Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.38585

Integrated data, metadata, and paradata management system for 3D Digital Cultural Heritage objects: Workflow automation, federated authentication, and publication

Michal Orzechowski·Lukasz Opiola·Ignacio Lamata Martinez·Marinos Ioannides·Panayiotis N. Panayiotou·Lukasz Dutka·Renata G. Slota·Jacek Kitowski
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The complexity of high-quality 3D digitised cultural heritage objects creates challenges for existing data management systems as they need to develop metadata management and processing capabilities to provide semantic insight into the interconnectivity of data that constitutes cultural heritage objects. To address these challenges, we propose a global federated authentication and authorisation mechanism, a data and metadata management system, and an integrated engine for designing and executing automated workflows that facilitate the processing of both data and metadata. The solution is evaluated with three distinct 3D digitised cultural objects and presents the complete process from data upload to cultural heritage object publication

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.CYcs.DC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michal Orzechowski, Lukasz Opiola, Ignacio Lamata Martinez, Marinos Ioannides, Panayiotis N. Panayiotou, Lukasz Dutka, Renata G. Slota, Jacek Kitowski. 2026-10-28. Integrated data, metadata, and paradata management system for 3D Digital Cultural Heritage objects: Workflow automation, federated authentication, and publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2025.107964

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Behind the Paper Explosion: Author Growth and Widening Gaps in Computer Science

The rapid growth of computer science (CS) papers increases the work needed to review research and find relevant studies. The growing use of AI tools in scientific writing makes it increasingly important to identify the authors behind this growth. Previous studies have tracked publication growth and followed researchers' careers, documenting the increasing number of authors and the many researchers who publish only briefly. However, annual averages of papers per author reflect different sets of researchers and may hide changes among the same authors. This study addresses this gap by linking individual changes to overall CS paper growth using arXiv, DBLP, and conference submission records for 2010-2025. With each paper divided equally among its authors, the total paper count equals the number of authors multiplied by their average papers per author. This relationship provides a decomposition of the two contributions of paper growth. This decomposition attributes nearly all growth in CS paper volume to an increase in the number of publishing authors. The analysis of author numbers further distinguishes expansion through new and returning arXiv authors from the replacement of authors no longer publishing there. Changes in who publishes also affect the average, motivating comparisons of the same authors over time within groups with similar past paper counts. This comparison identifies substantial replacement within the growing author group. New authors average fewer papers under this counting method, keeping the overall average nearly unchanged despite increases among authors who published in both years. Moreover, statistics show that these increases are uneven, with widening gaps even among authors who previously published similar numbers of papers. These findings provide insights into peer review, community participation, researcher evaluation, and equity within the CS community.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A Reporting Guideline Informed by a Two-Round Modified Delphi Study

Background: Despite the growth of bibliometric analyses, few studies offer guidance on how to report them, resulting in a lack of research transparency and completeness. To address this gap, we developed the Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL). Methods: An initial list of items for the GLOBAL was generated through a scoping review and refined through a modified two-round Delphi, as recommended by the EQUATOR Network. The guideline was finalized through a pilot test, where participants assessed their manuscripts using the checklist and Elaboration and Explanation (E&E) document, which outlines item expectations and provides examples. Results: The scoping review resulted in 32 items. In Round 1, 24 items reached consensus and thematic content analysis resulted in one additional item. This item, along with the eight items that did not reach consensus, were discussed in detail in Round 2. During the in-person meeting, one item was split into two, totalling ten voting items. Eight out of ten items reached consensus, five for inclusion and three for exclusion. Conclusions: The finalized 28-item GLOBAL (and its accompanying E&E document) provides users with a framework to report bibliometric analyses, aimed at promoting high-quality reporting of bibliometric analyses in scholarly literature.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

More of the same? Are scientific papers losing originality?

Scientific output is growing rapidly, but it is unclear whether the expanding literature remains original or is increasingly repeating itself. Originality has many dimensions. One dimension can now be measured directly: how textually distinct a paper is from the work that came before it. Using semantic language models, we screened more than 26,000 full-text papers across eight fields in the CORE database (2015--2025) for passages resembling recent literature. We compared every paper against a fixed-size sample of earlier work, so increases in resemblance are not a by-product of literature growth. We find that the share of a paper's text resembling recent work was stable before 2021, then rose sharply, more than tripling by 2025. The increase came not from a few papers borrowing more heavily but from resemblance spreading across the literature: more papers now contain passages that echo recent work, and almost none of this growth is explained by cited work. We also found an analogous increase in passages expressing the same scientific idea. The pattern held across robustness checks and replicated in a second, independent database. Along this one measurable axis of originality, scientific writing has become less distinct from the work preceding it.

cs.DL↗