Search

The impact of cultural processes on personal and social changes is one of the important research issues not only in contemporary social sciences but also for simulation of future development scenarios and evidence-based policy decision making. In the context of the theoretical concept of cultural values, based on the system theory and theory of social capital, the impact of cultural events could be analyzed and simulated by focussing on the construction/deconstruction of social capital, which takes place throughout the actor’s cultural participation. The main goal of this research is the development of measuring metrics, and agent-based simulation model aimed at investigation of the social impact of cultural processes. This paper provides new insights of modeling the social capital changes in a society and its groups, depending on cultural participation. The proposed measurement metrics provide the measurement facility of three key components: actors, cultural events and events flow and social capital. It provides the initial proof of concept simulation results, - simplified agent-based simulation model showcase. The NetLogo MAS platform is used as a simulation environment.

Vilniaus universiteto Bibliotekininkystės ir informacijos mokslų institutasUniversiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius, LietuvaEl. paštas: rimvydas.lauzikas@kf.vu.lt

Vilniaus universiteto Bibliotekininkystės ir informacijos mokslų institutasUniversiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius, LietuvaEl. paštas: rimvydas.lauzikas@kf.vu.lt

The identification, investigation and preservation of cultural heritage is one of the main challenges for con­temporary society. It’s closely connected with several dimensions: technology transfer, scientific investiga­tions, global-local rhetoric, cultural tourism, armed conflicts, immigration, cultural changes, investment flows, new transport infrastructures etc. Nowadays, organizations responsible for heritage investigation and management are very often forced to deal with a lack of resources, which are crucial for proper heritage identification, investigation and preservation, as well as their maintenance and protection. It is particularly problematic for countries with low GDP or an unstable political situation. The possible solution of these problems could be an information management-based methodology, connected with an automated and semi-automated he­ritage investigation and monitoring software system, which based on 3D technologies. Two cases of cultural heritage (burial mounds and old towns) and two system prototypes are presented in this article. The first prototype – The System of Automated Detection of Prehistoric Burial Mounds Margo was developed and tested by Vilnius University as a part of the project The Beginnings of Lithuanian Statehood According to the Exploration of the Dubin­giai Microregion (2011–2015); the other prototype was developed and tested by Vilnius University and Terra Modus Ltd. in frame of the project The Creation of Automated Urban Heritage Monitoring Software Prototype (2014). In this article, we present the main results of both projects. 3D scanning technology is the most accurate method of finding the heritage objects in a natural landscape and capturing the situation of an evolving cultural heritage object or complex at a given time. As a cultural heritage object or complex is evolving continuously, two 3D point clouds created at different time allow to reliably trace potential changes. The monitoring of large scale heritage complexes, such as urban heritage objects, is a resource demanding task and in such cases a semi-automatic, computer-based 3D visual analysis is appropriate. A comparison of 3D visual data, captured during different times, advances to a next level when utilizing methods of 3D photo­grammetry, which make it possible (at least partially) to create 3D point clouds from old photos, giving us opportunities to expand research by adding empirical data captured before 3D scanning equipment and also lowering the costs of conducting such research.

Straipsnio objektas – kultūros paveldo skaitmeninimo strateginis valdymas Lietuvoje. Nagrinėjama, kaip Lietuvoje 2005–2013 metų programavimo laikotarpiu formavosi konceptualus požiūris į skaitmeninto kultūros paveldo vientiso turinio kūrimą, pristatomas besikeičiantis socialinis kontekstas, nauja Lietuvos kultūros paveldo teisinės bazės paradigma ir jos finansavimo klausimai. Straipsnis taip pat supažindina su Lietuvos nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos ir Vilniaus universiteto Komunikacijos fakulteto ekspertų patirtimi ir šių institucijų bei kitų dvidešimties reikšmingiausių šalies kultūros institucijų veikla plėtojant kultūros ir informacinės visuomenės politiką, kultūros paveldo skaitmeninimo strateginį valdymą ir šios veiklos iniciatyvas 2014–2020 m. programavimo laikotarpiu. The article focuses on the strategic management of digitization in Lithuania. It elaborates on the development process of a conceptual approach to the creation of seamless content of the digital cultural heritage and presents the changing social context and a new paradigm of the legislation on the cultural heritage as well as its financing issues. The period of 2005–2009 should be considered a turning point in the cultural policy of Lithuania as the approval of the Concept for the Digitization of the Lithuanian Cultural Heritage and the Strategy for the Digitization of the Lithuanian Cultural Heritage, Digital Content Preservation and Access and its Implementation Framework in 2009–2013 by the Lithuanian government, which resulted in a new paradigm for the consolidation of memory institutions, oriented to cross-sectoral collaboration in digitizing Lithuania’s cultural heritage. These documents also provided more possibilities to receive financial support from the State budget and the EU Structural Funds for the digitization of the national cultural heritage and its long-term preservation and access. The major unsolved problems of the previous period have evolved from the inappropriate interpretation of strategic documents within the institutional environment. When interpreting these documents, conservative non-compatible institutional models were applied for strategic managing. Therefore, digitization was carried out without fully evaluating the social context and consolidating resources, thus resulting in poor quality digitization products, which were unrelated and satisfied the needs of institutions rather than of the users. The environment of the strategic management in the new programming period of 2014–2020 is shaped by the development of the network society, as it is defined by social sciences, the experience of the previous strategic period, and the highest level strategic documents defining the new period. The article also introduces the experience of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania and Vilnius University’s Faculty of Communication, activities by these and other twenty main cultural institutions of Lithuania in the development of the cultural and information society policy and the strategic management of cultural heritage digitization, and initiatives within these activities for the 2014–2020 programming period.

Straipsnyje susipažindinama su 2011 m. atlikto paveldo ir lituanistinių mokslo duomenų skaitmeninimo situacijos Lietuvoje tyrimo svarbiausiais rezultatais: apžvelgiamos, palyginamos esamos sistemos ir skaitmeninancos institucijos; aptariami skaitmeninimą lemiantys aplinkos veiksniai, istekliai. Straipsnio pabaigoje pateikiamos svarbiausios esamos problemos, diskutuojami jų sprendimo būdai. Tyrimą atliko Vilniaus universiteto Komunikacijos fakultetas, kartu su UAB „IO Projects“ vykdydamas Lietuvos mokslo tarybos finansuojamą projektą „Lituanistinių mokslo tyrimų ir paveldo infrastruktūrų tinklo kūrimas: projektavimo fazė“. Reiksminiai žodžiai: paveldas, lituanistiniai mokslo duomenys, skaitmeninimas Lietuvoje. Digitization of c ultural h eritage and s cientific d ata of Lithuanian s tudies in L ithuania: the 2011 s ituation Rimvydas Laužikas, Ingrida Vosyliūtė Summary The article presents the main data on the situation with the digitization of heritage and Lithuanian studies scientific data in Lithuania in 2011. The study was carried out at the Faculty of Communication of Vilnius University when implementing the project Development of the National Network of Infrastructure of Lithuanian Studies Scientific Research and Heritage: the Design Phase financed by the Research Council of Lithuania. The digitization of cultural heritage and Lithuanian studies scientific data has been going on in Lithuania for already more than 15 years. During that time, near 100 different information infrastructures have been developed. Most of scientific data are digitized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, Vilnius University, Vytautas Magnus University and Kaunas University of Technology. From the quantitative point of view, the number of IS controlled by a memory institution is less, but this is determined by a higher concentration and level of strategic management in this sector, which is supervised by the Ministry of Culture. The environmental analysis has shown that the strategic priority given to the scientific research of Lithuanian studies, digitization of their scientific data, heritage data and the legal, political, financial, technological, institutional environment in Lithuania are favourable. There is no factor or reason to be singled out for its strongest influence on the development of infrastructures in Lithuania, because their development is determined by the totality of interrelated factors. When assessing systematically, it was established that the creation and development of the network of Lithuanian studies infrastructure would be most greatly influenced by institutional, technological and function distribution factors; legal and administrative factors would influence them less, while the influence of economic and social factors would be the least. An important source of problems in the digitization of heritage and scientific data of Lithuanian studies in Lithuania is the fact that these sciences, scientific institutions and their infrastructures are supervised by the Ministry of Culture and Science, whereas the memory institutions and information infrastructures of the most important sources (heritage) are in the competence of the Ministry of Culture. Therefore, the creation of specialized information systems and databases in research and memory institutions is almost non-coordinated, and the interoperability of created infrastructures is not ensured. In the existing infrastructures of Lithuanian studies scientific research and heritage, the accumulated digital and digitized content has a great social and cultural significance, but it could be accessed and used much more efficiently upon merging the resources stored in different infrastructures into one single network and upon implementing the strategic management tools in the sphere of digitization of scientific data and creation of research infrastructures. Based on the study results, the following prospects for infrastructure development should be singled out: the further development of the created infrastructures in the technological sense as well as in the sense of contents; creation of inter-institutional infrastructures by optimising the resources and avoiding the duplication of activities; promotion of cooperation and networking by decreasing decentralization and the use of general standards. 10.5pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">

Straipsnyje aptariamas termino „priešakiniai tyrimai“ vartojimas. Siekiama paaiškinti termino reikšmę, atsakyti, ar jis tinkamas vartoti apibūdinant aukščiausio lygio mokslo tyrimus. Terminas „priešakiniai tyrimai“ yra angliško termino „advanced studies“ vertinys. Anglų kalbos žodis advanced yra kildinamas iš lotynų kalbos. Skirtinos trys žodžio advanced reikšmės: pirmaujantis; svarbus, laukiamas atėjimas; rizikingas, neapgalvotas, abejotinas sumanymas. Lietuviškoji žodžio „priešakinis“ reikšmė artima tiek semantinei advanced reikšmei, tiek angliškojo žodžio vertimui, tačiau tai tik penktoji šio žodžio lietuviška reikšmė, neturinti tokio stipraus modernumo ir pažangos aspekto, kurį turi angliškasis žodis. Susidaro įspūdis, kad angliškojo advanced vertimas lietuviškuoju „priešakinis“ yra atkeliavęs per tiesioginį vertimą iš rusų kalbos, kur angliškasis advanced verčiamas rusiškuoju передовой. Tokį teiginį iš dalies pagrindžia faktas, kad angliškas žodis advanced kitose Europos kalbose verčiamas žodžiais, kur kas labiau atspindinčiais įvardijamos veiklos pažangą ir modernumą ir neturinčiais semantinio ryšio su priekine objekto dalimi. Svarbiausiuose daugiakalbės terminijos žodynuose angliško advanced vertimo lietuviškuoju priešakinis atvejai – reti. Lietuvišku žodžiu priešakinis paprastai verčiamas angliškas žodis forward. Siekiant paaiškinti, kokie tyrimai gali būti vadinami „priešakiniais“, reikėjo pasitelkti anglišką termino aiškinimą: „priešakiniai“ tyrimai – tai nauji, modernūs, pirmaujantys, turintys perspektyvą ateityje; mokslo tyrimai, nevengiantys rizikos veiksnio. The article discusses the usage of the term priešakiniai tyrimai. It is sought to explain the meaning of the term and to answer the question whether it is appropriate to use it in defining top-level scientific research. The term priešakiniai tyrimai is a loan-translation of the English term advanced studies. The English word advanced originates from the Latin language. The three different meanings of the word advanced are distinguished: leading; an important, anticipated advent; a risky, reckless, questionable idea. The meaning of the Lithuanian word priešakinis is close to both the semantic meaning of advanced and the translation of the English word; however, it is only the fifth meaning of the Lithuanian word which does not have such a strong aspect of modernity and progress as the English one. It appears that the translation of the English advanced as Lithuanian priešakinis came through a direct translation from the Russian language where the English advanced is translated as the Russian передовой. This assertion is partly supported by the fact that the English word advanced is translated into other European languages by words which rather resemble the progress and modernity of a specific activity and have no semantic association with the frontal part of an object. In the most important multilingual terminology dictionaries, the cases of translating the English advanced as Lithuanian priešakinis are rare. The Lithuanian word priešakinis is usually used to translate the English word forward. In order to explain which studies may be referred to as priešakiniais, it was necessary to invoke the explanation of the English term: priešakiniai studies means new, modern, leading, and promising ones; scientific studies that do not circumvent the risk factor.

XX amžiuje prasidėjusi informacinės ir komunikacinės paradigmų plėtra ir besiformuojanti tinklaveikos visuomenė neišvengiamai turi įtakos įvairių veiklos sričių, taip pat paveldo sampratai, paveldosaugos, paveldotvarkos ir paveldo informacijos bei komunikacijos procesams. Šio straipsnio objektas – informacinės ir komunikacinės paradigmų raiška paveldo erdvėje. Straipsnio tikslas – suformuluoti paveldo informacijos ir komunikacijos sampratą, parodant sąsajas su komunikacijos ir informacijos mokslų teorijomis bei pademonstruojant informacinės paradigmos taikymo paveldo tyrimuose galimybes. Straipsnyje pateikiami teoriniai svarstymai iliustruojami konkretaus paveldo objekto – Dubingių piliavietės archeologinių tyrimų pavyzdžiais.Straipsnyje pristatomo tyrimo metu nustatyta, kad paveldo informacijos ir komunikacijos požiūriu pagrįstuose tyrimuose galima tarpdiscipliniškai pritaikyti svarbiausias informacijos ir komunikacijos mokslų teorijas ir metodus. Jų taikymas paveldo erdvėje gali būti kreipiamas dviem lygiavertėmis tyrimų kryptimis: tyrimuose akcentuojant išskirtinius paveldo objektus ir artefaktus bei tyrimuose orientuojantis į masinės medžiagos pažinimą. Abi tyrimų kryptys leidžia kiekybiškai įvertinti paveldo objektus, nustatant paveldo kompleksų ir jų dalių santykį, lyginant paveldo objektus ir kompleksus, siekiant identifikuoti kompleksą sukūrusių visuomenių ypatumus.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: Paveldas, paveldo informacija ir komunikacija, informacijos teorija, komunikacijos teorija, komunikacijos ir informacijos mokslai, Dubingiai, archeologija, entropija.Uniqueness and Entropy in the Information and Communication on Cultural HeritageRimvydas Laužikas SummaryThe technologies that have been developing in the 20th–21st century gradually permeate all fields of human life and activities. These technologies open new opportunities for communication, management, information processing as well as for the development of new, based on the information and communication paradigms research methods, models of practical activities, and interdisciplinary research. In this context, it is promising to use the basic theories of communication and information science (McLuhan’s, Shannon’s, Lotman’s, Prigogine’s) and the definition of the communication and information on cultural heritage.The purpose of the article is to formulate the concept of information and communication regarding cultural heritage, to show links between heritage and information and communication science theories and the examples of using the information paradigm for heritage studies. The theoretical considerations are illustrated by examples from a particular heritage site – the Dubingiai (Moletai reg., Lithuania) castle site archaeological excavations.The concept of information and communication on cultural heritage is based on the definition of cultural heritage. If “cultural heritage – the entire corpus of material signs – either artistic or symbolic – handed on by the past to each culture…” (HEREIN…., 2009), then a single heritage object should be regarded as a sign (a minimum, indivisible, atomic information transmission unit) and the heritage complex as a text (medium, message). The signs and texts point to mental ideas and are part of a system applied by members of specific (past) culture for intercommunication. If we accept this definition, then heritage research means the decoding, i.e. “reading”the primary (archaeological complexes from past cultures) texts and the encoding, i.e. creating a secondary (scientifically for scientists) and tertiary (for general public) text in contemporary culture. Research of cultural heritage is the foundation for the further communicative use of the cultural heritage in our times (as museum exhibits, cultural monuments, etc.).This position allows customizing the quantitative parameters of information theory to the heritage research and extending the “toolbox” of heritage quantitative analysis. In this approach, a heritage complex as a text is an evolved, open (for external influence) and dissipative system. Such systems have all features of evolving systems determined by Ilya Prigogine (Prigogine, 2006): they evolve; their evolution is based on an objective arrow of time which ensures irreversibility of processes; the variability of system components, going on for a long time, causes changes in the whole system; the evolution of a system is a process that can be forecasted only in part; sometimes an evolving system experiences disturbances that change it essentially (system mutations); both systems evolve at a different speed; two systems the evolution of which started in different points of space and time, more and more recede from each other; two systems are not inter-integrating.In this way, we find two approaches to “reading the past”: a research of exclusive (unique) artifacts and research of mass artifacts. Both approaches say that unique (or mass) artifacts are markers of social structure, of trading connections, of urbanization, of cultural influences, etc. However, to use this method, we need statistically significant samples, the methodology of triangulation by several benchmark examples, and a relative scale of references. From the first point of view, perspective methods of “reading” the cultural heritage information are the content analysis and summaries of a complex information. In archaeology, it is the coefficient of graves with findings, the average number of unique finds in a grave, the average number of semantically valuable finds, the complex (text) density index, the complex readability index and mapping the network of finds on the basis of binary oppositions theory. From the second point of view, promising methods are information entropy modeling and calculation. The main problem of calculating entropy for heritage complexes is that the original text (the primary state of complex) is only hypothetical; it cannotbe reconstructed and it is problematical to record the entropy change. In this context, a productive way is the visualization and relative calculation of the general object-level entropy in the three-dimensional space-time model (X and Y as the geographical coordinates of archaeological object and Z as the chronological parameter). Also, the entropy model can be calibrated by the heterogeneity of a cultural space (differences in the cultural dependence of creators (authors) and “readers” (researchers) of the archaeological complex as a text). When the creator and the “reader” belong to the same culture (the same macrosystem, the same cluster), entropy variation during the same period of time is less than when the creator and the “reader” come from related or different cultures. Another promising direction of research is calculation of entropy for specific complexes of heritage. By this method, we can calculate the entropy of an individual object (e.g. finding), of the whole heritage complex or a subcomplex (e.g. grave) and a complex (e.g. necropolis) relationship. The entropy is calculated using the entropy formula (Голдман, 1957). The resulting entropy is directly (inversely) proportional to the possibilities of the investigator’s ability to understand (“read”) the complex as a text.

Skaitmeninių technologijų plėtra keičia humanitarinių mokslų šaltinių kaupimo, saugojimo, apskaitos, tyrimo bei mokslinės informacijos sklaidos procesus. Kartu keičiasi humanitarinių mokslų institucijų ir tyrėjų vaidmuo šiuose procesuose, taip pat visuomenės požiūris į mokslą ir jį globojančias institucijas. Tačiau šiuolaikinėje Lietuvoje skaitmeninimas yra suprantamas vien praktine prasme.Šio straipsnio objektas yra skaitmeninimas, kaip mokslo tyrimas. Straipsnio tikslai yra: a) atsakyti į klausimą, ar skaitmeninimas gali turėti savitą mokslo tyrimų objektą, jei taip – pateikti jo apibrėžimą; b) paskatinti kolegų mokslinę diskusiją – aptarti skaitmeninimo ne kaip praktinę, o kaip mokslo veiklą; c) pateikti aktualių skaitmeninimo tyrimų, kurie buvo atlikti vykdant BARIS projektą, rezultatų pavyzdžių.Straipsnyje teigiama, kad skaitmeninimas gali turėti savitą mokslo tyrimo objektą. Tai emuliatyvumas – specifinis žmogaus santykis su tikrove, kai žmonės, remdamiesi kriterijais, atrenka iš realybės objektus ir jų pagrindu skaitmeninėje aplinkoje kuria emuliacines sistemas, kurios mėgdžioja ir imituoja realybėje veikiančių natūralių sistemų veiklą. Svarbu pažymėti, kad emuliacinės sistemos nėra realybėje egzistuojančių sistemų kopijos, jos sukurtos perkodavimo būdu ir yra tokios pat savarankiškos, dinamiškos ir laisvai evoliucionuojančios sistemos, kaip ir tos realybės sistemos, kurias jos mėgdžioja.Emuliatyvumas yra specifinis, kompiuterinių technologijų, virtualaus pasaulio ir interneto atsiradimo paskatintas reiškinys, kurį galime nagrinėti labai daugeliu prasmių iki pat asmens psichologijos imtinai. Tačiau šiame straipsnyje apsiribojama tik ta emuliatyvumo dalimi, kuri yra susijusi su kompiuterinių technologijų taikymu kūryboje, paveldosaugoje, humanitariniuose bei socialiniuose moksluose. Straipsnyje pateikiamas skaitmeninimo mokslo tyrimų, apibrėžimas, skirstymas į istorinius, fundamentinius ir taikomuosius tyrimus, sąsajos su kitais mokslais ir praktinėmis veiklomis, aptariami terminijos, metodų klausimai, pateikiama tyrimų atliktų BARIS (Bažnytinių archyvų informacinė sistema) projekto vykdymo metu, pavyzdžių.Digitization as science: Baris project experienceRimvydas Laužikas SummaryThe development of digital technologies is changing the processes of accumulation, storage, accountability and research of sources of humanitarian sciences and dissemination of scientific information. At the same time the role of institutions of humanitarian sciences and researchers in these processes is changing, as well as the public attitude to science and institutions protecting it. However, digitization in modern Lithuania is understood in purely practical aspect.The subject of this article is digitization as scientific research. The aims of the article are the following: a) to answer the question whether digitization is able to have its own object of research, and if so, to present its definition; b) to encourage colleagues for scientific discussion about digitization not as practical but scientific activity; c) to present examples of studies that were carried out while implementing the BARIS project (Information system of church archives) relevant for digitization.It is claimed in the article that digitization is able to have its own object of scientific research and that object is emulativity – a specific human relationship with reality when human beings select objects from reality according to certain criteria and on their basis create emulative systems in digital space that imitate the activities of naturally existing systems. It is worth noticing that emulative systems are not copies of systems existing in reality – they are created in the way of recoding and are as much independent, dynamic and freely evolving systems as the ones they are imitating in reality.Emulativity is a specific phenomenon stimulated by computer-based technologies, appearance of virtual reality and the internet, and which can be studied in many different aspects, up to personal psychology. However, the article restricts itself by the emulativity part which is related to application of computer-based technologies in creation, preservation of heritage, humanitarian and social sciences. The article presents the definition of the scientific object of digitization, its division into historical, fundamental and applied studies, links with other sciences and practical activities; discusses issues of terminology and methods, and presents examples of studies carried out while implementing the BARIS project (Information system of church archives).