 v tehnologijih in terzovih sezitivnih, in v nekaj prav, ki tehnologiji. Nači, kar prihledajsamo tehnologiji z terzovimi, kako načinjamo tehnologiji, nekaj prihledajsamo tehnologiji in nekaj prihledajsamo sezitivnih. Imam, da sem zazvalo, da sezitivno vseziru in njazvalo vsezitivne občar. prej vimi za tevno, lega je ta, nače bodo tehnologi z kuriosti, in konstenčno se z widespreadočujem temne, tehnologički, za slerih ropetrej, za slerih ropetrej, različno. I strأnosti z kuriosti, z neko vzvejne, for using conditional technologies in contemporary society. And we can make a hypothesis, contemporary time is some time of changes. One social structures, one understandings, one skills, are followed by unopered social structures, unopered understanding unopered skills. It's time of changes and actually all times of changes we are followed by different conflicts. And actually I think that contemporary conflicts in understandings, they could be markers of changes and they could be investigations of these conflicts, investigations of differences between sides of conflict, between arguments, between understandings in different sides of conflict. It could be important thing for analysis and for draw the vectors for future and for understand the vectors of changes. Actually for contemporary time, most visible conflicts are connected with economy. We know about taxi drivers, tribes and taxi drivers demonstrations against Uber in different countries. We know about discussions about taxes policies from IBM, beyond from another share of the economy's actions. We know probes or discussions about criminalization of some sharing works. And most important on this was one suit about Google books. And this one suit was given by Google books. And actually decision was on the side of Google books, but not on the side of authors and institutions, these organizations. And you know the concept of sharing economy. It's some kind of ecosystem, which is based on the sharing of resources and where additional values are created by sharing of resources, but not by ownership. How it works in the field of digital archaeology, I think and I probe to argue that now we have, and now we can analyze two different worlds in digital archaeology. For example, it is first 12 objects by keyword of archaeology in Europea. We found a lot of old books from the east part of Russian Empire from the end of 19th century, followed by metadata. If you talk about researchers, for example people who research history of archaeology or research, I don't know, some objects in archaeology, it could be very interesting information, but actually the main scope of Europea is the general society. It's not scholar information system. Some similar we can find in national information system students, Lithuanian formation system apparatus for e-garitage. And when we ask for keyword archaeology in Lithuanian, we found the photos of museum artifacts and the metadata about this. But if we ask for archaeology in Google, we found more higher level of different objects and different ideas. We found about archaeology, archaeology news, scholar archaeology, magazines, newspapers, societies, etc. In Facebook, about archaeology, magazines, archaeology news, museums, and different communities connected with archaeology. In YouTube, two additional mystics around archaeology. And discussions, a lot of discussions, okay, true, not so true discussions, but it shows their interests to archaeology. How looks a European record its object, its photos of object, its metadata, actually photos with some limitations. It depends from quantum provider, but in some situations you can find the photos with, I don't know, very big water marks and some similar things which very limited reusing of these photos. Yes, it's metadata. Metadata is the strength of Europea, but actually it depends from quantum provider too, because around some objects the metadata is very poor, or in some cases they are incorrect. Limited filtering possibilities, limited networking, some other objects possibilities, and sharing possibilities. If you compare with, for example, Facebook record about archaeology, I don't know if we can use the world record, but maybe it's unstructured data. It's object, yes, there's some limitations, stories. The strength of social networks, when we talk about archaeology, is stories. It's metadata in Europea and stories in Facebook. Limited filtering, networking, but not always sharing, discussions, processing, and possibility to join the community. And if you compare the communities, that, for example, Facebook community of Europea, its community world, Europea, they have about 100,000 people who likes, and about 100,000 people who follows. Only one archaeological magazine has two millions likes, and two millions followers. It's huge differences. And I think that this huge difference shows differences between two worlds in archaeology. One could be named as curatorial, and other as participatory. In curatorial, we have very big division between V and U, between experts, professional archaeologists, and audiences. In participatory, it's close or single in the world view. In curatorial, kurators knows everything. In participatory, we decide about our needs. In curatorial, kurators, as head manager, here curator is as moderator. Curators have intentions to preserve, and communities have intentions to use. In curatorial world is a bit more than between suppliers and customers. One side is suppliers, other side is customers. In participatory world is different situation. In one situation, it could be suppliers, in other situation, it could be customers. For example, in project of virtual palmira, one reconstructed the building's destroyed biases, and palmira is used in huge quantity of turistic photos made by members. By big move trials, here are absolutely nonprofessional members, but actually we know that for curatorial construction, we need a lot of photos from different angles, and these photos are used for digital reconstruction of destroyed objects. But actually in this situation, who is supplier and who is customer? Hierarchical, on-directional communication, from top to down, but from other side, the world is flat, and we have metric participatory process sharing communication. From one side, it's very homologous messages without possibility to interpret, because kurators know everything, from other side, it's possibilities to multi-interpretations. Before our section, we discussed about possibilities to moderate interpretations, because actually we can start the discussions, and we can find a lot of absolutely crazy interpretations from our side as professional archaeologists, but actually, I don't know, some set of crazy interpretations shows some phenomenon from society, and shows how our knowledge works in society. From one side, from curatorial position, we can sort it, okay, it's crazy, and we ignore it, but from another position, it's exist, it's phenomenon. Okay, I doesn't agree with this, but I noted part of our society thinks similarly, and we need to investigate for understanding of our audience. Different limitations, small-sizing picture, in pixels, I don't know, watermarks, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and following the open source, open access problem domain, CC0 principles. More state, public sector, official, more private, or personal initiatives. We can add one, another thing, that curatorial world is more expensive from side of public money in comparison with participatory world, because a lot of participators practices, structures, and ideas, they are, I don't know, in some situations by crowdfunding model, and they are not so expensive as a side, but actually if you compare similar things from costs and effectiveness position, it's important question, too. So, and on this, you can talk or formulate some concept of sharing archeology, sharing heritage. It's just archeological, social, economic ecosystem. Why economic? Because I think that it's created with added values. Not only added values of financial capital, so we can talk about culture, social capital, and then intellectual, and other forms of capital, but it's created with added values. It's input, yeah, okay, to our economics, and the economic road to social cohesion, and social cohesion is important for economic road, et cetera, but it's social economic ecosystem built around the sharing of archeological information. In broader sense, broad data structure, and structured experiences, interpretations, crazy ideas, et cetera, includes sharing creation, appropriation, and informational services. And what is important in this concept is important that a lot of huge part of archeological information, digital information, is created on the public money, that actually sharing of this information society just pay for this. And from this we can discuss the expected trends. Yes, sharing economies grow up-sector. Yes, by sharing archeology, by sharing archeologies contemporarize it. Archeology works not only as knowledge about society, about past societies, but it works as source for inspiration, ideas, and some lot things of contemporary society. Curatorial oriented systems. I think that part of this is specialized as scholar systems, as researcher systems, because they are very usual in them. When you make a research, another part it could be marginalized. And I think that it's one from high level challenges for creators of the system, because, for example, if you invest millions of euros to create your system and to support your system, and the system, after 10 or 20 years, is marginalized, it's a black hole in the terms of young palmists in archival politics. And actually sharing economy or sharing archeology not exclude the curatorial position. It's not sharing or curatorial. We need to find some blended solutions between curatorial and participatory worlds, but not blended solutions. For example, in some informational systems, which we have now, I used connections with social networks. But I think that it's some lack of our understanding, because in some of our understanding, for example, the Facebook asks space for dissemination of information and to asking of people to join to real system, because it's not some not real and some not important. But I think that we need to think about really blended solutions where two worlds and two infrastructures are connected and they support each another and they eliminate the weaknesses of each other and the strengths of each other. But first we need to solve that. Then we will find them out. Thank you.