IDOVIR—Infrastructure for Documentation of Virtual Reconstructions: Towards a Documentation Practice for Everyone

Abstract

Source-based virtual reconstructions have become essential tools for communication and research in urban and architectural studies. While these reconstructions are often showcased through exhibition visualizations, the underlying knowledge is not always apparent or even documented. This raises concerns about their sustainability. Without transparent, publicly accessible documentation of the decision-making processes (known as paradata) that come with and support these digital reconstructions, there is a risk of losing both the knowledge embedded in them and their potential scientific value. To enhance transparency and allow for proper assessment and recognition of these reconstructions, thorough documentation and evaluation of the reconstruction processes are crucial. Although there are various approaches to documenting virtual reconstructions tailored to specific use cases, and while some focus on aspects like visualizing reliability, the overall process of documentation remains cumbersome and costly, making it an exception rather than the norm. Previous tools that claim to properly document virtual reconstructions either cover only part of the metadata and linked sources, are too complicated to use, or are no longer available. Currently, there is no universally accepted, straightforward, and easy-to-use workflow for this purpose. The IDOVIR project addresses this gap by offering a user-friendly, web-based platform designed specifically for documenting digital architectural reconstructions. We strive for achieving such a standardized workflow. To date, the platform has already been adopted by a large number of users, and many projects are publicly accessible.

1. Introduction

Digital models have become a prominent tool for communication and research in urban and architectural studies [1]. As digital reconstructions of non-existent architecture gain popularity in exhibitions, and with public funding often supporting these projects, questions arise about the sustainability of these reconstructions and the knowledge they convey and that was created during its active research phase. A qualitative survey among practitioners revealed that publicly accessible documentation is rare and often inconsistent (see Section 2.4).

If the decision-making processes behind digital reconstructions are not documented in a transparent and accessible way, the associated knowledge and potential scientific value might be lost. It surely holds true that simply archiving the final results is not sufficient for thorough documentation. It can be stated that often such data are not re-used because of very time-consuming adaptation and the high familiarization times of new groups. Research data repositories typically store only the final results and their metadata. They do not take into account or do not even ask for the development process or the accompanying discourse, also known as paradata. But exactly in this data lies the real knowledge and value. Without such data, we may witness a large loss of knowledge for further possible re-use and development.

Furthermore, the lack of documentation on the reconstruction processes, including decisions and their justifications, means that valuable information about rejected solutions is lost. This information could be crucial if the source material is re-evaluated or new sources are discovered, as it would allow for revisiting the reconstruction process and potentially revising earlier findings and argumentation. The IDOVIR project addresses this issue by offering a user-friendly, web-based platform (Figure 1) designed for documenting digital architectural reconstructions.1 To date, the platform has over 470 registered users and 450 projects, 76 of which are publicly accessible.

This paper outlines the documentation practice to date and previous approaches in this regard, and we introduce the IDOVIR platform and its distinctive features. Finally, we provide an outlook on current and future developments.

2. Past and Present Documentation Practice

2.1. The Issue of Scientific Documentation of Virtual Reconstructions

Practitioners in virtual reconstruction have long recognized and described the issue of inadequate documentation [2]. Key theoretical policy papers, such as the London Charter [3] and the Seville Charter [4], outline principles to address this challenge. These documents emphasize the importance of sustainability, verifiability, and the preservation of knowledge in the field:

Documentation of the evaluative, analytical, deductive, interpretative, and creative decisions made in the course of computer-based visualization should be disseminated in such a way that the relationship between research sources, implicit knowledge, explicit reasoning, and visualization-based outcomes can be understood [3].

Despite this awareness and the common understanding for its need, scientific documentation in virtual reconstruction has been more of an exception than the norm [1,5]. Several factors contribute to this issue:

• Lack of funding requirements: Documentation is not typically mandated by funding bodies, nor are additional funds allocated specifically for it. Consequently, the responsibility for financing documentation often falls on the individuals and institutions involved in creating the reconstruction, resulting in higher workload.
• Lack of standards: There is no universal agreement on the standards, structure, and content of documentation. This lack of consensus complicates efforts to establish a consistent approach. Also, the interoperability and exchange of documentation data is not ensured.
• Limited tools and incentives: There are few established tools designed to support documentation in a way that users find valuable. Ideally, such tools should enhance and assist the reconstruction process through intelligent software support rather than being perceived as additional, cumbersome, and time-consuming tasks.

2.2. Documentation Approaches from Past to Present

The focus on documenting 3D reconstructions gained prominence with the EPOCH Research Agenda [6] (2004–2008). One significant outcome of this four-year project was the London Charter, which continues to influence theoretical and practical approaches to documentation.

In recent years, the professional community has made tentative efforts to address the documentation challenge with concrete solutions. For instance, Demetrescu and Fanini [7] and Wacker and Bruschke [8] provide comprehensive overviews of these initiatives. An early attempt to create a systematic documentation tool was made by Pletinckx [9], who developed a web-based tool using Wiki technology to document sources, interpretations, hypotheses, and visualizations.

To facilitate data exchange, there has been increasing consideration of metadata standards. A notable standard in the field of 3D digital reconstructions is the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) [10], an ontology originally designed for use in museums and now applied in cultural heritage contexts. Despite various extensions—for example, for digital objects [11] or argumentation [12]—there remains a degree of ambivalence in the way certain kinds of information are linked. This means that the linking of the 3D model, the sources, and, especially, the underlying decision-making processes can be handled very differently from one project to the next. In addition, due to the partly abstract, complicated way these entities are linked, the input and also the retrieval of data can be far from intuitive. Nevertheless, there are projects that try to integrate the CIDOC CRM in 3D reconstructions. A web-based prototype, in which both the sources and their provenance and the reasoning behind the reconstruction decisions were linked to a 3D model, was developed by Guillem, Zarnic, and Bruseker [13]. WissKI2 is a system that uses Semantic Web technologies to build on CIDOC CRM and also allows for the integration of various vocabularies and thesauri. It is primarily intended for institutions and the documentation of collections and archival holdings. The project “Virtual Reconstructions in Transnational Research Environments—The Portal: Castles and Parks in Former East Prussia” [14] and its successor projects [15] use WissKI as a basic framework for the documentation of 3D reconstructions.3 In addition to sources, participants, and their metadata, this system allows 3D models to be uploaded, semantically annotated, and, thus, linked to other data.

Other projects that allow for the annotation of information linked directly to the 3D model but use different linking schemes or present the results of the reconstruction in a complex virtual exhibition are the Oplontis project of King’s College in London4 and the MayaArch3D5 and VSim6 projects.

Currently, the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM), familiar in the construction industry, as a basis for documenting 3D reconstructions is also being discussed [16,17]. MonArch [18,19], a documentation system geared towards the building research field, also seeks to implement and advance the integration of BIM. However, this system focuses on recording existing buildings.

Coming from archaeology, Demetrescu [20] takes an entirely different approach. Here, virtual reconstruction is an extension of the findings during excavations. The methods and tools typically used in archaeology, especially stratigraphy and the Harris matrix, are expanded accordingly to allow for the documentation of virtual elements and sources. A prototype for an interactive tool designed to visualize and explore data associated with 3D models has already been developed [7].

Many practitioners have tackled specific aspects of documentation, focusing on the uncertainty inherent in fragmentary or incomplete source material, which can be interpreted in multiple ways. Various metrics have been proposed to address this issue, such as the Level of Hypothesis [21], fuzzy logic-based approaches [22], and classifications considering a source’s information content, ambiguity, and interpretative needs [23]. Additionally, the visualization of uncertainty and reliability levels directly on the model has been explored in several studies [24].

Several European initiatives prove that 3D is playing an increasingly central role in the cultural heritage domain. Projects such as 5Dculture, 3DBigDataSpace, and 3D-4CH strive to facilitate the aggregation and integration of 3D data enhancing existing metadata standards and infrastructures, though workflow and tasks address predominantly 3D assets derived from digitization efforts. In the periphery of those bigger initiatives, the projects DFG-3D-Viewer [25] and CoVHer [26] demonstrate the application of standards and methods explicitly for 3D models of hypothetical virtual reconstructions.7 The result of a completed reconstruction project can be deposited at these platforms together with an extensive set of metadata. The documentation of decision-making processes is possible; however, it can only be attached as arbitrary data, e.g., a PDF.

2.3. Discussion

Despite these efforts, there is currently no consensus on widely accepted standards or guidelines for documentation within the community. Existing publications do address documentation and propose various standards based on project-specific work. However, these proposals have not yet gained broad acceptance or general application. Many approaches are integrated into individual research projects or well-funded initiatives, aiming to maximize the potential of current digital technologies. Often, these solutions are embedded in complex systems and ontologies, which can hinder the efficient input of necessary data, due to specialized terminology and intricate user interfaces, thus requiring additional resources and considerable learning time. A brief evaluation of relevant tools can be found in

Table 1. Evaluation of tools with a focus on documentation of digital 3D reconstructions.

Platform	Short Description	Evaluation
Pletinckx [9]	Proposed Wiki-based system.	Only theoretical approach. System is not accessible nor are any screenshots of a prototype available.
Guillem, Zarnic, and Bruseker [13]	Drupal-based implementation storing data in compliance with the CIDOC CRM and some extensions in a relational database.	Prototypical implementation for one use case that also included the documentation of the reasoning. Not accessible anymore.
Virtual Research Environment for digital 3D reconstructions [15]	WissKI-based platform with triple store based on CIDOC CRM and customized ontology.	The reconstructed building is divided into many sub-objects, each linked with the sources used, with neighboring objects, and with a research activity. However, each data entity has its own dedicated view, making it complex to navigate and to gather all necessary information. An overview of the object’s hierarchy is missing. It seems to remain a prototype, where each reconstruction project would require its own instance.
DFG-3D-Viewer [25] and CoVHer [26]	Repository approach, including the definition of a generally applicable metadata standard (prototypes built upon WissKI).	The tool only allows the submission of a completed 3D reconstruction followed by a comprehensive input form for metadata. References to sources used are possible, but the documentation of the reasoning can only be attached as arbitrary data. It also enables links to other platforms, from which 3D models can originate, thus serving as a kind of distributor.

.

It remains an open question whether such detailed documentation systems are only feasible in well-funded research environments and whether comprehensive global standardization through ontologies, including those for the Semantic Web, can be practically implemented. This issue has yet to be thoroughly evaluated. Agreeing on fundamental principles and general strategies is crucial to establishing standardized documentation. Broad acceptance of a practical approach is necessary to make standardized documentation feasible and to ensure the sustainable availability of the knowledge and digital cultural heritage it contains.

2.4. Beyond Existing Solutions

The 2021 IDOVIR research project, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), addresses this need for standardization. It proposes a standardized approach based on evaluated application and user acceptance and implements it through a digital, freely available web-based tool prototype. By this tool, everybody conducting digital reconstruction is able to carry out documentation ideally right from the start of a project.

IDOVIR also concentrates on documenting those parts of the research that deal with the data and sources in detail in the course of the evaluation, classifying sources as having varying degrees of validity, weighing data against each other or even excluding them in the further course of the investigation. These so-called paradata are thus created during the research process and document the paths taken to the actual result. To date, paradata, which are neither raw data or primary sources nor results data, have hardly been counted as research results and have, therefore, not been published. With IDOVIR, these data with their numerous individual decisions and considerations of scientific work become visible and, thus, comprehensible and reference-able. This promotes the criticism, reproducibility, and expansion of the respective research. In this regard, IDOVIR differs significantly from other research and documentation tools in this domain. Another unique feature is the communication function, which enables a scientific discussion of the project results or internal comments on the progress of the reconstruction.

A qualitative survey conducted at the outset of the IDOVIR project revealed the current state of documentation practices among those involved in virtual reconstructions. Extensive interviews were conducted with several practitioners, in this regard. The findings indicate that publicly accessible documentation is rare and often inconsistent. Most documentation remains internal, from handwritten notes and file folders to complex internal communication structure and tools. Publication or data sharing is generally not prioritized, particularly in commercial projects where detailed analysis is often considered proprietary information. Requests from users include various forms of documentation, such as PDFs, georeferencing, well-organized exports for brochures, cross-project displays of architectural elements, spatial navigation, and annotations in different document types. Moreover communication on the research process is rarely recorded and stored with the results. From this survey and the findings of other studies [1,2,8], we conclude that there is currently no tool that is easy and intuitive to use and also offers functions that support the reconstruction process beyond the documentation aspect.

3. Towards a Shared Standard Documentation Tool

3.1. Objective

The IDOVIR project aims to establish a free-of-charge, accessible, and web-based platform (Software as a Service) for documenting the decision-making processes behind virtual reconstructions. In addition to serving as a documentation tool, IDOVIR also functions as a communication resource throughout the reconstruction process. To this end, IDOVIR is meant to be applied right from the start of a project and not just as a summation at the end, in order to establish a culture of documenting and to exploit its benefits. The initial version of the platform has been available to the community since December 2022. Designed for ease of use, it requires only about 15 minutes of training, thus setting a low barrier for adoption.

IDOVIR provides a platform for documenting results in digital architectural reconstruction in a comprehensible, permanent, and openly accessible form, together with the aim of facilitating the scholarly discussion of these results and the findings that underpin them: research results are to be understood as the documentation of decisions, i.e., the presentation of (1) the reasons for a certain reconstruction, (2) further possible variants, and (3) comprehensible documentation of negative results. A key feature of the IDOVIR project is its focus on textual argumentation, which involves a qualitative analysis that links digital reconstructions with the sources on which they are based [27]. This approach allows users to trace and understand the connections between consulted sources and the resulting reconstruction (see Figure 1). Additionally, the project’s infrastructure is designed to facilitate and structure communication among individuals involved in the reconstruction process. Building on prior work from TU Darmstadt’s ScieDoc8 and the DokuVis9 prototype from HTW Dresden, IDOVIR integrates the strengths and synergies of these systems into a unified platform.

3.2. Spatio-Temporal Structure and Variants

The essential structuring elements are time and area, which can be designated as required. In a simple list form, these elements can first be defined and then ordered and hierarchized in seconds in a tree structure (Figure 2). Users can define, name, and subdivide the areas into different parts and details: for example, structured in the north façade, the east façade, the south façade, the west façade, the roof, etc. Of course, further levels of detail or a wider scope (outside, inside with walls, floor, and furniture) can be agilely added. Each of these user-defined areas can be illustrated with any number of variants. Each variant can then be filled with images and 3D models of the reconstruction representing this area as well as with the underlying sources and the textual argumentation (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The relevant resources can be imported directly into the central database or selected from resources already entered. Similar to areas, the project can also be structured in time steps, e.g., documenting different construction phases.

Analysis of many reconstruction projects has shown that when it comes to the documentation of the reconstruction of a building or urban complex a wide variety of different subdivisions and classifications is used. Within different groups and disciplines, different approaches have emerged and have been established, each of which makes sense in its context and method of approach. For this reason, an open, flexible structure that allows for different approaches to documentation is offered. To this end, practitioners have the possibility to create structures of their own and adapt them to their needs. However, if the aim is to analyze and describe the different approaches, users can adopt from a set of proposed structures if they suit their purposes—several templates are provided or can be created and stored for subsequent use, respectively. By this, a comparable structure is provided, such that the research documentation is carried out with the same thematic subdivision. In this context, the question arises whether standardized workflows that take account of specific types of structure (e.g., by building type, architectural element, or research question) can be developed for the documentation of virtual reconstructions and, if so, how these should be described.

3.3. Additional Features

The IDOVIR tool is designed to accommodate various user needs and expertise levels through multiple view options:

(a)

Input option with minimal effort: Simplified input for users who require a basic, straightforward approach. Organizational structure templates help to channel the generated research data.

(b)

Guided data input with user-defined fields: Structured data entry with customizable fields to suit specific needs.

(c)

Two-dimensional representation: Upload of renderings of the virtual reconstruction for visualizing it in a 2D format.

(d)

Three-dimensional representation: Upload of 3D models that allow users to interactively explore the reconstruction in a three-dimensional space.

(e)

Evaluation tools: Various tools for assessing the model help to answer further research questions. This includes blending of 3D-oriented sources with the model, slicing the model to better gain insights into the interiors, and distance measurements within the 3D representation.

This modular workbench approach ensures maximum flexibility, making it adaptable for use across different disciplines and allowing for adjustments based on evolving resources or requirements.

In addition to the concrete documentation of the individual areas and phases, the tool is equipped with an introductory start page containing general information about the project (Figure 5). This includes a rendering as an opening image, a textual description of the project, the geographical location, the names of the people and institutions involved, the software used, and a selection of sources and renderings used, respectively, as representative of the project.

From this page, users can access the project structure, the central resource database of source images and renderings, the project settings, and the user administration. The start page also allows for the creation of a PDF or DOCX document, which outputs all information in either of these formats. By this, users can locally store the state of the project and share it independently of the platform. The document can also be the starting point for reports and further written publications or academic theses. Projects are initially private, but they can be published at any time, as soon as the documentation has reached a publishable state.

Moreover, users can comment on each node, i.e., each structural element of the project structure, to discuss or give feedback on certain aspects of the documented reconstruction or the used sources. Other users can then respond to these comments. A link to a certain node can be generated and shared among external collaborators not associated with the project, inviting them to assess and comment on the documentation pointed out. By this means, external users can temporarily access the project without the need to change its status from private to public. This communication feature emphasizes scientific discussion.

In practice, IDOVIR has already been used in several reconstruction projects. Particularly when working in a larger team, good information transfer and distribution of documentation have had a beneficial effect on the reconstruction process. In many projects, it is used as a communication tool between different disciplines (e.g., scientific advisor and modeler), some of which use different vocabularies and terms. By using IDOVIR in academic courses at the HTW Dresden and the TU Darmstadt, students are guided towards structured work and documentation. The status of the work is recorded clearly and transparently and is, therefore, more easily accessible for the continuation of the work. At TU Wien, IDOVIR is used as a documentation and submission format for master’s theses in the field of virtual reconstruction.

3.4. System Architecture

IDOVIR is built upon state-of-the-art web development workflows and open source frameworks and uses a CI/CD pipeline for unit and integration tests as well as automated deployment.10 Application data are stored in a PostgreSQL database, while user-uploaded binary data or other content are stored in a S3 compatible storage. The core of the back-end is a Node.js application (built with Nest.js) that provides a RESTful API, processes all requests, communicates with the database, and delegates specific tasks to microservices (e.g., media conversion, PDF creation). Three-dimensional models can be uploaded in various formats (OBJ, DAE, FBX, STL, 3DS, GLTF, GLB), which are then converted to glTF (GLB with DRACO compression) to efficiently deliver and display even larger models. The front-end uses Angular as its main framework. Three.js is utilized for all 3D-related visualizations. Authentication for IDOVIR is undertaken via the OpenID Connect protocol. Currently, the identity provider ORCID is supported. Users can, therefore, log in with existing ORCID accounts.

The platform is integrated into the IT landscape of the University and State Library Darmstadt (ULB), which ensures the professional operation and maintenance of the project results as well as interoperability with other systems in the area of research data management and digital long-term preservation. For this purpose, the projects are converted into the BagIt format and then transferred to the ULB’s Archivematica instance.

3.5. Metadata Standards

The implementation of metadata standards, such as CIDOC CRM and corresponding external interfaces, supports interoperability with other systems and complies with the FAIR principles [28]. On the one hand, existing vocabularies and thesauri, such as Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND)11, Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) [29], etc., are integrated into the system, e.g., to enhance sources with norm data. Wikidata is queried to automatically retrieve metadata about the (real-world) objects that are about to be reconstructed.

On the other hand, a mapping to CIDOC CRM and its extensions is currently under active development (see Section 5). With such a data model, we strive for data exchange, long-term preservation, and integration of reconstruction results as Linked Open Data (LOD) into German and European research data infrastructures such as the National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI) or the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). While public projects would be automatically fed into these knowledge graphs, the export option would be expanded so that users could download their project as RDF data.

At the same time, current developments that are of interest to this project are being monitored. The IDOVIR team is in direct contact with the team behind the DFG-funded project DFG-3D-Viewer [25]. Together, a metadata schema for the interoperability of different tools is going to be consolidated, including DFG-3D-Viewer, Fachinformationsdienst (FID) BAUdigital [30], baureka.online12, heidICON13, and Semantic Kompakkt14 developed in the context of NFDI4Culture15. Furthermore, the GND for Cultural Data (GND4C)16 and Semantics4Art&Architecture17 have been taken into consideration. In addition, the question of which services should be integrated or made available will be examined further within the framework of the project. Based on a common metadata schema, the project results could then be delivered to aggregators such as the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek (DDB) and Europeana, thereby increasing their visibility and findability.

As a basic rule of design, such details on metadata schemes and their implementation should only be displayed in the Workbench upon request, in order to ensure a simple workflow and also to appeal to users who are not familiar with these functions or will not need them.

4. Closing Remarks

While policy frameworks such as the London Charter (LC) [3] and Seville Charter (SC) [4] are frequently cited in theoretical papers, comprehensive application of these principles is rather the exception. IDOVIR strives to support users in complying with these frameworks as far as possible. By providing a freely accessible web platform, users can share their research results publicly so that they can be evaluated by others (LC Principle 6: Access). They are enabled to not only document the sources they have used, but also how these were interpreted and which deductive and creative decisions led to the results (LC Principle 4: Documentation, SC Principle 7: Scientific transparency). It is a collaborative tool that project participants can use to collect and organize source material and comment on each other’s reconstruction results (SC Principle 6: Efficiency). IDOVIR also contributes to the sustainability of reconstruction projects through the adoption of metadata standards for interoperability and integration into research data infrastructures (in progress) as well as the institutional long-term archiving of the data (LC Principle 5: Sustainability).

Further to the provision of a user-friendly tool for the documentation of reconstructions, the project also aims to discuss and develop assessments and best-practice solutions with regard to technical aspects: Which supporting tools and functions are useful? Which file format is most effective for which aspect? Which aspects need evaluation most urgently? In general, 2D formats are easier to integrate than 3D data, especially in other publication formats. Nevertheless, 3D data are supported, as this is a central aspect of virtual reconstructions and also offers various advantages, in terms of interactivity. However, there are still often difficulties in importing and exporting this data between different applications, which means increased development effort. A kind of whiteboard tool, in which various resources can be compared, contrasted, and annotated, has proven to be a valuable support in source criticism and the evaluation of results.

In some respects, the project has an experimental character: The question is whether it is possible and what it would take to establish the documentation of decision-making processes in virtual reconstructions as the standard practice. Are there determinants of success with respect to documentation that make it more or less successful for different practitioners? What are the differences between academic/scholarly projects, commercial projects, and projects undertaken by interested lay people? In general, it can be said that the larger the team, the more important is the sharing of the documentation among the team members. Academic projects generally have a greater interest in documentation and publication than commercial projects. The barrier to documenting at all can be lowered by the fact that the tool provides support already during the reconstruction process, and, thus, a clear added value is evident to its users. This is supported by a short training period and simple, uncomplicated data input.

Then, there is the question of which assessments of a reconstruction are useful regarding plausibility. Can graphic charts illustrating the degree of plausibility and can the type of sources that were consulted be used beneficially in this context? Is it also possible to derive automatic and objective classification for the plausibility of the reconstruction and to what degree? If so, how should such evaluation visualization be designed, and what effort can be expected and justified? To this end, a first approach [31] has been developed in IDOVIR that makes it possible for users to assess and grade the geometry, surfaces, and coloring of the individual areas (cf. Figure 1, Figure 3 and Figure 4). A proposal for a grading scheme is offered concurrently. Also, here, the user can enrich the scheme with their own classification levels. The aim of these assessments and of the information about the types of sources (e.g., photographs, plans, texts) on which the reconstruction of an area is based is to enable the public to assess the plausibility of a reconstruction.

Answering all these questions will also help promote scientifically structured work on reconstructions. It should be discussed to what extent documentation should be mandatory for publicly funded projects—analogous to archaeology—and how this could be designed. From the point of view of research data management, the project addresses a central point: digital support in dealing with research data currently pertains predominantly to research processes and processes for securing and publishing results (except electronic lab books). Active data management and the documentation of the genesis of research results (i.e., paradata) are a central desideratum of sustainable research and “further” re-usability. This project aims to bridge this gap in the life cycle of research data in an exemplary manner.

5. Outlook

In the initial phase of application-oriented development and testing, IDOVIR has reached a stage where it can be effectively utilized in projects. The platform has proven its value by offering a low-threshold and user-friendly documentation option, as demonstrated by its application in research and teaching projects during the current funding phase. IDOVIR’s ability to support researchers from the early stages of the reconstruction process is a significant advantage, mainly due to its unique feature of integrating and storing paradata.

While various platforms and initiatives focus on 3D models and virtual reconstructions, such as the DFG-3D-Viewer, these typically emphasize 3D data and metadata alone. IDOVIR’s distinctive contribution emphasizes documenting the decision-making processes behind virtual reconstructions, thereby preserving and making available the valuable knowledge and the generation process of it embedded in these reconstructions.

To further enhance the practice of documenting decisions in virtual reconstructions and to increase its adoption within the specialist community, IDOVIR will be developed further in the follow-up proposal. The second phase of the IDOVIR project focuses on broadening the platform’s visibility and establishing it within the expert community. This phase aims to consolidate the platform and enhance user-friendliness to make documenting reconstruction projects more seamless and natural. In particular, the (automatic) transfer of already existing data is vital for joy of use and short input times. Critical objectives for this phase include the following:

• Increasing awareness and adoption: Efforts will be directed at promoting IDOVIR more widely within the professional community. This involves further user engagement to refine and adapt the platform based on their feedback and needs. In particular, more disciplines will be integrated into the design process of tools and workflows. IDOVIR strives to become part of the NFDI and to network with respective standardization groups. An integral part will be the integration of vocabularies and the mapping of data to CIDOC CRM, in order to foster interoperability with regard to the FAIR principles.
• Enhancing user experience: Building on the feedback collected in the first phase, which could not all be implemented within the project’s initial duration, the following steps will focus on improving user workflows. This includes integrating automated data entry, facilitating the use and transfer of publicly available data, developing additional tools tailored to different user groups, and applying AI techniques (e.g., for automatic detection of the category of a source). Special focus will be laid on collaborative features like precise local commenting tools on different levels (textual criticism, model criticism, source criticism, etc.) and on further exploit plausibility evaluation tools. Also, the visualization of different levels of plausibility is a wide field of research.
• Strengthening communication: The platform will be further integrated into the reconstruction process to minimize additional documentation-related workload. IDOVIR aims to make its use more compelling and integral during the reconstruction phase by streamlining communication and documentation tasks.