Input needed and town hall recap

[Scates Kettler, Hannah [LIB]]

Hello all,

 

After the publication of our book on community driven standards for 3D data preservation in 2022, the group convened to discuss what should come next and how the community can prioritize activities in support of co-creating shared 3D data preservation standards.

 

The first town hall meeting in August, 2022 brought a number of new voices to the conversation. We began by sharing the current activities of the group members, updates on projects, and additional resources we had encountered. We introduced seven priority topic areas as possible focus areas for the community. Further conversation resulted in a call for continued refinement of priority topic areas related to 3D data preservation; 1) metadata schema development, 2) shared infrastructure development, 3) common platforms/viewers/tools, 4) expanding research/recommendations regarding rights, 5) ethics, 6) working with software companies, 7) file format consolidation.  Discussion at each of the three following town hall meetings focused on two or three topic areas.  Below is a short summary of the issues discussed followed by a survey link.

• Metadata
• Identified need for basic and generalizable metadata scheme for 3D or expansion of existing schema (i.e. Dublin Core, DataCite) to support metadata aggregation. There is a need to minimally have a ‘3D Resource’ type in one of the big general schemata (Dublin Core, DataCite, etc.)
• Members already reached out to Dublin Core. Dublin Core not considering expansion.
• Members reached out to DataCite regarding ‘3D Resource’ type, DataCite positively responded and wanted to fold it into version 5.0.
• Documenting processes; logs of activities and controlled vocabulary
• Shared Infrastructure
• Expressed need for shared repository in addition to institutional repositories- but needing to represent different modalities and disciplines (MorphoSource as possible template)
• Debates related to whether one shared repository or multiple repositories would be needed, given different requirements (virtual worlds vs. single object)
• Call for a non-commercial, research-based repository.
• Initial need is established metadata. There will be different needs for repositories and metadata would help facilitate connection.
• Common Tools
• IIIF could provide interoperability to deliver objects and metadata
• Potree advanced as a way to deal with viewing large 3D data
• Voyager is an open source 3D viewer built by the Smithsonian
• X3D potential tool for preserving 3D objects and animations
• Rights
• Desire to expand analysis of 3D data copyright / rights outside of US law
• Ways to document contractual obligations (e.g., Bureau of Land Management specimens); how to associate with data
• Concerns about commercially controlled platforms usage agreements (e.g., Sketchfab)
• Ethics
• We can probably borrow from established practices for other media (images, video)
• Traumatic and/or offensive scenes, controlled access (gatekeeping) for sensitive, human images, TK labels, forensic and medical information
• What are the unique ethical considerations for 3D
• Recreation of physical objects (including repatriation topics)
• Viewing things in inappropriate ways (e.g., CT- can see inside object)
• Is 3D capture viewed differently from photography by different cultural communities?
• Specific consent for the creation of 3D models
• Interpolation/enhancement/modification methods captured in metadata
• Working with software companies
• Move them toward interoperability
• Capturing software process steps in sidecar metadata; what do we need software to capture
• Working with open source (e.g., Blender) to pilot process/metadata capture
• File formats
• We have to figure out common metadata before we can progress with a common format
• Applying Good-Better-Best for format recommendation for different uses (archive, access, etc.)
• Documenting lossy compression

 

Based on the ideas discussed in town hall meetings, we feel that it should now be possible to prioritize topic areas for CS3DP initiatives. We are asking for your input to rank those topics. Please take the survey here by the end of the day, Monday, February 20th. 

 

We will send out survey results and next steps soon thereafter.

 

Thank you all,

Hannah, Adam and Jennifer

 

--

Hannah Scates Kettler (she, her, hers)

Associate University Librarian for Academic Services

 

Iowa State Parks Library

701 Morrill Rd, Ames, IA 50011-2102

tel.: 515-294-8590

hann...@iastate.edu

 

 

[Scates Kettler, Hannah [LIB]]

Thank you to the people who have weighed in on the priority topics for the community. If you haven’t yet,  please take the survey here by the end of the day, to rank topic areas.

 

Best,

Hannah 

 

-- 

Hannah Scates Kettler (she, her, hers)

Associate University Librarian for Academic Services

hann...@iastate.edu

tel.: 515-294-8590

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Community Standards for 3D Data (CS3DP | LIB3DVR)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to community-standards-for-3d-data...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/community-standards-for-3d-data-preservation-cs3dp/MN2PR04MB63194847EBBFB5D0C98F10F5C7A39%40MN2PR04MB6319.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.