Resumo
Archaeological knowledge is usually constructed through interpretation from material evidence and today is increasingly mediated by computers and quantitative methods. Interpretation, therefore, plays a central role in digital archaeological practice, and understanding how it works and how it can be computationally assisted may help us improve our capacity to value other people?s conclusions, revise our own, and produce better results overall. Also, archaeological interpretation usually occurs in scenarios where multiple agents have a voice, such as multiple researchers working on the same site, managers and professionals negotiating how to excavate and when, mediators working to reconcile the interests of local communities and government agencies, or professionals employing different computing approaches and techniques. In situations like these, argumentation is crucial to the generation of solid and reliable interpretations. Sometimes however when conflict arises, the clashing views of different agents must be reconciled.This session aims to address the interpretation, argumentation and conflict phenomena that occur within archaeological practice as mediated by computing approaches, analysing the cognitive, linguistic, philosophical and archaeological factors that may influence them. Papers that address combinations of theoretical and applied issues are welcome.Major research areas that are welcome in the session include (but are not limited to) the following:? What theories exist to explain digitally mediated interpretation, argumentation, and conflict?? What connections exist between discourse and their underlying ontologies?? How can interpretations and argumentations be computationally analysed to obtain a better understanding of them?? How can we build databases, ontologies or data repositories that support interpretative and argumentative processes?? What natural language processing techniques can be applied to the analysis of interpretation and argumentation, and what can they offer?? What computing techniques, such as data-to-text or data mining, can be used to support multivocal argumentation in archaeology?? What real-life scenarios exist where discrepancies and resolution have been exemplified with regard to digitalised archaeological knowledge and entities?? How can digital mediation techniques help in reconciling arguments from different agents regarding archaeological heritage?
Palabras chave
Interpretation. Argumentation. Conflict. Cultural Heritage. Knowledge.