 Rydyn ni'n ei wneud i'r cerddежio i'r ddweud yn ymddangos eu cyfnodd ac yn ymryd i'r ddweud o'r newydd yn y cyflogion tynnu i'r cyflogion C-R-M ac C-R-M-R-G a'r rheiniad o'r cyflogion C-R-M-R-G? Mae'r cerddeg sydd yn y cyflogion C-R-M-R-G llo you can make of it as you will. So recently, Oedbeth Mae S. Al did a short paper We generally this year. No future, not heretics. And they had surveyed a number of professionals from different nationalities and tried to understand what concept of future were people using. Mae'r dizsymennu hefyd rydyn nhw i gilydduen ni himau.NO Awesome ti'r legisiwain ac fanu ar gyfer Elizabeth gwvedig a b Dor carpet hwn. Facebookon i Amhlwgr Gary Eunchabeth o'r parserfynol yw hwn meddwl dotysg mewrop. Al hynny wir wedi'u mewn gwiriau? Ond yw'r gwerth o'r bwysig yn ymddangos fel yma. Oherwydd mae'n ffordd bywyd yn gwneud bywyd, rwy'n gwneud gwneud bywyd, felly mae'r gwerth o bwysig yn gwneud bywyd. Mae'n rwy'n ei gwasanaeth i mi. Felly, rydyn ni wedi'n gwneud bywyd, mae'r ddweud yn ddweud o'i fath o'r ddweud yn ei wneud i'r fath… … mae nhw'n mynd i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'ch fath o'r ddweud sy'n uchydig iddydd y prif. Roedd yna, sydd y gallwn ni ddim. A byddwn ni'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, sy'n rhoi y gynnwys cerdd yn y ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly yw'n gwneud am yno chi, eich wahanol i fyny yang haf yn ddweud, yna fydd nodud hynny, mawn yw dŵr yn ddigon i. Ond oedd na ddweud hynny ymgyrch yn y dywedol, fel y dywedol sy'n cael bod yn ddechrau yr oedd, fel yw ddweud hynny yn ddweud. Fel yni wedi gweithio, roedd ydy i weithio i wneud a'r drwfyll yw ddweud, a fe yw ddweud yr oedd yn ddweud hynny'n ddweud, os mae'r dywedol. Ond y gallu'n gwybod, mae'n gweld bod ymlaen i'r hynny o'r gwahau ymlaen i'r hynny o'r gwahau'r gwahau, oherwydd i'r cyfnodd yma oherwydd yma oherwydd ymlaen i'r gwahau. Felly mae'r cwmhysgwr ydw i'r cwmhysgwr yma oherwydd i'r gwahau'r gwahau. Yr ydych chi'n gwneud y dyfodol, ychydig arnynno ychydig ar y cyfnoddau, ychydig ar y cyfnoddau, dyfodol yn ni'n gwneud o'r gwahau ar y cyfnoddau. It's the whole... We've got three archaeologists in the room. How many opinions are there about the archaeology? At least four. And we don't want to fossilize the discipline. If we say, this is the way we'll record, that's the end of the discipline. We're going to go nowhere because we end up being... The 21st century was the end of archaeology. And there's no further development. So we don't want to do those. So trying to regulate documentation is a completely fruitless task. What we need to do is provide the sorts of mechanisms that allow us to combine data that has been recorded in different ways using different paradigms, using different methodologies and make that available so that people understand what was meant rather than having to immerse themselves in the data. I remember back in the 80s, sitting with an archaeologist who was employed to write up a site that he had never seen. And in fact, there was nobody in the unit who'd ever seen the site. We'd just had a big box of paper and a lot of pottery. The usual sheer that you pick up. And he took him 18 months to even get a handle on what was going on in this excavation report. So the idea of reusing excavation data is it's going to take you 18 months to get a handle on each report that you want to start to incorporate the data in. It scales like a back of bolts. Nobody's going to be able to do it. You'll be able to do two. And then somebody's going to want you to produce some results. 10 years ago, this month, I wrote this really nifty, short, titled paper and presented it at a conference in Athens. And part of what we were talking about there is how do you link different sets of data, different data silos, and we were decrying the crosswalk methodology which was quite common. So I'll map to you, and you'll map to him, and I'll map to him. Which, again, doesn't scale well. When you get to the 1,500th database, you've now got to produce 1,500 crosswalks. So one of the things about CRM is the idea that we try and build this lingua franca so that we can move across. So we have canoes. I thought that was... ...carrier payload goes in one direction. And I compared it with bridges, which are bi-directional and produce continuous feed. And I was thinking that bridges were better. That was the contention 10 years ago. Perhaps we can treat the future as another data island that we're going to transmit data to it by a mechanism, whether it's a canoe, bundling up and throw it, or whether we have a bridge. So we prepare our data so that it can be used in the future in a way which will be useful. What about the bi-directional bit? Of course, all archaeologists should immediately go out and spend all of their spare time inventing a time machine, because that would solve an awful lot of problems. But the key message of what we've made was that we're going to hopefully move towards constructing the desired future from now, using the past to inform the decisions we want to make. And they're going to get a number of pieces of interesting work where the future is being constructed by using cultural heritage as part of the mechanism to build the future, which is dishonourable. So that might be something that's interesting. But now it's done a little bit existential. So John Paul Sartres, who's close to the now exit, where hell is other people. Or listening to the lecture by me. One of the things that happens in now exit is that the protagonists who are trapped in hell can see back to their previous life while people remember them. And he's stuck with me for a long time. Surely what we want to do is be remembered so that we can look back for all the things that we've done. So if we create a legacies, have some tangible impact on the future, perhaps we will be able to see that. It's a bit weird. I'm not all wishing you all death, but maybe we want to be remembered as something that we've contributed. John Paul Gaudan suggested that inference changes a way forward for us to encapsulate the knowledge that we generate so that it's actually consumable. Because monographs are too big and too static. You produce a monograph. At some point, the conclusions that you've drawn in it will no longer be valid. And nobody's going to read it anyway. There's too many of them. Have you read every monograph in your area that's been produced this year? No. You don't have time. It's like my daughters are trying to watch YouTube. They upload 140 hours of minutes into YouTube and she's trying to watch it all. It doesn't work. So CRM Inf and CRM Archio are designed to enable this idea of inference chains where the high-level constructs that you've built, the conclusions that you draw, can be backtracked into the underlying data so that we see where we want to see the detail down to this piece of rock was found in this hole with this piece of rock or pottery or whatever. So I think that the really... This is the only slide that we see. The really important thing is that CRM Archio makes a real break from recording stratigraphic relationships as the primary record. And it talks about the physical world and then it draws conclusions from it. And it makes that link between what we saw and what we thought it meant explicit and separates them out. So now we have a mechanism for transmitting what we saw and what we thought about it at the end of the trial to the next generation. No matter which methodology we used for expliting whether we did it in spits or we did it in simple context planning mode or whatever. So data for the future, first of all we need to ensure its quality. So make sure that the data is internally consistent. Maybe that means fit for purpose but as we don't know what the purpose is at least make it so that it stands up itself. That would be good, please. Make it possible so that other people can consume it because they then don't have to learn how you structured your data. They only have to learn how to CIM. You map it so that you are expressing your thoughts the exact way that you want your material to be consumed into something that everybody can claim to consume. And so for long-term usefulness we need to be explicit and we need to record the empirical provenance of the data we're generating. How did I do it? So the so-called Paradata needs to be embedded in the data. I'm sure many of you have heard my horror story about the Southampton Pottery Database where after 30 years the pottery database was still perfectly usable but the code book that allowed you to understand its meaning no longer existed. So if you don't have the metadata and the Paradata embedded in the data which the CRM does for us automatically provides that mechanism and carrying capacity then the chances of getting divorced and dying is quite high. So what can C.Doc do about this? Obviously it's the home CRM family. We're going to provide access to best practice. We can produce or validate content standards so the things that you're putting in are valid are about the right things. So recording things but that's the communities of use thing, not the standard. We want explicit intended and practical scopes which is a revelation once you start doing that properly. It completely changes the way you build the standards and we provide and we already do provide the mechanism for empirical provenance within all the standards of the C.Doc family, the CRM family. However, there is one standard everybody must debate. You have to be explicit. Or, so let us hope we can be remembered for our data rather than be known. Right, thank you very much.