The role of information management for the sustainable conservation of cultural heritage

sustainability Article The Role of Information Management for the Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Heritage Jaione Korro Bañuelos 1,Álvaro Rodríguez Miranda 1,2,* , JoséManuel Valle-Melón1, Ainara Zornoza-Indart 3, Manuel Castellano-Román4, Roque Angulo-Fornos 4, Francisco Pinto-Puerto 4, Pilar Acosta Ibáñez 5and Patricia Ferreira-Lopes 5   Citation: Korro Bañuelos, J.; Rodríguez Miranda, Á.; Valle-Melón, J.M.; Zornoza-Indart, A.; Castellano-Román, M.; Angulo-Fornos, R.; Pinto-Puerto, F.; Acosta Ibáñez, P.; Ferreira-Lopes, P. The Role of Information Management for the Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4325. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13084325 Academic Editor: Francesca Di Turo Received: 17 February 2021 Accepted: 12 April 2021 Published: 13 April 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1GPAC-Built Heritage Research Group, Laboratory for the Geometric Documentation of Heritage, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Justo Vélez de Elorriaga 1, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain; mirenjaione.korr[email protected] (J.K.B.); [email protected] (J.M.V.-M.) 2Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering of Vitoria-Gasteiz, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain 3 Department of Painting, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Barrio Sarriena, 48940 Leioa, Spain; [email protected] 4Institute of Architecture and Building Science (IUACC), University of Seville, Reina Mercedes 2, 41012 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (M.C.-R.); [email protected] (R.A.-F.); [email protected] (F.P.-P.) 5 Andalusian Institute of Historical Heritage (IAPH), Camino de los Descubrimientos (Carthusian Monastery), 41092 Sevilla, Spain; pilar[email protected] (P.A.I.); [email protected] (P.F.-L.) *Correspondence: alvar[email protected] Abstract: Central to the entire discipline of heritage restoration and conservation is the concept of information management. Nevertheless, traditionally, conservation and restoration has been a poorly documented discipline, which has led not only to a lack of standardization and awareness about the processes carried out in the past, but also poses problems both when new restoration works are necessary and for the preventive conservation of the elements of heritage. This study sets out to propose a conceptual framework to explore the relationship between conservation of heritage and information management on the basis of case studies; in particular: a spatial data infrastructure (SDI) of a regional government concerning an endangered plant (wild grapevine) with an important potential for cultural and touristic uses in a wine-making region; an open data guide—the Digital Guide of Andalusian Cultural Heritage; a university repository connected to Europeana, which contains reports and outcomes of projects of geometric documentation of elements of heritage; a repository of an organization in charge of the protection and care of the heritage; and finally, two examples of the use of heritage building information models (HBIM) in complex monuments. After discussing the characteristics of each case, this paper concludes that, although the availability of information and tools is growing, further progress is still necessary concerning the interoperability, outreach and reuse of the different solutions. Keywords: cultural heritage; conservation; information management; digital preservation; valorization of cultural heritage 1. Introduction The aim of this work is to provide an overview of the possibilities regarding the information management related to cultural heritage elements, with special reference to conservation-restoration works. The study selects a set of significant features used to evaluate each option individually in order to contrast them with the necessities and resources of each organization, its user community and the group of heritage elements of which it is in charge. Moreover, some guidelines are proposed for merging different tools in a customized strategy that can meet the expectations and needs of both the organizations and the society concerning the sustainable conservation of cultural heritage. Sustainability 2021,13, 4325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084325 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 2 of 21 Cultural Heritage plays a key role in the well-being of both individuals and societies. This premise is clearly stated in the document “Cultural Heritage: a powerful catalyst for the future of Europe” (2020) (Elaborated by European Heritage Alliance, Europa Nostra and Europeana Foundation. https://www.europanostra.org/europe-day-manifesto- cultural-heritage-a-powerful-catalyst-for-the-future-of-europe-just-released/; accessed on 4 January 2021). Indeed, cultural heritage is outlined as follows: (1) it contributes to the attractiveness of the regions; (2) it is the basis for establishing marketing strategies aimed at developing cultural tourism and attracting investments; (3) it is a main agent which creates employment opportunities covering a wide range of fields, from construction related to conservation and maintenance, to a more varied group of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME), as well as start-ups; (4) it generates substantial fiscal revenues, (5) it is a major source of creativity and innovation; (6) it is a catalyst for a sustainable regeneration; and finally, (7) it is able to offer solutions to the challenges of climate change. These seven pillars highlight the fact that cultural heritage is a powerful engine for economic growth and a valuable resource for social development; hence its proper conservation—defined by the European standard [ 1 ] as the actions taken in order to safeguard cultural heritage in keeping with its historic interest and including the accessibility by current and future generations— becomes essential for achieving these benefits. In the field of conservation (“conservation” encompasses: preventive conservation—measures geared towards avoiding or minimizing the harm, deterioration or loss in the future, usually through indirect actions targeted at the surrounding environment rather than on the elements of heritage themselves; curative conservation—actions on the elements in order to stop or limit the deterioration; and restoration—actions on a stabilized element to improve recognition, understanding and/or use, subject to respecting its cultural value, materials and techniques [2]), documentation is always a requirement because: • When dealing with curative conservation and restoration, there is a need (before acting) to gather any piece of information that contributes to the knowledge about the object, not only as the previous restorations are concerned, but also regarding the history, meaning, materials, techniques, legal status and so on, in order to decide the most suitable actions to be undertaken in each case [ 2 ]; this need becomes especially obvious when dealing with cases in which the documentation does not exist or where it is very scarce (e.g., [3]); • As regards preventive conservation, careful consideration should be given to both the object itself—including its uses and management conditions—and the surrounding environment to detect conservation problems or risks, and then to enable the design of maintenance protocols, monitoring strategies and emergency response measures that are applied methodically over time in the framework of a continuous improvement [ 4 ]. Nevertheless, the key aspects of under-documentation can be noted as follows: professional secrecy, the preconception that conservation and restoration are a simple set of manual abilities, and the lack of resources for both the generation and the management of the information. This has led to the consideration by some professionals that information concerning the objects or monuments was neither necessary for restoration work, nor that said work would add any value to the element of heritage [ 5 , 6 ]. However, three recent changes that imply a rethinking of this situation should be considered: 1. At present, cultural heritage is seen as something dynamic; therefore, the meaning of restoration has shifted from actions that—to a greater or lesser degree—“affect” the heritage to events that contribute to its material history [ 7 ]. Likewise, the criteria for restoration have evolved inasmuch as the technologies for the study of the materials and their durability over time have been developed; today, it is known that the products applied in the restoration works (consolidating products, waterproofing materials, biocides, etc.) are not reversible—i.e., they cannot be removed without damaging the material integrity of the object due to infiltration into the porous structure and the changes caused by exposure to aggressive environments (solar radiation, pollution, marine aerosol, etc.). On the contrary, the application of products Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 3 of 21 modifies the intrinsic characteristics of the materials on which they are applied and conditions subsequent to retreatment; 2. Restorations are no longer considered as exceptional corrective actions that must go unnoticed for the users. Conversely, restoration actions should be understood within the process of permanent maintenance of the elements of heritage, which has to be known and open to the public [ 8 ]. The combination of information from different fields generates knowledge that permits the development of attractive cultural activities [ 9 ]. In the same vein, the outreach of the conservation-restoration works is a way of attracting visitors and, hence, generating economic returns. It also benefits the interest and the citizen engagement in safeguarding cultural heritage, the awareness of its meaning, the generation of a collective memory and the promotion of a sense of belonging and identity. Consequently, threats related to inappropriate use and looting are reduced, as well as human action, which is one of the main causes of deterioration; 3. The third substantial change is the trend to steer the conservation to prevention and the risk management, rather than to the physical action on the elements, through the development and implementation of preventive conservation plans [ 10 , 11 ]; in this way, the deteriorations and losses are avoided without drastic and costly treatments on the objects that could eventually imply a reduction of their durability and authenticity [ 12 ]. The identification and evaluation of the risks are based on studies of the current and past situation of the heritage element and its surroundings, by using tools for quantifying the probability of occurrence of each risk, its impact, the extension and the estimation of the resulting loss in value [ 13 , 14 ]. Current methods resort to a series of indexes, such as the vulnerability index, which combines static and structural factors, weather conditions, air quality, urban planning and social agents [ 15 , 16 ]; another method used is the heritage microclimate risk (HMR) index, which defines a level of risk to which the elements are exposed and the relationship with the minimum and maximum values that are defined by standards or according to the historic microclimate, together with the predicted risk of damage (PRD) index, which links the HMR value with the damage risk to a specific object/material that is shown or conserved in a room [ 17 ], among others. Moreover, it must also be considered that, owing to climate change and the exponential growth in the deterioration processes of the materials caused by the increasingly aggressive environments, the monitoring and the documentation of these environmental conditions have become strategic for the basic preventive conservation, markedly for cities and coastal areas [ 18 , 19 ]. Finally, information also plays an essential role in dealing with catastrophic events such as natural disasters and armed conflicts, as is illustrated in the disaster risk management (DRM) cycle for cultural heritage [20]. All these changes need efficient information management about the conservationrestoration works in order to be properly implemented, and it is necessary that the information is integrated dynamically with datasets coming from other disciplines, thus making a body of knowledge on heritage elements. Evidently, information by itself is not enough, as supportive computer tools [21] and a sound legal basis are also needed. The management of the information regarding cultural heritage elements is a very active research area with noteworthy international projects. For instance—mentioning only projects in the H2020 program—the following ones can be cited: eHERITAGE (about virtual reality applications for the outreach of cultural heritage, http://www.eheritage. org/), STORM (management of risks from natural hazards affecting cultural elements, http://www.storm-project.eu/) , Iperion CH (a data infrastructure concerning conservation and restoration works, http://www.iperionch.eu/) or InDICEs (measurement of the impact of digitization and the reuse of cultural resources, https://indices-culture.eu/). On the other hand, the experience on cultural heritage is being articulated by means of collaborative knowledge networks, a good example of which is E-RIHS (http://www.e-rihs.eu/); likewise, other programs—such as the COST actions—are also fostering partnerships, as is the case of SEADDA, regarding the preservation of digital datasets from archaeology Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 4 of 21 (https://www.seadda.eu/) . Looking at the future, it is important to highlight that these issues are also in line with the investment strategies of the EU for the following years, which are included in the ambitious program “Horizon Europe” for the period 2021–2027. More specifically, this area of research connects two of the clusters in Pillar 2 “Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness”, in particular, the ones entitled “Culture, creativity and inclusive society” and “Digital, industry and space”. In next section, a selection of representative features for the definition of an information management system are identified from the study of recommendations and standards. Next, a review of initiatives related to information management strategies implemented by several organizations concerned with the care and protection of cultural heritage (public administrations, universities, research centers and so on) is carried out, together with the tools available for their implementation. In parallel, a number of case studies are presented in order to explore the applicability and outcomes of each solution. These case studies are then compared using the previously selected set of features. The comparison is followed by a discussion about the benefits, deficiencies, strengths and limitations of each alternative, so that some general criteria about the information management for conservation purposes can be drawn, including interoperability issues, preservation of datasets, outreach strategies and usage monitoring. 2. Materials and Methods There has been a growing number of publications focusing on normalization by way of guidelines and internal procedures of the cultural organizations and standardization bodies. As for the good practices and criteria created by cultural institutions, both international and national organizations should be examined (ICOM, Getty, Historic England, etc.), as well as the experience gathered by means of the national plans for cultural heritage in the different countries [ 22 ]. A consideration of key works should include: European Standards EN 16095 and 16096 on the condition reports of the elements of heritage and EN 16853 concerning decision making, planning and implementation, written by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Moreover, standards regarding other fields can also apply, such as the rich set regarding the information management (ISO 15489, ISO 30300 . . . ), metadata (ISO 23081), risks management (ISO/IEC 27001, ISO 31000 . . . ), interoperability (ISO 21127, ISO 25964 . . . ) or repositories (ISO 14641, ISO 14721, ISO 17068 . .. ). With these reference documents in mind, the following eight characteristics were selected as representative of the topics that are considered essential during the definition and the establishment of an information management system: (1) the types of information that are managed by the system (e.g., reports, photographs, 3D models); (2) whether the information stored concerns the element of heritage itself, whether it is about other topics which are also important for the management, or both; (3) the availability of advanced builtin tools for data processing; (4) the possibility of indexing the contents from the outside (for instance, by means of aggregators) so that external systems can provide additional functionalities; (6) the expected profile of the users (experts or general public); (7) whether the management is carried out directly by the organization or it is transferred; and (8) the development costs. Of note is that, in response to the overview presented in the introduction, different organizations and professionals concerned with cultural heritage feel the necessity of joining forces to design the basis for a diverse and broad documentation, which is also interoperable, enabling it to be useful for a varied group of users. Although all approaches have points in common and there have been many attempts to connect them, significant barriers still remain. This work examines these alternatives considering the type of organizations and backgrounds that have led to the creation of each system (user community, initial needs, type of documents, standards, tools, etc.) and then they are discussed together. For the purpose of this text, three groups were established: “open data” of public administrations—including the spatial data infrastructures (SDI), distributed networks of institutional repositories and databases with advanced capabilities for geographic Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 5 of 21 and three-dimensional processing. Likewise, these approaches are analyzed by means of selected examples in order to show the variability of the possible situations. 2.1. “Open Data” of Public Administrations Public administrations make great efforts towards transparency of their activities by opening to society the information generated from public funding, it is the open data initiative (an initiative that, in the European context, has a starting point in the Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the reuse of public sector information (modified by Directive 2013/37/UE), and is continued by successive documents, such as the Commission Recommendation of 24 August 2006 on the digitization and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation (2006/585/EC) or the Commission Recommendation of 27 October 2011 on the digitization and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation (2011/711/EU), up to the recent Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the reuse of public sector information). One of its most prominent instances are the spatial data infrastructures (SDI), i.e., georeferenced data that, in Europe, are shared according to the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) Directive (Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007), which offers the possibility of including information about cultural heritage within the theme of “protected sites” [ 23 , 24 ], as well as enabling multitemporal studies [25]. In general, the SDI are oriented to two-dimensional territorial datasets which are to be represented in scales from 1:500 (urban maps) or 1:5000 (as a typical scale for the base maps used for regional planning) to 1 as well as smaller ones (supra-regional and national level studies). This range of scales and the non-consideration of the volumetric nature of the elements make them inappropriate, for instance, for the management of a building for which three-dimensional data at the scales 1:10 to 1:100 are available. However, the SDI include all the coverages of the official maps (roads, rivers, towns, etc.) as well as the information provided by a number of organizations (weather, seismicity, etc.); besides, datasets have topology (e.g., the roads are properly connected and include information about the state of use, maximum speed, etc., so that the way of traveling from one point to another, as well as the time necessary to do it, can be computed). Moreover, the elements can be linked to and from external databases (land registry, national institute of statistics and so on) and, finally, it is important to mention that SDI are rather easy to use, since they can be accessed both directly within the geographic services provided by the different organizations, and indirectly from any geographic information system (GIS) or viewer (e.g., Google Earth®®) on the users’ part. In view of the above, many of the factors that are relevant for the preventive conservation and the promotion of the elements of heritage (such as natural risks, pollution levels, planning regulations, accessibility, location of related cultural assets and so on) can be considered by means of the SDI [ 26 ]. In order to see the capabilities of this approach, a SDI of a regional government relating to a natural resource (wild grapevine) with an important potential for enhancing cultural and touristic uses in a wine-making area is presented below (Figure 1) [ 27 ]. This SDI was chosen to illustrate two ideas: Firstly, the same risks that may affect cultural heritage (e.g., pollution, uncontrolled urbanization, massification and so forth) are also apparent in other elements. With this in mind, both the monitoring and the evaluation of the damage of those factors can be performed more efficiently. Secondly, the local environment greatly influences the management and uses of the individual elements, for instance, if the attractiveness of the area increases thanks to the SDI, because it provides information for nature excursions related with the wild vines that can be combined with visits to wineries, restaurants, accommodations and other leisure activities. Thus, in managing individual elements of heritage, there needs to be awareness of and coordination with the regional context. Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 6 of 21 Figure 1. Thematic viewer of the regional government of La Rioja (Spain) showing the layer with the location of the specimens of wild grapevine—Vitis vinifera L. subesp. sylvestris (Gmelin) Hegi— and some of the associated documents (in this case, two photographs) (This thematic map can be seen and used in the viewer of the regional administration: https://www.iderioja.larioja.org/vct/ index.php?c=4e38512b51695553786e4143325369447a74484270513d3d and accessed as a geoservice according to the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards: Web Map Service (WMS) in https: //ogc.larioja.org/wms/vidsil/request.php and Web Feature Service (WFS) in https://ogc.larioja. org/wfs/vidsil/request.php) (all web services accessed: 15 February 2021). The generation of a geospatial service requires two main elements: On the one hand, the information—in this case, the location of the specimens, which was obtained by means of a bibliographical research and a series of field works carried out by experts who identified and registered the significant features and took photographs of each plant. On the other hand, there is an important amount of work concerning the definition of the database, the characteristics of the information uploaded by the providers and the agreements between the different actors involved (the researchers who generate and maintain the information updated, the regional mapping service which manages the infrastructure and the regional government which is responsible for the service) concerning the intellectual and exploitation rights. In the SDI, both the arrangement of the elements and the way of accessing the information are based on the geographic space. Although the location is always a meaningful feature of heritage, it may sometimes be useful to include a classification regarding the type of heritage (building, site, landscape, etc.) and the possibility to show spatial and associative relationships (e.g., an element of heritage, such as an altarpiece, which is inside another element, for example, a church, buildings that were restored by the same architect and so on). In order to illustrate this possibility, the information system called Guía Digital del Patrimonio Cultural de Andalucía (This record can be accessed through: https://guiadigital.iaph.es/inicio, accessed: 15 February 2021) developed by the Andalusian Institute of Historic Heritage (IAPH)—the organization in charge of the protection and care of the regional heritage in Andalusia—is addressed below. This online guide provides structured semantically enriched data (with links to the organization thesaurus (this thesaurus can be downloaded as RDF (Resource Description Framework) graph: https://guiadigital.iaph.es/tesauro-patrimonio-historico-andalucia, accessed: 15 February 2021—and DBpedia). Moreover, it aims at improving the accessibility and reuse of the resources concerning cultural assets that are managed by the organization Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 7 of 21 to both experts and general public. The guide provides access to the database of the IAPH regarding cultural heritage elements (consisting of file records with descriptions, images, panoramas and videos), where users can search and explore the collections classified according to the type of heritage: movable, immovable, intangible and cultural landscapes. All items are georeferenced, and the users can visualize a base map to locate them, as well as see the spatial relationships among the different elements and between the heritage items and the physical and human geography. Indeed, five pairs of maps and feature Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) services (i.e., WMS and WFS services) are provided through the Andalusian SDI node of each of the four heritage types mentioned plus another SDI regarding cultural routes. The following screenshot (Figure 2) shows an example of record in the guide. As can be seen, the elements are identified and have extensive descriptions that also include the people who were involved in their construction, remodeling or restoration. Likewise, information about the level of protection, bibliographical references, links with other records in the guide and to the institutional repository (which is discussed more extensively later in this report) are also available. Figure 2. Record for the glass factory “Fábrica de la Trinidad”. Apart from the identification of the element, a textual description, some images, the location on a map and links are provided. The records can be downloaded in PDF form for human readers and JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) for machine processing (https://guiadigital.iaph.es/bien/inmueble/8145/sevilla/sevilla/fabricade-vidrio-la-trinidad, accessed: 15 February 2021). 2.2. Repositories and Cultural Aggregators Museums, archives and libraries have an extremely powerful resource in operation: Europeana, an aggregator for European cultural contents with a distributed structure Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 8 of 21 that allows for the participation of a wide range of agents in a coordinated way (similar examples can be also found in other geographical contexts, such as the Digital Public Library of America for the United States of America, Trove in Australia or DigitalNZ in New Zealand). In essence, it is a web portal in which searches can be run in order to find digital copies of cultural heritage items, but it does not digitize nor store those digital files; rather, Europeana manages metadata harvested from different online databases (the ones belonging to the cultural organizations) and supplies efficient tools for searching, browsing and linking data [ 28 ]. Indeed, during recent years, Europeana has been adopting the “linked data” model, which permits moving the focus from the documents to the elements of heritage, places, people, etc. by means of an encoding consistent with the “semantic web” (“semantic web” is a field of research focused on establishing efficient methods for data sharing, discovery, integration and reuse, which also includes the conceptual integration of heterogeneous sources and data [ 29 ]). This course of action also bridges the gap between different ways of information management within the many user communities that have created a set of systems based on manifold data structure standards. Examples are the ones used in museums, for example: Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) or Visual Resources Association (VRA) core categories; archives following the schemas proposed by the International Council on Archives, such as the International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)); or the libraries adapted to the standards issued by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). Likewise, it can cope with generic schemas (such as Dublin Core) and with more developed conceptual ones, such as the Lightweight Information Describing Objects (LIDO) [ 30 ] or the CIDOC-CRM (International Council of Museums—ICOM—International Committee for Documentation Conceptual Reference Model) [ 31 ], as well as make use of preferred terms, vocabularies, thesauri and, in general, any ontology. In the wake of these steps, a number of research centers and universities—on the one hand—and cultural organizations such as ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites)—on the other hand—have started to gather, classify and give access to their datasets through networks of repositories. A pair of such examples are presented below; the former case concerns a small research structure (a university laboratory for the geometric documentation of heritage elements) which takes advantage of a pre-existing repository shared with other providers, whereas the latter shows the case of an organization which created its repository from scratch and for its exclusive use. (a) The following picture (Figure 3) shows a university repository which contains reports and results of projects for the geometric documentation of heritage elements [ 32 ]. There is no need to dwell on the importance of the information about the geometry and the appearance of the elements in order to track the evolution over time (photographs, line drawings, orthoimages, 3D models, etc.); however, when it comes to preparing the datasets for preservation, it is necessary to retain only the pieces of information that can be reused, store them in standard formats and describe the records according to the specifications of repositories and aggregators. Another concern is the process of rights clearance and the attribution of licenses for the reuse of the information that is provided, especially due to the complex web of relationships which appears when working with cultural heritage elements (artists, owners, custodians, providers, collaborators, etc.). Finally, in order to be considered by a cultural aggregator, the repository has to comply with a series of technical specifications regarding the accessibility, data quality standards and being in line with the scope; (b) In the same way, the picture below (Figure 4) shows the repository of the IAPH, which stores the information about the interventions on cultural heritage managed by this organization, technical documentation, information materials for public use, training materials, research reports and so on. The management strategy of this organization encompasses the entire life cycle of the documents from the very moment that the intervention concludes [ 33 ]. This approach not only guarantees that the information is properly preserved and available for reuse, but also contributes to Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 9 of 21 the generation of more reliable and authentic documents. At present, the repository particularly contains information on movable heritage, but it is expected that it will soon also include more information about other types (the information in the repository is continually growing; in order to have an up-to date view, see: https: //repositorio.iaph.es/handle/11532/1, accessed: 15 February 2021). Figure 3. 3D documentation of a ruined bridge; the record includes the report describing the works carried out and characteristics of the attained results, a set of illustrative photographs and different versions of the 3D model. ( a ) Permanent record in the university repository (this record can be accessed through: http://hdl.handle.net/10810/34923, accessed: 15 February 2021); (b) the same item in Europeana. Figure 4. Two images of the Andalusian Institute of Historic Heritage (IAPH) repository (ReA). ( a ) Home screen of the repository, in which the contents are arranged in four sections: institutional documentation, technical and scientific documents, images of cultural heritage and scientific outcomes; ( b ) the repository as a dissemination portal of the research project entitled re_Habitar, in compliance with the requirement of the open access policy assumed by the organization. 2.3. Geographic and Three-Dimensional Databases The improved capabilities of current databases and management systems stretch far beyond the specific applications previously mentioned and require further research. Indeed, a comprehensive view of the possibilities for the generation and management of knowledge makes it necessary to pay attention to several topics, among which it is worth mentioning the conceptual modeling of elements of heritage [ 34 ], which includes the elaboration of knowledge graphs and timelines for improving the understanding and visualization of the Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 16 of 21 Figure 6. Accesses to the record with the 3D models, photographs, plans and report of the remains of the bridge of Mantible that are stored in the university repository. The group of accesses between 19 and 21 January 2021 were due to the employment of this record in the context of a lesson in a master course regarding cultural heritage management (i.e., the users were scholars). On the other hand, on the night of 24 January 2021, the ruined bridge collapsed, causing a huge upheaval among local citizens, and then, in the subsequent days, the use of the record reached a peak, mainly because of journalists who were looking for detailed technical information about the previous situation of the bridge in order to write their articles. Concerning the sustainability and the medium- and long-term maintenance of the products, some of the analyzed case studies showed how the responsibility can be transferred to permanent organizations; this was the case of the SDI (transferred to the mapping service of the regional government) and the university repository (in charge of the university library service). This may be an option to consider when the information managers lack stable funding or there is no commitment for the upkeep of the generated assets inside the organization. Likewise, once the issue related to the preservation and accessibility of the datasets have been solved, it will be time to think about the way of promoting the reuse of the information. To this end, it may be appropriate to establish links from customary resources (e.g., social networks, commercial platforms) known by the targeted users [78]. Summing up, there are many tools and systems that organizations in charge of the conservation of cultural heritage can implement. By way of recommendations, it can be said that: (a) If interoperability and immediate availability of the information for remote users are sought, the best option is to become a provider to an already existent environment, such as the network of repositories that are connected through aggregators or the SDI. Sometimes, the organization may have to set up the systems from scratch, which entails, on the one hand, the acquisition and maintenance of hardware and specific software and, on the other hand, staff training. This was the case for the two systems established by the IAPH (digital guide and repository). In other cases, the information is transferred to organizations which already have operational systems. This second option was the selected one in the examples of the SDI (that are managed by the regional mapping services of La Rioja and Andalusia, respectively) and the university repository. The differences are not just restricted to the costs and the time frame, because they may also affect the control over datasets and the technological expertise that the organization will gain as a result of the implementation. Consequently, each organization should evaluate its situation with respect to these aspects; (b) For the internal use of the information, a suitable digital asset management (DAM) system must be chosen. This may only include basic functionalities if the resources (financial and technical) of the organization are limited or it may take advantage of some improved capabilities. Certainly, these capabilities enable new uses, which Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 17 of 21 might justify the choice, as were the cases of the HBIM models presented in the text, but the initial costs are important either way; (c) It ought to be noted that, currently, there is no consistent tool for comprehensive management of both the internal and remote uses that encompass the historical documentation, monitoring, technical work and dissemination. In the meantime, the organizations need to develop different information systems in parallel, which involves a considerable workload, which should not be underestimated at the time of a new system implementation, for selecting, transforming and reprocessing the information. Looking ahead in the evolution of the information management for the sustainable conservation of cultural heritage, some indications can be gleaned from the current research topics in the digital humanities. A non-exhaustive list of emerging topics that require more research may include the following aspects: • It may be interesting to note the shift in attention from the data publishing to the development of tools for data analysis which, eventually, are expected to work autonomously [79]; • The challenge of integrating heterogeneous sources of cultural heritage knowledge will remain a field of joint study for computer scientists and domain specialists [80]; • The interconnection with other technologies, such as natural language processing (both for the content analysis of the documents and for the processing of the queries) or machine learning (with interesting applications in dealing with uncertainty, incomplete and fuzzy data, which are common characteristics of the information in the cultural heritage field); • The optimization of interfaces and work processes is important, as many tools and software currently in use (such as Revit, Gephi, QGIS, etc.) require extensive data conversion into accepted formats. This entails huge efforts in terms of training on the use of each software to generate visualizations, models and analyses; • Finally, it must not be forgotten that the ultimate aim of the information is to improve the management of conservation works, and thus, the maintenance and use of the heritage. Usage and impact monitoring are essential in order to justify the investments, which will entail the participation of actors from multiple areas such as economics, sociology, education or law. 5. Conclusions At present, the conservation plan is the most appropriate instrument when it comes to tackling the generation, storage and use of the information regarding conservation and restoration works. On the one hand, this is because the plan is created and managed by an organization which has needs, responsibilities and resources to safeguard the cultural heritage. On the other hand, within the scope of the conservation plan, the information has a fundamental purpose, which is essential to decide whether it has to be generated or preserved. To effectively manage monuments, a method is needed to rapidly assess the level of damage and vulnerability and to set the conservation priorities. The summary table presented in the Results section shows eight features, which are related with the decisions that are considered when envisaging a management system for conservation works (kind of information stored, expected users, maintenance costs, interoperability and sustainability of the system, etc.). In order to decide among the existing options and their possible combinations, different applicable approaches and technologies for information management were reviewed in this paper. In particular, the main approaches are summarized below: • Data provided by the public administrations according to the “open data” policy, including the SDI; that is to say, information delivered by means of map layers; •Repositories, for the distributed storage of any kind of information; • HBIM, i.e., a detailed digital replica of the element of heritage considering its geometry structured on the basis of the architectural semantic, where each element can be connected to many thematic datasets. Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 18 of 21 They are all interesting for the development and support of the conservation plans. However, they are still not completely integrated for distributed and interoperable work. Nevertheless, interoperability is highly desirable because it would entail benefits in the efficiency and sustainability of the management and preservation of cultural heritage. For this reason, this is an active research field, which is not limited to the availability, dissemination and processing of datasets, but also involves analyses of the associated rights and studies concerning the economic and social returns. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Á.R.M.; original draft preparation and writing, J.K.B. and Á.R.M. with the collaboration of A.Z.-I. (Introduction), J.M.V.-M. (case studies: SDI and university repository), P.A.I. and P.F.-L. (case studies: digital guide and repository of IAPH) and F.P.-P., M.C.- R. and R.A.-F. (case studies with HBIM). All authors have been involved in the creation of the comparative table in the “Results” section and have participated in the subsequent sections devoted to the “discussion” and the “conclusions”. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The HBIM experiences presented constitute some of the actions developed in the HAR2016- 78113-R Project, supported by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Government of Spain, R & D & I Plan, with the acronym TUSOSMOD. Two of the case studies mentioned in this text were created thanks to funding from the Instituto de Estudios Riojanos (Government of La Rioja), in particular: the SDI of wild grapevines, which presents a case study for open data (Figure 1), by means of a research grant in 2015; the documentation of the Mantible bridge, which illustrates the example of the university repository (Figures 3and 6), as part of the public call “Planes 2017”. The participation of J.K.B. in this research is supported by the Basque Government through grants for doctoral studies of the call 2019–2020. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The original text was significantly improved thanks to the assistance of the proofreading service of the campus of Álava (UPV/EHU). Likewise, we would like to acknowledge the (extensive) reviewers’ work, who have substantially help to clarify many passages of the text and solve misunderstandings. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. CEN—European Committee for Standardization. EN 15898:2019—Conservation of Cultural Heritage—Main General Terms and Definitions; CEN—European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. 2. CEN—European Committee for Standardization. EN 16853:2017—Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Conservation Process. Decision Making, Planning and Implementation; CEN—European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. 3. Pasíes, T. Los trabajos de conservación-restauración en el laboratorio del Museo de Prehistoria de Valencia: Problemática de las antiguas restauraciones. PH Investig. 2014,3, 1–19. 4. Herráez, J.A.; Pastor, M.J.; Durán, D. Guía Para la Elaboración e Implantación de Planes de Conservación Preventiva; Departamento de Conservación Preventiva, Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE), Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte: Madrid, Spain, 2019. 5. Cruz, A.J.; Revez, M.J.; Figueira, F. On the importance of publishing in Heritage conservation. Conserv. Patrim. 2017 ,27, 7–10. [CrossRef] 6. Culubret, B.; Dávila, C.; Moreno, A. Documentando la restauración . . . pasado, presente y futuro. Boletín Mus. Arqueol. Nac. 2017 , 36, 387–404. 7. Gómez, A. Las intervenciones arquitectónicas en el palacio del Almirante de Aragón en Valencia (principios del siglo XX). Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2020,11, 116–136. [CrossRef] 8. Lasagabaster, J.I. Del “abierto por obras” al “abierto por mantenimiento”. In Proceedings of the IV GE-ICC conference “¿Y después? Control y mantenimiento del Patrimonio Cultural, una opción sostenible”, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 20–22 September 2018; pp. 24–33. 9. Nascimento, V.G.; Baptista Pereira, F.A.; Candeias, A.; Nogueira Alves, A. Um projeto de salvaguarda integrada: Estratégias de preservação e de comunicação de retábulos integrados em ermidas. Conserv. Património 2018,27, 103–110. [CrossRef] 10. García Fernández, I.M. Historia de la conservación preventiva. Parte I. Ge-Conservación2013,5, 27–41. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 19 of 21 11. García Fernández, I.M. Historia de la conservación preventiva. Parte II. Ge-Conservación2014,6, 5–18. [CrossRef] 12. Cirujano, C.; García, Á.L.; Laguna, T. El mantenimiento de los bienes culturales como garantía para su conservación. Geconservación2009, 21–33. [CrossRef] 13. Fernández, C.; Levenfeld, C.; Monereo, A. La evaluación de riesgos en patrimonio. Del diagnóstico al pronóstico. Patrim. Cult. De España 2013,7, 57–69. 14. Ramalhinho, A.R.; Macedo, M.F. Cultural heritage risk analysis models: An overview. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2019,10, 39–58. 15. Ortiz, R.; Ortiz, P. Vulnerability Index: A New Approach for Preventive Conservation of Monuments. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2016 , 10, 1078–1100. [CrossRef] 16. Ortiz, R.; Macias-Bernal, J.M.; Ortiz, P. Vulnerability and buildings service life applied to preventive conservation in cultural heritage. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2018,9, 31–47. [CrossRef] 17. Fabbri, K.; Bonora, A. Two new indices for preventive conservation of the cultural heritage: Predicted risk of damage and heritage microclimate risk. J. Cult. Herit. 2020. [CrossRef] 18. Camuffo, D. Microclimate for Cultural Heritage: Conservation, Restoration, and Maintenance of Indoor and Outdoor Monuments, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. 19. Hassan, M.; Xie, H. Climate Change and Conservation of Coastal Built Heritage; Springer: Singapore, 2020. 20. Vafadari, A.; Philip, G.; Jennings, R. Damage assessment and monitoring of cultural heritage places in a disaster and post-disaster event—A case study of Syria. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017,XLII-2/W5, 695–701. [CrossRef] 21. Zhou, M.; Geng, G.; Wu, Z. Digital Preservation Technology for Cultural Heritage; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. 22. Carrión, A. Planes Nacionales de Patrimonio Cultural; Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte: Madrid, Spain, 2015. 23. McKeague, P.; Corns, A.; Shaw, R. Developing a Spatial Data Infrastructure for Archaeological and built heritage. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2012,7, 38–65. [CrossRef] 24. Fernández-Freire, C.; del-Bosque-González, I.; Vicent-García, J.M.; Pérez-Asensio, E.; Fraguas-Bravo, A.; Uriarte-González, A.; Fábrega-Álvarez, P.; Parcero-Oubiña, C. A Cultural Heritage Application Schema: Achieving Interoperability of Cultural Heritage Data in INSPIRE. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2012,8, 74–97. [CrossRef] 25. Cuca, B.; Brumana, R.; Scaioni, M.; Oreni, D. Spatial data management of temporal map series for cultural and environmental heritage. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2011,6, 97–125. [CrossRef] 26. Mascort-Alea, E.J. Datos geográficos abiertos para la conservación preventiva del patrimonio arquitectónico. Rev. PH 2017 ,92, 228–229. [CrossRef] 27. Martínez de Toda, F.; Ocete, R.; Prado, E.; Rodríguez, Á.; Valle, J.M. La vid silvestre en La Rioja (España): Situación actual y difusión mediante Infraestructuras de Datos Espaciales. Zubía2017,29, 95–120. 28. Freire, N.; Meijers, E.; Voorburg, R.; Isaac, A. Aggregation of cultural heritage datasets through the Web of Data. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018,137, 120–126. [CrossRef] 29. Hitzler, P. A review of the Semantic Web Field. Tracig the triumphs and challenges of two decades of Semantic Web research and applications. Commun. ACM 2021,2, 76–83. [CrossRef] 30. Coburn, E.; Light, R.; Lindenthal, J.; McKenna, G.; Stein, R.; Vitzthum, A.; Weidling, M. (Eds.) LIDO v1.1 Public Beta—Lightweight Information Describing Objects; ICOM-CIDOC LIDO Working Group: Paris, France, 2020. 31. Bekiari, C.; Bruseker, G.; Doerr, M.; Ore, C.; Stead, S.; Velios, A. (Eds.) Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (Version 7.1); ICOM-CIDOC: Paris, France, 2021. 32. Rodríguez, Á.; Valle, J.M. Los repositorios institucionales dentro de las estrategias de preservación de la información sobre patrimonio. Rev. PH 2017,92, 230–231. [CrossRef] 33. Acosta, P. Documenting knowledge. Document management of intervention projects on immovable heritage. In Science and Digital Technology for Cultural Heritage: Interdisciplinary Approach to Diagnosis, Vulberability, Risk Assessment and Graphic Information Models; Ortiz, P., Pinto, F., Verhagen, P., Prieto, A., Eds.; CRC Press; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2019; pp. 176–180. 34. González, C. Information Modelling for Archaeology and Anthropology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. 35. Ferreira-Lopes, P.; Pinto Puerto, F. GIS and Graph Models for Social, Temporal and Spatial Digital Analysis in Heritage: The case-study of Ancient Kingdom of Seville Late Gothic Production. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2018,9, 1–14. [CrossRef] 36. Vanrell, A. Propuestas de organización y la visualización de datos para mejorar la gestión y comprensión de obras complejas. Conserv. Património 2019,30, 117–130. [CrossRef] 37. Medeiros, F.; Vilar, H.V.; Moreiro González, J.A. Construction of a taxonomy for medieval Portuguese history: Problems and challenges. Rev. Española De Doc. Científica 2016,39, e123. [CrossRef] 38. Arminsen, A. BIM Aplicado al Patrimonio Cultural. Guía de Usuarios BIM; documento 14; Building Smart Spain: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. 39. Jordan-Palomar, I.; Tzortzopoulos, P.; Pellicer, E. Protocol to manage heritage-building interventions using heritage building information modelling (HBIM). Sustainability 2018,10, 908. [CrossRef] 40. Oliveira, D.V.; Masciotta, M.G. HeritageCare: “Prevenir mejor que curar”. Rev. PH 2019,96, 16–18. [CrossRef] 41. Mora, R.; Sánchez-Aparicio, L.J.; Maté-González, M.Á.; García-Álvarez, J.; Sánchez-Aparicio, M.; Gozález-Aguilera, D. An historical building information modelling approach for the preventive conservation of historical constructions: Application to the Historical Library of Salamanca. Autom. Constr. 2021,121, 103449. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 20 of 21 42. Cascón-Katchadourian, J.; Ruiz-Rodriguez, A.A.; Alberich-Pascual, J. Revisión, análisis y evaluación de sistemas para la gestión de activos multimedia en organizaciones. Rev. Española Doc. Científica 2018,41, e196. [CrossRef] 43. Castellano, M.; Pinto, F. Dimensions and Levels of Knowledge in Heritage Building Information Modelling, HBIM: The model of the Charterhouse of Jerez (Cadiz, Spain). Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019,14, e00110. [CrossRef] 44. Angulo-Fornos, R.; Castellano-Román, M. HBIM as Support of Preventive Conservation Actions in Heritage Architecture. Experience of the Renaissance Quadrant Façade of the Cathedral of Seville. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 2428. [CrossRef] 45. Nys, G.; Van Ruymbeke, M.; Billen, R. Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in CIDOC CRM: An Hybrid Ontology with GeoSPARQL and OWL-Time. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop On Computing Techniques for Spatio-Temporal Data in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Melbourne, Australia, 28 August 2018; Belussi, A., Billen, R., Hallot, P., Migliorini, S., Eds.; RWTH Aachen University: Aachen, Germany, 2018; pp. 37–50. 46. Dulong de Rosnay, M.; Janssen, K. Legal and Institutional Challenges for Opening Data across Public Sectors: Towards Common Policy Solutions. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2014,9, 1–14. [CrossRef] 47. Medrano, I. Datos abiertos en instituciones culturales. Rev. PH 2017,92, 212–220. [CrossRef] 48. Huijboom, N.; Van den Broek, T. Open data: An international comparison of strategies. Eur. J. Epractice 2011,12, 1–13. 49. González-Vares, I. Conservación de Bienes Culturales [Conservation of Cultural Items]; Manuales Arte Cátedra: Madrid, Spain, 2006. 50. Migilinskas, D.V.; Popov, V.; Juocevicius, L. The benefits, obstacles and problems of practical BIM implementation. Procedia Eng. 2013,57, 767–774. [CrossRef] 51. Sulé, A.; Centelles, M.; Franganillo, J.; Gascón, J. Aplicación del modelo de datos RDF en las colecciones digitales d bibliotecas, archivos y museos de España. Rev. Española De Doc. Científica 2016,39, e121. [CrossRef] 52. IAPH. ReA, el Repositorio de Activos Digitales del IAPH, disponible en su web. Rev. PH 2016,89, 22–23. [CrossRef] 53. García Vicente, J.J. Los repositorios en acceso abierto como elemento central en la transferencia de conocimiento entre los profesionales del patrimonio. In Las Profesiones del Patrimonio Cultural. Competencias, Formación y Transferencia del Conocimiento: Reflexiones y Retos en el Año Europeo del Patrimonio Cultural 2018; Galán, A., Pardo, D., Eds.; GE-ICC & ACRE: Madrid, Spain, 2018; pp. 474–481. 54. Europeana. Strategy 2020–2025. Empowering Digital Change. 2020. Available online: https://pro.europeana.eu/page/strategy- 2020-2025-summary (accessed on 4 January 2021). 55. Koroso, I.; Muñoz, O. 12 years of archaeological data digital registry at the Santa María Cathedral of Vitoria-Gasteiz (1997–2009). In CAA2010: Fusion of Cultures: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Granada, Spain, 6–9 April 2010; BAR S2494; Contreras, F., Farjas, M., Melero, J., Eds.; Archaeopess: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 1–7. 56. De Luca, L.; Véron, P.; Florenzano, M. Semantic description and multi-representation in architecture. In Proceedings of the Conference: Virtual Retrospect 2005, Biarritz, France, 5–7 November 2005; Archéovision 2. Vergnieux, R., Delevoie, C., Cocula, A.-M., Eds.; Ausonius: Pessac, France, 2006; pp. 31–37. 57. Nieto, J.E.; Moyano, J.J.; Rico, F.; Antón, D. Management of built heritage via the HBIM project: A case study of flooring and wall tiling. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2016,7, 1–12. [CrossRef] 58. Banfi, F. HBIM, 3D drawing and virtual reality for archaeological sites and ancient ruins. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2020 ,11, 16–33. [CrossRef] 59. Campiani, A.; Lingle, A.; Lercari, N. Spatial analysis and heritage conservation: Leveraging 3-D data and GIS monitoring earthen architecture. J. Cult. Herit. 2019,39, 166–176. [CrossRef] 60. Salvador, E. Protocolo HBIM Para Una Gestión Eficiente del Uso Público del Patrimonio Arquitectónico. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain, April 2020. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/146811 (accessed on 15 February 2021). 61. Jouan, P.; Hallot, P. Digital twin: Research framework to support preventive conservation policies. Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020 ,9, 228. [CrossRef] 62. Kadi, H.; Anouche, K. Approche paramétrique pour la reconstitution 3D basée sur la connaissance préalable. Conserv. Património 2019,30, 47–58. [CrossRef] 63. Chiabrando, F.; Lo Turco, M.; Rinaudo, F. Modeling the decay in an HBIM starting from 3D point clouds. A followed approach for cultural heritage knowledge. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017,XLII-2/W5, 605–612. [CrossRef] 64. Tsilimantou, E.; Delegou, E.T.; Nikitakos, I.A.; Ioannidis, C.; Moropoulou, A. GIS and BIM as integrated digital environments for modeling and monitoring of historic buildings. Appl. Sci. 2019,10, 1078. [CrossRef] 65. Bassier, M.; Bonduel, M.; Derdaele, J.; Vergauwen, M. Towards the semantic enrichment of existing online 3D building geometry to publish linked building data. In KGSWC 2019; CCIS 1029; Villazón-Terrazas, B., Hidalgo-Delgado, Y., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 134–148. [CrossRef] 66. Mateos, F.; Valdeón, L.; Rojo, A.; Armisén, A.; García, B. Plataforma virtual para el diseño, planificación, control, intervención y mantenimiento en el ámbito de la conservación del patrimonio histórico “PetroBIM”. In Proceedings of the Rehabend 2016, Burgos, Spain, 24–26 May 2016; pp. 1374–1382. 67. Garagnani, S.; Manferdini, A.M. Parametric Accuracy: Building Information Modeling Process Applied to the Cultural Heritage Preservation. ISPRS—Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013,XL-5/W1, 87–92. [CrossRef] 68. Henninger, M. From mud to the museum: Metadata challenges in archeology. J. Inf. Sci. 2018,44, 658–670. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021,13, 4325 21 of 21 69. Parisi, P.; Lo Turco, M.; Giovannini, E.C. The value of knowledge through H-BIM models: Historic documentation with a semantic approach. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019,XLII-2/W9, 581–588. [CrossRef] 70. Martin-Rodilla, P.; Gonzalez-Perez, C. Metainformation scenarios in digital humanities: Characterization and conceptual modelling strategies. Inf. Syst. 2019,84, 29–48. [CrossRef] 71. Quattrini, R.; Pierdicca, R.; Morbidoni, C.; Malinverni, E.S. Conservation-oriented HBIM. The BIMEXPLORER web tool. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017,XLII-5/W1, 275–281. [CrossRef] 72. Brumana, R.; Ioannides, M.; Previtali, M. Holistic heritage building information modelling (HHBIM): From nodes to hub networking, vocabularies and repositories. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019 ,XLII-2/W11, 309–316. [CrossRef] 73. Matrone, F.; Colucci, E.; De Ruvo, V.; Lingua, A.; Spanò, A. HBIM in a semantic 3D GIS database. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019,XLII-2/W11, 857–865. [CrossRef] 74. Noardo, F.; Ellul, C.; Harrie, L.; Overland, I.; Shariat, M.; Arroyo Ohori, K.; Stoter, J. Opportunities and challenges for GeoBIM in Europe: Developing a building permits use-case to raise awareness and examine technical interoperability challenges. J. Spat. Sci. 2020,65, 209–233. [CrossRef] 75. Sánchez-Aparicio, L.J.; Masciotta, M.G.; García-Alvarez, J.; Ramos, L.F.; Oliveira, D.V.; Martín-Jiménez, J.A.; González-Aguilera, D.; Monteiro, P. Web-GIS approach to preventive conservation of heritage buildings. Autom. Constr. 2020 ,118, 103304. [CrossRef] 76. Ramos-Simón, L.F. Uso de las licencias libres en los datos públicos abiertos. Rev. Española Doc. Científica 2017 ,40, e179. [CrossRef] 77. Muir, A. Digital preservation: Awareness, responsibility and rights issues. J. Inf. Sci. 2004,30, 73–92. [CrossRef] 78. Rodríguez, Á.; Korro, J.; Valle, J.M. Archivo y difusión de contenidos 3D de elementos patrimoniales en repositorios institucionales y plataformas comerciales. Rev. PH 2020,100, 78–80. [CrossRef] 79. Hyvönen, E. Using the Semantic Web in digital humanities: Shift from data publishing to data-analysis and serendipidous knowledge discovery. Semant. Web 2020,11, 187–193. [CrossRef] 80. Bruseker, G.; Carboni, N.; Guillem, A. Cultural heritage data management: The role of formal ontology and CIDOC CRM. In Heritage and Archaeology in the Digital Age, Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences; Vincent, M., López-Menchero Bendicho, V., Ioannides, M., Levy, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 93–131. [CrossRef]