First Experiences of Applying a Model Classification for Digital 3D Reconstruction in the Context of Humanities Research

  • Sander Münster
  • Cindy Kröber
  • Wolfgang Hegel
  • Mieke Pfarr-Harfst
  • Nikolas Prechtel
  • Rainer Uhlemann
  • Frank Henze
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10058)


While technological backgrounds, project opportunities, and methodological considerations for application are widely discussed, there is still no comprehensive classification scheme for digital 3D reconstruction in humanities research projects. Therefore we developed a prototype scheme in 2016. In this article we present the first results of applying this scheme and classifying five projects. Within this application we tested for intercoder reliability and for potential weaknesses of the scheme. While the reliability of the proposed scheme is generally good for categories with discrete values, qualitative categories result in highly differing coding.


Cultural heritage Information management Classification models Digital reconstruction 



The research activity described in this paper was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (no. 01UG1520).


  1. 1.
    Krishnan, A.: What are Academic Disciplines. Some Observations on the Disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity Debate. National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton, Southampton (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wengenroth, U.: Was ist Technikgeschichte? (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beacham, R., Denard, H., Niccolucci, F.: An introduction to the London charter. In: Ioannides, M., Arnold, D., Niccolucci, F., Mania, K. (eds.) Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event, pp. 263–269 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendicho, V.M.L.-M.: The principles of the Seville Charter. In: Proceedings of XXIII CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, 12–16 September 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sürül, A., Özen, H., Tutkun, M.: ICOMOS digital database of the cultural heritage of Trabzon. In: Proceedings of XIX CIPA Symposium, Antalya, Turkey, 30 September–4 October 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiouss, A., Karoglou, M., Labropoulos, K., Moropoulou, A., Zarnic, R.: Recommendations and strategies for the establishment of a guideline for monument documentation harmonized with the existing European standards and codes. In: Proceedings of XXIII CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, 12–16 September 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pfarr, M.: Dokumentationssystem für Digitale Rekonstruktionen am Beispiel der Grabanlage Zhaoling, Provinz Shaanxi, China, Ph.D. Thesis, Darmstadt (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Münster, S., Köhler, T.: 3D reconstruction of cultural heritage artifacts. A literature based survey of recent projects and workflows. In: Virtual Palaces, Part II. Lost Palaces and their Afterlife. Virtual Reconstruction between Science and the Media, München (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doerr, M.: The CIDOC conceptual reference module. An ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Mag. 24(3), 75–92 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felicetti, A., Lorenzini, M.: Metadata and tools for integration and preservation of cultural heritage 3D information. In: Proceeding of XXIII CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, 12–16 September 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ronzino, P., Niccolucci, F., D’Andrea, A.: Built heritage metadate schemas and the integration of architectural datasets using CIDOC-CRM. In: Boriani, M., Gabaglio, R., Gulotta, D. (eds.) Online Proceedings of the Conference BUILT HERITAGE 2013 Monitoring Conservation and Management, Milano, pp. 883–889 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pfarr-Harfst, M.: Documentation system for digital reconstructions. Reference to the Mausoleum of the Tang-Dynastie at Zhaoling, in Shaanxi Province, China. In: 16th International Conference on “Cultural Heritage and New Technologies”, Vienna, 2011, pp. 648–658 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niccolucci, F.: Setting standards for 3D visualization of cultural heritage in Europe and beyond. In: Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H., Baker, D. (eds.) Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage, pp. 23–36. Ashgate, Burlington (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasch, R.F.R.: The nature of taxonomy. Image 19(3), 147–149 (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huvila, I.: Sorting the metaverse out and how metaverse is sorting us out. In: Power, D., Teigland, R. (eds.) The Immersive Internet: Reflections on the Entangling of the Virtual with Society, Politics and the Economy, pp. 192–203. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Münster, S., Kuroczyński, P., Pfarr-Harfst, M., Grellert, M., Lengyel, D.: Future research challenges for a computer-based interpretative 3D reconstruction of cultural heritage – a German community’s view. In: ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences (XXV International CIPA Symposium) II-5-W3, pp. 207–213 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Münster, S., Hegel, W., Kröber, C.: A classification model for digital reconstruction in context of humanities research. In: Münster, S., Pfarr-Harfst, M., Kuroczyński, P., Ioannides, M. (eds.) How to Manage Data and Knowledge Related to Interpretative Digital 3D Reconstructions of Cultural Heritage? LNCS. Springer, Cham (in print) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1(2), Art. 20 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Münster, S., Ioannides, M.: The scientific community of digital heritage in time and space. In: Guidi, G., Scopigno, R., Torres, J.C., Graf, H. (eds.) 2nd International Congress on Digital Heritage 2015, Granada (2015). 978-1-5090-0048-7/15Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelle, U.: The developement of categories different Documentation system for digital approaches in grounded theory. In: Bryant, A., Charmaz, K. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, pp. 191–213. SAGE (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C.: Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum. Commun. Res. 28, 587–604 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamnek, S.: Qualitative Sozialforschung. Lehrbuch, Weinheim (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bourgeois, J., De Wulf, A., Goosens, R., Gheyle, W.: Saving the frozen Scythian tombs of the Altai Mountains (Central Asia). World Archaeol. 39, 458–474 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luebke, D., Watson, B., Cohen, J.D., Reddy, M., Varshney, A.: Level of Detail for 3D Graphics. Elsevier Science Inc., Atlanta (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sander Münster
    • 1
  • Cindy Kröber
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Hegel
    • 1
  • Mieke Pfarr-Harfst
    • 2
  • Nikolas Prechtel
    • 3
  • Rainer Uhlemann
    • 1
  • Frank Henze
    • 1
  1. 1.Media CenterTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Architectural DesignTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Department of CartographyTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations