 Good morning to everyone. Thanks for being here for the first presentation of this session. Even if the subject of this part of my research is about software and the model behind it, actually this contribution will be more about a simple concept than about programming. On the side, I'm a self-learned programmer. I'm mainly an archaeologist. So this contribution is about the importance of the premises. It's about the standardization of strictly archaeological data. And with strictly archaeological, I mean field, raw field archaeological data. So let's start with a brief definition of data. They are a piece of information that acquire sense only when they are related to each other. And during archaeological works, obviously a big quantity of that of data is collected in form of technical sheets, finds inventories, graphic documentation, etc., etc. According to criteria defined by the tradition of study and a point that is important under my point of view is that those criteria are often encoded by the local administration, by the archaeological local administration. Those data, in my opinion, they are among the most important ones an historian can aspire to, because they are reliable and they are many. They are mostly analytics since they are collected according to physical laws, as stratigraphy does, and they establish very basic, very simple typologies. And they allow to cover almost all aspects of the reality, of the historical reality. So in the second place, archaeological data are continuously produced. This production varies from place to place, but let's take the example of Barcelona. In the last 10 years, a mean of 100 excavations every year was undertaken, and every intervention produces a report of between 200 and 2,000 pages, which a small part is text, is description, and the interpretation, and the greater part, the rest, the big rest, is raw data. So, I say that archaeological data are good and they are abundant. Standardization plays a really important role in order to take advantage of these contingents. By means of an homogeneous recording system, the atomizer data, a result of main intervention, could be interpreted, could be viewed, could be visualized as a unique, big archaeological site. And urban archaeology is the place where this concept is better explained, is better visualized. A lot of small projects that describe a unique cultural landscape, diachronic cultural landscape. And from this point of view, obviously the use of software can help a lot. The software can minimize the formal variation between records of different interventions. It speeds up the process of insertion of the data, and it allows a fast query of the data. Yes, those are obvious aspects. So, say that, we just spoke about the importance and the abundance of field data. How do archaeologists act regarding the collection of data? Instead of speaking about my personal experience, I can quote a report of 2015, according to which it seems that only 35% of archaeologists use a database. And approximately the half of the documentation produced is recorded by digital means. So, the conclusion of the authors is that they are really set results. Archaeologists don't care about the most basic data management, data management. Even if you all, well, if you all archaeologists learned the first, the first day in the classroom at the faculty that archaeology is a destructive technology technique. So, there is a paradox in the archaeological use of the digital resources. We are exploring new technologies, but we lack of some basic protocols. And on that, the standardization of those data. And there is another problem, in my opinion, that not only archaeologists rarely use some software, more than a spreadsheet, but when they use some software, this software often is not compatible. It's not, and not only the software, this is not important. What is worse is that the schema, the encoding of the data is not the same. It's difficult to compare numerically different sets of data in the daily archaeology, let's say. When a researcher wants to compare different sets of data, he has to to make a time-consuming operation, almost by hand. There is some well-known software for managing, for collecting archaeological field data. Here I list the most, probably the most known, the better known. The first one is an historical one. I don't know if some of you heard about it. It's from the 70s. And the last one is a British one. And the archaeological recording kit, it's the most recent one, and it has some success. But why, even if we have software, we archaeologists have software, why we cannot homologate this data? Well, I think this will be the subject of a brainstorming of another communication, but I would like to note some basic point. The software has to be capable of importing and exporting data. We cannot aspire to a unique software. We have to work with different formats of data. It has to be multi-lingual and multicultural. Often these software are really geographically specific. Romans are in Britain, in France, and in Italy, and in Catalonia. If I want to compare different sets, I need a unique language. Yes, I'm almost done. You have to be user-friendly. This is the first topic. If you ask to an archaeologist, the first answer will be, it has to be user-friendly, the software I use. And it has to be open source to collaborate. Okay, now let's finally, I'm going to pass a carousel of a screenshot of the program I wrote. I'm not selling my product, not this time. So I will let you get with the idea how I implemented those concepts. This is the conceptual scheme in which the standard acts like a vehicle to pass information between different stages of an heritage research. And I wrote two types of program. The first one is data collection interface. There is a version for a computer and the version for a phone, a portable device working with the Android system operation. And the second one is the data processing interface. So let's have a look, a brief look, some basic characteristics, some aspects. We can hear a screenshot of the phone version on the right. So data are structured according to the most usual way of managing archaeological field data. They are all concepts to which archaeologists are used to more example from the phone version. And you can obviously make the most common operations. The program can speed up a little the insertion of the data. And this is an important point under the point of view of the salvage archaeology. We have to be fast. The use of sensors, the system alert about the incongruence of the data. And obviously, you can export in several formats, a three-dimensional model or even the iris matrix on the right. And if we use a standard, it's easier to write software for processing those data. Here we have an example with which administration can merge several interventions into a bigger database, can import other format, old, old reports, and can experiment with some more advanced characteristics as the automatic dating of stratigraphic units by statistics or the identification of residual material or the sum chart a little more elaborated than the most basic one to which we archaeologists are used to seeing the bar chart. This, in this case, for example, is the evolution of pottery according to a well-known index of economy used in economics. So in conclusion, we have to preserve archaeological field data. We archaeologists, we are not the only ones who touch this data. Probably in the future, some other researchers, even if those data will not be published, other researchers will look at our data. And the salvage archaeology, the administration archaeology has a great potential and it has to be exploited. And it seems that archaeologists, we don't adopt the new technologies. So while we are exploring the new technology, we have to care, we have to ensure that the old technology are spread between our colleagues in the daily archaeology. This was all. Thanks and thank you very much.