PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 20, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Quality Certification in Data Acquisition for Cultural Heritage: The Power of Paradata for High Quality Digital 3D Cultural Heritage Assets

View Full Paper
EQEwald QuakTallinn University of TechnologyDBDrew BakerAAAthos AgapiouCyprus University of Technology

Key Points

  • The aim is to enhance quality in 3D digitisation of cultural heritage by managing data acquisition complexity and effectively using paradata.
  • Reviewed guidelines from VIGIE 2020/654 on digitisation quality.
  • Analyzed three years of practical implementation in cultural heritage projects.
  • Evaluated risks and the importance of paradata in data acquisition processes.
  • Identified significant gaps in current practices for digital 3D cultural heritage.
  • Highlighted the need for better documentation of paradata to boost digitisation quality.
  • Demonstrated how managing complexity can lead to higher quality outcomes in cultural heritage digitisation.

Abstract

Published in 2022, the European Commission’s study VIGIE 2020/654: Study on Quality in 3D Digitisation of Tangible Cultural Heritage provided a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art in Cultural Heritage (CH) digitisation, proposing detailed guidelines toward a standardised framework for evaluating digitisation projects. The Study introduced a key distinction between the Complexity of the data acquisition methodology and the Quality of the expected results. It argued that Quality can only be meaningfully assessed by understanding the preconditions - namely, the Complexity - surrounding data acquisition (DAQ). By managing risks, faithfully documenting paradata (i.e., the processes and methods used to create the digital record), and reducing DAQ complexity, confidence in the digitisation outcomes is increased and better reflected in the overall Quality of results. In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital technologies and their application to the CH domain, alongside the growing need to monitor monuments and sites affected by natural and human-induced hazards and interventions, this article reflects on three years of real-world implementation. It reviews the lessons learnt, identifies existing gaps, and explores emerging technologies to enhance and adapt the Study to the current and future needs of the sector. These insights are essential to ensure the continued relevance andeffective adoption of the Study’s recommendations

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Quak et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696f1a239e64f732b51ee5d4https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xlviii-m-9-623-2025
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Quality Certification in Data Acquisition for Cultural Heritage: The Power of Paradata for High Quality Digital 3D Cultural Heritage Assets2025
  2. 2Balancing Visual Credibility and Transparency: A FAIR Approach to 3D Digitisation for Cultural Heritage documentation and dissemination2026
  3. 3When Reality Meets Practice: Challenges and Pitfalls in 3D Digitization Using Structured Light Scanning and Photogrammetry in Cultural Heritage2026 · 4 citations
  4. 4Digital Visualization Infrastructures of 3D Models in a Scientific Contest2026 · 4 citations
  5. 5Three-Dimensional Surveying with Optical Sensors in Heritage Science: A Review2026 · 1 citations