Introduction: applying a landscape perspective to digital cultural heritage,Built Heritage

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Built Heritage › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Introduction: applying a landscape perspective to digital cultural heritage
Built Heritage Pub Date : 2020-03-25 , DOI: 10.1186/s43238-020-00002-w
Chen Yang , Kelly Greenop

Technology has always existed to mediate understanding of places and artefacts, from the invention of carving tools to make images of the game being hunted or sacred objects within ancient societies, to the digitisation of places that new technologies have enabled in recent decades. The impetus to interpret the world and using tools to do so is age-old but has new connotations in the current era of Industry 4.0. We are not only digitising, but also connecting places, objects and communities virtually, and augmenting interpretation of heritage places through digital means to better understand and communicate their values, and to reveal values of digitally created artefacts. Digital cultural heritage is a relatively new discipline which seeks to combine the inherently conservative nature of heritage with contemporary digital technologies, which are experimental, evolving and challenging, even disruptive, to the status quo across many disciplines, including heritage. Nevertheless, what may seem an unlikely pairing in fact opens new possibilities for the practice and conceptualisation of heritage. The overarching goal of digital cultural heritage is to improve how the recording, interpretation and storage of heritage information are conducted making it more detailed, complete, sustainable and accessible, and to develop new ways of imagining heritage and its relationship to societies.

The challenge for this new discipline is to imagine a future for heritage, where conservation of not only heritage places but the traditions of the heritage discipline itself which are deeply treasured by many, adapts to new opportunities. This entails development of accessible and useful technologies to meet the needs of heritage practitioners, asset owners, resident- and non-resident heritage communities, and a diverse set of publics. Digital cultural heritage aims to be able to address heritage needs at world and national levels of significance as well to develop techniques and approaches for less officially recognised heritage settings with scant or no funding. Furthermore, it offers possibilities for addressing some of the ongoing open questions within heritage, for example, how to identify and engage broader communities in heritage; how to record and share intangible cultural heritage and the changeable ‘living heritage’ which is developing every day; and how to safeguard and make accessible both born-digital heritage and digital records of tangible heritage places into the future.

The technical innovations that comprise new digital cultural heritage techniques are being advanced by experts in their chosen technologies, but these innovations do not necessarily address heritage-focussed disciplinary questions, and sometimes emphasise technical questions in isolation from the end-users or purported beneficiaries of the technology. Heritage practitioners and stakeholders must, at a minimum, develop technical literacy in the digital options available, and ideally become partners with technicians to decide the digital future of heritage. Current decisions in this realm will determine how heritage is recorded, presented, viewed and archived for coming generations. We advocate for a critical digital cultural heritage in which an investigation of not only how to digitise places and events or to digitally create heritage artefacts, but why this ought to be done. The role of researchers is to interrogate these digitisation efforts, and speculate what they may mean for changing concepts of heritage as a result.

Key questions faced by digital cultural heritage in its current moment are: why ought a place be digitised, and what might be the benefits in doing this? What new opportunities does digitisation bring and what questions does it raise? Whose voices, stories and perspectives are being represented, or excluded, and why? What are the boundaries of these digital technologies for heritage purposes, that is, what can we not represent yet, or perhaps ever? Are there risks to digitisation and indeed some cases where it should not be conducted? What professional disciplines are leading digital cultural heritage and why, and how does this affect outcomes? And finally, how can digital cultural heritage be used for good? Digital technologies offer a chance to craft a new or better view or one from a different perspective and therefore offer an opportunity to understand heritage places and events in novel and divergent ways.

Adding the specific focus of a landscape perspective to this set of concerns brings the focus to a scale where digital technologies can address existing problems of representation and comprehensiveness. Over the past three decades, the concept of ‘landscape’ has succeeded both as a cultural heritage category and as a methodology of heritage conservation. The number of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes has grown from 30 in 2002 to 112 by 2019, becoming one of the most active categories within World Heritage. At the same time, the landscape perspective has also expanded our understanding of cultural heritage, so that it includes not only elite, magnificent, and static sites, but also vernacular and dynamic places. The landscape perspective also shifts the developing digital cultural heritage orthodoxy beyond the architecture or object-focussed approach to encompass the broader scale of towns, villages, natural landscapes and cultural routes. These categories and domains have helped to forge a more inclusive heritage conservation framework, which has greatly contributed to cultural diversity, sustainable development, and social democracy, goals also shared by digital cultural heritage projects.

The landscape perspective raises new requirements on cultural heritage conservation methods and technologies. It regards nature-culture interactions as the focus when evaluating heritage values, and emphasises the deciphering of the relationship between people and the environment. The sustainable use of nature by humans and the biocultural diversity information they generate need to be effectively identified and recorded. This view incorporates natural elements and their evolution into the cultural heritage conservation realm, which puts forward higher requirements for the efficiency, accuracy and comprehensiveness of technologies for heritage information acquisition. Furthermore, the landscape perspective maintains that heritage cannot be viewed in isolation, and it must be integrated into the overall social, political, economic, and cultural context to locate and interpret it. This means that heritage conservation requires the integration of diverse information, including historical, tangible, intangible, natural, and cultural features. Digital technologies are key to supporting such efficient data management platforms. More importantly, the concept of landscape highlights the ‘way of seeing’ heritage, that is, being conscious of interpreting the meanings and values of cultural heritage, and assessing authenticity and integrity from a specific cultural perspective. In this process, the dissemination and sharing of heritage knowledge are essential. Contemporary digital tools will promote effective heritage interpretation, provide more support for the transmission of voices from different cultural communities, and achieve appropriate understanding and conservation strategies.

Although the landscape perspective has been widely accepted by the cultural heritage academic community, it has still not been fully realised in the practice of cultural heritage conservation and management. This is especially evident in the lack of operating methods and technical guidelines. At many cultural heritage sites, the recording and monitoring of physical evidence still mainly consists of ‘cultural relics protection’. Some factors affecting how landscapes are recorded, interpreted and valued at cultural heritage sites include: a large amount of information on natural and intangible heritage elements cannot be taken into consideration in heritage decision-making due to lack of necessary technologies; fragmentation of heritage information is still one of the main obstacles to efficient protection; paper archives and the corporate memories held by site managers are still important ways to support heritage management, but they may not be reliable and easy to replicate for others; public participation still relies on specific projects as the gateway for the public, and long-term mechanisms and platforms for heritage commentary and public participation have not been widely established. With all these factors in mind, there is still a long way to go from ‘a landscape perspective’ to ‘a landscape approach’ in cultural heritage practice.

The development of digital technologies in recent years has provided important opportunities for bridging the perspective and the approach, and have gradually formed a new field of digital heritage landscape research. New surveying technologies exemplified by digital close-range photogrammetry, LiDAR, and drone tilt photography technologies have greatly improved the efficiency of geographical digital mapping, and the identification and dynamic monitoring of a cultural heritage place have become possible. The spatial data management technologies of geographical information systems (GIS) are increasingly developed, and more powerful three-dimensional spatial analysis, multi-information integration, and open data frame functions provide important opportunities for the digital management of cultural heritage information and the realisation of multi-dimensional panoramic simulation of heritage. Further to this, interactive multimedia represented by mixed reality tools and public interpretation technology will greatly improve the readability and attractiveness of heritage interpretation. At the same time, crowdsourced data will greatly expand the scope and approach of multi-value identification of heritage. Therefore, digital technologies will provide important support for the application of a landscape perspective in cultural heritage conservation, and bring important changes to the conservation workflow and conceptualising what landscape heritage is.

This special issue ‘Applying a Landscape Perspective to Digital Cultural Heritage’, reflects selected papers presented at the ‘digital cultural heritage: FUTURE VISIONS, a landscape perspective’ Conference, held in the College of Architecture and Urban Planning at Tongji University Shanghai on the 23rd and 24th of November 2019. This conference was co-organised by Tongji University, The University of Queensland and supported by the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL). The conference shifted the perspective from digital cultural heritage focussed mainly on architectural settings to foreground the landscape scale and the challenges specific to heritage landscapes, to examine how digital cultural heritage within landscape architecture is being addressed both technically and theoretically. An article reporting on the conference themes including the keynote speeches is featured in this issue, by Associate Professor Chris Landorf from The University of Queensland. Conference papers addressing some key disciplinary issues were selected and further developed into articles for this special issue.

Mario Santana Quintero and Luigi Barazetti first discuss some of the fundamental issues of digital documentation of cultural heritage. They point out the revolutionary changes brought about by new digital technologies in cultural heritage recording and archival work and introduce a deeper discussion on the code of conduct and the ethical issues of heritage practices. They propose that the new data medium improves the efficiency of heritage research and practice, and brings new challenges, including data separation due to technological diversity, excess data and its quality control and storage, its future use, etc. Based on this, the article establishes an ethical framework for digital documentation of cultural heritage and sets up professional behaviour standards, responsibilities, professional practices, and protection of the interests of the public to ensure more appropriate and effective heritage resource management. The article demonstrates the use of this ethical framework through the digital recording project of the Nea Paphos World Heritage site in Cyprus.

Sarah Karle and Richard Carman’s article focuses on rural landscapes in the United States and explores how digital tools can be used to construct large-scale mapping methods for the study and protection of landscape heritage. They explain how to use a Historical Geographic Information System (HGIS) methods to enhance the accessibility of landscape archives and to facilitate public participation. The dynamic plant material and easily modified spatial conditions in the landscape are difficulties often faced by traditional protection methods. In the Prairie States Forestry Project, the authors constructed a digital approach to reduce the workload of field investigations and spatial analysis in large-scale heritage research. This article demonstrates the important contribution of digital technology in representing the historical dimensions of cultural landscapes and dynamic landscape features, highlighting the application of GIS into the management and representation of historical information of heritage sites, which has important reference value for other heritage sites.

Chen Yang and Feng Han provide an overview of a comprehensive databasing project that beings to explore the pragmatic uses of digital databases for recording and managing landscape-scale cultural heritage sites. They describe the production of a geo-database for the Slender West Lake landscape cultural heritage area, and the inclusion of both tangible and intangible heritage values in this database. They develop a framework of how such a database should be built, including practical guidance on GIS and other technical considerations for heritage landscape-specific use, with an emphasis how to integrate different information from a variety of sources and featuring diverse sets of information is explored. There was a specific focus on how to capture and locate intangible landscape elements using this framework. Slender West Lake cultural landscape was used as a case study, providing an important benchmark for testing this approach and its further development at other landscape heritage sites in China and beyond.

Stanislav Roudavski and Julian Rutten’s article addresses the issue of landscape heritage in a more-than-human context, that of the heritage of trees as both habitat and heritage. They make a case for the pursuit of nonhuman heritage and make claims for a concept of animals having cultures which are supported by and occur within habitats that humans also value, but perhaps for different reasons. When examining arboreal habitats from the nonhuman perspective Roudavski and Rutten analyse and record the characteristics of trees and how they are used by animals, and in doing so reveal the technical and ethical challenges in recording such nonhuman heritage. The landscape perspective and the elements that comprise it—in this case trees and their hollows as habitat—demonstrate the importance of new theories of heritage where we consider more-than-human needs and the values we place on them.

2020 will be the first year that 5G mobile communication technology enters commercial use, which may bring about the seventh information revolution in human society. Undoubtedly, with the high-speed and low-latency information transmission, we will have a new technical foundation for the digital capture of cultural heritage and entire living and ecological environments. The continuous emergence of new technologies will extend our perception capacity and help deepen our understanding of the outside world. Although the speed of technological development is sometimes unfathomable, and intelligent learning makes it possible for machines to surpass the human brain in terms of information processing, it is nevertheless difficult for technologies to solve some fundamental problems, including defining heritage value, ownership, authenticity, integrity, etc. These remain in the human sphere and rightly so, with technologies being a tool to help us identify, maintain and connect with heritage. How to use these technologies to deepen our understanding of heritage, improve the efficiency of heritage management, and achieve the sustainable transmission of heritage information to future generations are the pressing questions that researchers and practitioners need to work on together, within the changing technological context. The first issue of Built Heritage in 2020, focusing on the frontier of cultural heritage conservation, will promote the debate on this theme and make important contributions to the theory and practice of cultural heritage conservation. We hope to revisit these themes in future years and reflect on the positive contributions that the digital has made to cultural heritage in the intervening period.

Not applicable.

Affiliations

Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China
- Chen Yang
School of Architecture, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, St Lucia QLD, 4072, Australia
- Kelly Greenop

Authors

Chen YangView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Kelly GreenopView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
- PubMed
- Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen Yang.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

Cite this article

Yang, C., Greenop, K. Introduction: applying a landscape perspective to digital cultural heritage. Built Heritage 4, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-020-00002-w

Download citation

Received: 06 February 2020
Accepted: 09 February 2020
Published: 25 March 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-020-00002-w

中文翻译：

简介：将景观视角应用于数字文化遗产

从雕刻工具的发明到古代社会中被猎杀或神圣的物体的图像的发明，再到近几十年来新技术使地点数字化，一直以来，存在着用以调解对地点和人工制品的理解的技术。解释世界和使用工具进行解释的动力源远流长，但在当前的工业4.0时代具有新的内涵。我们不仅在数字化方面，而且还在虚拟地联系着地点，物体和社区，并通过数字方式扩大对遗产地的解释，以更好地理解和传达其价值，并揭示数字化人工制品的价值。数字文化遗产是一门相对较新的学科，旨在将遗产的内在保守性与当代数字技术相结合，这些都是实验性的，不断发展的，具有挑战性的，甚至是破坏性的，对包括遗产在内的许多学科的现状都是如此。然而，似乎不太可能的配对实际上为遗产的实践和概念化开辟了新的可能性。数字文化遗产的总体目标是改善对遗产信息的记录，解释和存储的方式，使其更加详细，完整，可持续和可访问，并开发想象遗产及其与社会关系的新方式。

这一新学科的挑战是想象遗产的未来，在这里，不仅保护遗产地，而且被许多人深深珍视的遗产学科本身的传统也适应了新的机遇。这需要开发可访问和有用的技术，以满足遗产从业者，资产所有者，居民和非居民遗产社区以及各种各样的公众的需求。数字文化遗产的目标是能够满足世界和国家重要水平的遗产需求，并开发技术和方法，以较少或根本没有资金资助不太受官方认可的遗产。此外，它还提供了解决遗产中一些持续存在的开放性问题的可能性，例如，如何在遗产中确定和参与更广泛的社区；如何记录和分享非物质文化遗产以及每天都在发展的多变的“生活遗产”；以及如何保护出生的数字遗产和有形遗产地点的数字记录，并使其在未来可访问。

包括新的数字文化遗产技术在内的技术创新正在由其专家选择先进技术，但是这些创新未必能解决以文化遗产为重点的学科问题，有时会强调与最终用户或声称的受益人隔离的技术问题。技术。遗产从业者和利益相关者必须至少在可用的数字选项中发展技术素养，并理想地与技术人员成为合作伙伴，以决定遗产的数字化未来。该领域的当前决策将决定如何为后代记录，展示，查看和存档遗产。我们主张建立重要的数字文化遗产，其中不仅要对如何数字化地点和事件或数字化创造文物，但为什么要这样做。研究人员的作用是询问这些数字化工作，并推测它们对于改变遗产概念可能意味着什么。

当前数字文化遗产面临的关键问题是：为什么要数字化一个地方，这样做有什么好处？数字化带来了哪些新机会，并提出了哪些问题？代表或排除了谁的声音，故事和观点，为什么？这些数字技术出于遗产目的的界限是什么，也就是说，我们尚不能代表什么，也许永远不能代表什么？数字化是否存在风险，甚至在某些情况下不应进行数字化？哪些专业学科引领着数字文化遗产？为什么？这如何影响结果？最后，数字文化遗产如何被善加利用？数字技术提供了一个机会，可以从不同的角度来制作一个新的或更好的视图，从而可以以新颖和不同的方式来了解遗产地和事件。

将景观观点的特定重点添加到这组关注点中，可以将重点放在一个范围内，其中数字技术可以解决现有的代表性和全面性问题。在过去的三十年中，“景观”的概念已成功地作为文化遗产类别和遗产保护方法。世界遗产文化景观的数量已从2002年的30个增加到2019年的112个，成为世界遗产中最活跃的类别之一。同时，景观视角也扩大了我们对文化遗产的理解，因此它不仅包括精英，宏伟和静态的地点，还包括本土和动态的地方。景观观点也将正在发展的数字文化遗产正统观念从建筑或以对象为中心的方法转移到涵盖更大范围的城镇，村庄，自然景观和文化路线。这些类别和领域帮助建立了更具包容性的遗产保护框架，为文化多样性，可持续发展和社会民主做出了巨大贡献，数字文化遗产项目也实现了共同目标。

景观观点对文化遗产保护方法和技术提出了新的要求。它在评估遗产价值时将自然与文化的相互作用作为重点，并强调对人与环境之间关系的破译。需要有效地识别和记录人类对自然的可持续利用及其所产生的生物文化多样性信息。这种观点将自然因素及其演变纳入文化遗产保护领域，对遗产信息获取技术的效率，准确性和综合性提出了更高的要求。此外，景观观点认为，不能孤立地看待遗产，必须将其纳入整体的社会，政治，经济，文化背景来定位和解释它。这意味着遗产保护需要整合各种信息，包括历史，有形，无形，自然和文化特征。数字技术是支持此类高效数据管理平台的关键。更重要的是，景观的概念突出了“看待”遗产的方式，也就是说，意识到要解释文化遗产的含义和价值，并从特定的文化角度评估真实性和完整性。在这一过程中，传播和分享遗产知识至关重要。当代的数字工具将促进有效的遗产解释，为不同文化社区的声音传播提供更多支持，

尽管景观观点已被文化遗产学术界广泛接受，但在文化遗产保护和管理实践中仍未完全实现景观观点。这在缺乏操作方法和技术指导的情况下尤其明显。在许多文化遗产站点，对实物证据的记录和监视仍然主要包括“文物保护”。影响文化遗产遗址景观的记录，解释和估价方式的一些因素包括：由于缺乏必要的技术，在遗产决策过程中无法考虑大量有关自然和非物质遗产元素的信息；遗产信息的碎片化仍然是有效保护的主要障碍之一；纸质档案和现场经理所拥有的公司记忆仍然是支持遗产管理的重要方法，但它们可能不可靠且难以为他人复制。公众参与仍然依赖于特定项目作为公众门户，并且尚未广泛建立遗产评论和公众参与的长期机制和平台。考虑到所有这些因素，在文化遗产实践中，从“景观视角”到“景观方法”还有很长的路要走。遗产评论和公众参与的长期机制和平台尚未广泛建立。考虑到所有这些因素，在文化遗产实践中，从“景观视角”到“景观方法”还有很长的路要走。遗产评论和公众参与的长期机制和平台尚未广泛建立。考虑到所有这些因素，在文化遗产实践中，从“景观视角”到“景观方法”还有很长的路要走。

近年来，数字技术的发展为桥接这种观点和方法提供了重要机会，并逐渐形成了数字遗产景观研究的新领域。以数字近距离摄影测量法，LiDAR和无人机倾斜摄影技术为例的新测量技术大大提高了地理数字地图绘制的效率，并且可以对文化遗产地进行识别和动态监控。地理信息系统（GIS）的空间数据管理技术日益发展，并且功能更强大的三维空间分析，多信息集成，开放的数据框功能为文化遗产信息的数字化管理和实现遗产的多维全景模拟提供了重要的机会。除此之外，以混合现实工具和公共解释技术为代表的交互式多媒体将大大提高遗产解释的可读性和吸引力。同时，众包数据将大大扩展遗产多价值识别的范围和方法。因此，数字技术将为景观观在文化遗产保护中的应用提供重要支持，并对保护工作流程和概念化景观遗产带来重大变化。以混合现实工具和公共解释技术为代表的交互式多媒体将大大提高遗产解释的可读性和吸引力。同时，众包数据将大大扩展遗产多价值识别的范围和方法。因此，数字技术将为景观观在文化遗产保护中的应用提供重要支持，并对保护工作流程和概念化景观遗产带来重大变化。以混合现实工具和公共解释技术为代表的交互式多媒体将大大提高遗产解释的可读性和吸引力。同时，众包数据将大大扩展遗产多价值识别的范围和方法。因此，数字技术将为景观观点在文化遗产保护中的应用提供重要支持，并为保护工作流程和概念化景观遗产带来重大变化。

本期专刊《将景观视角应用于数字文化遗产》，反映了在23日在上海同济大学建筑与城市规划学院举行的“数字文化遗产：景观展望”会议上发表的论文。会议将于2019年11月24日至12月24日在昆士兰大学同济大学联合组织，并得到ICOMOS-IFLA国际文化景观科学委员会（ISCCL）的支持。会议将视角从主要集中在建筑环境的数字文化遗产转移到前景景观规模和遗产景观所特有的挑战，以研究如何在技术和理论上解决景观建筑中的数字文化遗产。昆士兰大学副教授克里斯·兰道夫（Chris Landorf）在本期杂志上刊登了一篇报道会议主题的文章，包括主题演讲。选择了一些针对一些关键学科问题的会议论文，并将其进一步发展成针对该特殊问题的文章。

Mario Santana Quintero和Luigi Barazetti首先讨论了文化遗产数字文献的一些基本问题。他们指出了新的数字技术在文化遗产记录和档案工作中带来的革命性变化，并就行为准则和遗产实践的道德问题进行了更深入的讨论。他们提出，新的数据介质可以提高遗产研究和实践的效率，并带来新的挑战，包括由于技术多样性，过多的数据及其质量控制和存储，未来使用等原因而导致的数据分离。建立文化遗产数字文献的道德框架，并建立专业行为标准，职责，专业做法，保护公众利益，以确保更适当和有效的遗产资源管理。本文通过塞浦路斯Nea Paphos世界遗产站点的数字记录项目展示了此道德框架的使用。

莎拉·卡尔（Sarah Karle）和理查德·卡曼（Richard Carman）的文章重点介绍了美国的乡村景观，并探讨了如何使用数字工具来构建用于研究和保护景观遗产的大规模制图方法。他们解释了如何使用历史地理信息系统（HGIS）的方法来增强景观档案的可访问性并促进公众参与。传统的保护方法经常面临动态植物材料和景观中容易改变的空间条件的难题。在草原国家林业项目中，作者构建了一种数字方法，以减少大规模遗产研究中的实地调查和空间分析的工作量。

Chen Yang和Feng Han提供了一个综合数据库项目的概述，该项目旨在探索数字数据库在记录和管理景观规模文化遗产站点中的实际使用。他们描述了修长的西湖景观文化遗产区的地理数据库的生产，并在该数据库中包含了有形和无形遗产价值。他们为如何建立这样一个数据库开发了一个框架，包括有关GIS的实用指南以及针对遗产景观特定用途的其他技术考虑，重点是如何整合来自各种来源的不同信息并探讨各种信息的特点。。特别关注如何使用此框架捕获和定位非物质景观元素。

斯坦尼斯拉夫·鲁达夫斯基（Stanislav Roudavski）和朱利安·鲁滕（Julian Rutten）的文章从人类角度出发，探讨了景观遗产的问题，即树木既是栖息地又是遗产。他们为追求非人类遗产提供了依据，并提出了一种动物文化的主张，这种文化得到了人类同样珍视的栖息地的支持，并在其中发生，但可能出于不同的原因。从非人类的角度考察树木栖地时，Roudavski和Rutten分析并记录了树木的特征以及它们如何被动物使用，从而揭示了记录这种非人类遗产的技术和道德挑战。

2020年将是5G移动通信技术进入商业用途的第一年，这可能会引发人类社会的第七次信息革命。毫无疑问，通过高速和低延迟的信息传输，我们将为文化遗产以及整个生活和生态环境的数字捕获提供新的技术基础。新技术的不断出现将扩展我们的感知能力，并有助于加深我们对外界的了解。尽管有时候技术发展的速度是不可估量的，并且智能学习使机器在信息处理方面超越了人类的大脑，但是技术仍然难以解决一些基本问题，包括定义遗产价值，所有权，真实性，诚信，这些技术仍然存在于人类领域，而技术是帮助我们识别，维护和与遗产联系的工具。如何利用这些技术加深我们对遗产的了解，提高遗产管理的效率，以及实现遗产信息向后代的可持续传播，是研究人员和从业人员在不断变化的技术中需要共同努力解决的紧迫问题。上下文。第一期在不断变化的技术环境中，研究人员和从业人员需要共同努力解决的紧迫问题是，实现遗产信息向后代的可持续传播。第一期在不断变化的技术环境中，研究人员和从业人员需要共同努力解决的紧迫问题是，实现遗产信息向后代的可持续传播。第一期2020年的“建筑遗产”将侧重于文化遗产保护的前沿，将推动有关该主题的辩论，并为文化遗产保护的理论和实践做出重要贡献。我们希望在未来几年重新审视这些主题，并反思在此期间数字化对文化遗产的积极贡献。

不适用。