessi per il patrimonio architettonico-urbano (pp. 18–24). Roma: Gangemi Editore.
Brusaporci, S. (2014). Issues of Historic Town Surveying: Visualizing Urban Values. SCIRES.it 4(2),
63-80.
Centofanti, M., Brusaporci, S., Continenza, R., & Trizio, I. (2012). Sistemi Informativi Architettonici
per la gestione, tutela e fruizione dell’edilizia storica. In Atti della 16ª Conferenza Nazionale ASITA (pp.
315–322). Vicenza: ASITA Society.
Centofanti, M., Brusaporci, S., & Lucchese, V. (2014). Architectural Heritage and 3D Models. In P. Di
Giamberardino, D. Iacoviello, R. Natal Jorge & J. M. R. S. Tavares, Computational Modeling of Objects
Presented in Images (pp. 31–49). Geneva: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04039-4_2
Ch’ng, E., Gaffney, V., & Chapman, H. (Eds.). (2013). Visual Heritage in the Digital Age. New York:
Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5535-5
Chiavoni, E., & Filippa, M. (Eds.). (2011). Metodologie integrate per il rilievo, il disegno, la model-
lazione dell’architettura e della città. Rome: Gangemi.
Docci, M. (2007). The unbuilt Vatican Basilica. The project by Antonio da Sangallo. Disegnare idee
immagini, 34, 24-35.
Dylla, K., Frischer, B., Mueller, P., Ulmer, A., & Haegler, S. (2010). Rome Reborn 2.0: A Case Study
of Virtual City Reconstruction Using Procedural Modeling Techniques. In CAA 2009. Making History
Interactive (pp. 62–66). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Forte, M., Pescarin, S., & Pierantoni, E. (2006). Transparency, interaction, communication and open
source in Virtual Archaeology. In M. Forte & S. Campana (Eds.), From Space to Place. BAR Interna-
tional Series 1568 (pp. 535–540). Oxford: Archeopress.
Gere, C. (2002). Digital Culture. London: Reaktion Books.
Gold, M. K. (Ed.). (2012). Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis. MN: University of Min-
nesota Press. doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.001.0001

91

The Importance of Being Honest

Hoel, A. S., & Webmoor, T. (Eds.). (2014). Visualization in the Age of Computerization. Oxford: Routledge.
Ioannides, M., Addison, A., Georgopoulos, A., Kalisperis, L., Brown, A., & Pitzalis, D. (Eds.). (2010).
Heritage in the Digital Era. Brentwood: Multi-science publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16873-4
Ippoliti, E. (Ed.). (2013). Shedding light on the cultural heritage. Roma: Aracne.
Ippolito, A., Senatore, L. J., Belelli Marchesini, B., & Ceroli, G. (2015). From survey to representation
of the model. A documentation of typological and chronological sequences of archaeological artefacts:
traditional and innovative approach. In F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, R. Show (Ed.).
Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in ar-
chaeology (pp. 107-114). Oxford: Oxuniprint.
Kalay, Y., Kvan, T., & Affleck, J. (Eds.). (2007). New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Maggio, F., & Villa, M. (2008). Architettura demolita. Palermo: Edizioni Caracol.
Sacchi, L. (2015). La fine del disegno? Op. Cit., 123, 5–15.
Scheer, D. R. (2014). The Death of Drawing: Architecture in the Age of Simulation. Abington: Routledge.
Spallone, R. (2015). Digital Reconstruction of Demolished Architectural Masterpieces, 3D Modeling
and Animation: The Case Study of Turin Horse-Racing by Mollino. In S. Brusaporci (Ed.), Handbook
of Research on Emerging Digital Tools for Architectural Surveying, Modeling, and Representation (pp.
476–509). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8379-2.ch017
Terras, M., Nyhan, J., & Vanhoutte, E. (Eds.). (2013). Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader. Farnham:
Ashgate.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Architectural Artifact: This definition, referred to an architectural heritage, is used to highlight that
a historic building can be seen as a product of human activity. This becomes even more important for an
historic building, built with artisan technologies and stratified during of his life. Therefore, its material
consistency takes on a specific testimonial value of the cultures and transformations that have gener-
ated and modified it over time. Additionally, the material characteristics can be used as chronological
indicators for dating parts of the building. Hence it follows that it is necessary to put special attention
in the study of construction system also in digital modeling.
Architectural Digital Model: Complex Model made by the synthesis of geo-referenced architec-
tural models and correlated databases. The Informative Model has to be able to visualize and computize
synchronically and diachronically architectural information. The model is made by two kinds of digital
models: 3D model able to simulate the architectural characteristics of a building (geometries, spaces,
materials, historical and aesthetical values, etc.); database model collecting documents, studies, and
analysis on the historical building.
Architectural Heritage: The “UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention”, indicates as cultural
heritage monuments, group of buildings and sites, outstanding universal value from the point of view

92

View publication stats

You might also like