Oulu Löyly/Survey/Results 2/en

What is the most important goal, problem, or obstacle facing digital cultural heritage over the next two years?

Summary

The sections have been created with assistance from ChatGPT, and their summaries are also AI-generated. Full responses are below each summary. Minor edits have been made to make the text legible.

You are welcome to edit the summaries to include perspectives or biases GenAI has overlooked! You can change the title to "Edited AI-generated summary". When translating to another language, feel free to run the summaries with GenAI yourself in that language.

Political, economic, and structural threats to digital heritage

AI-generated summary: Digital heritage faces pressures from shrinking political support, austerity cuts, and authoritarian tendencies that restrict or even erase access to cultural content. Civic space is narrowing, and GLAM institutions are pushed towards commercialisation, often prioritising innovation over continuity. Monopolistic AI firms and other commercial actors risk turning cultural data into private assets, sidelining the public interest. Geopolitical instability makes digital heritage infrastructures fragile, while fading institutional memory threatens long-term commitments.

Weak political commitment: lack of political support for digital heritage.
Shrinking civic space: reduced funding for GLAM institutions, knowledge becoming more commercialized.
Volatile political climate: authoritarian governments can restrict or delete hosted content.
Institutional drift: fading knowledge, more interest in innovation than continuation, lack of long-term support.
Commercial pressures: companies have stakes beyond protecting the cultural commons (risk of data sell-out).
Shifts in the information ecosystem: concentration of power, geopolitical shifts, new technologies require new agendas and practices.
AI monopolies: challenges from large commercial AI developers, need to stay relevant to audiences, secure sustainable funding.

Original comments

Commercial companies having other stakes than protecting cultural commons. (sell-out of data, etc.)
Lack of political support for digital heritage
The raising forms of authoritarian governments are also a challenge as they have the option to restrict access to previously hosted content or even its deletion.
Shrinking civic space, reduced funding for GLAM institutions accompanied by moves towards more commercialisation of knowledge, for both financial and ideological reasons.
Understanding the new information ecosystem, as it shifts under the impact of new technologies, concentrations of power, geopolitics, etc. Based on this understanding, developing new agendas and practices for cultural heritage.
fading knowledge, commitments, more interest in innovation than in continuation and not funding digital culture as cultural heritage
Overcoming the challenges and threats of large, monopolistic commercial AI-system developers. Staying relevant to target audiences. Securing sustainable funding.
Äärioikeistohallituksen leikkaukset kulttuuriperintösektorille yms.

Institutional resources and skills gap

AI-generated summary: Institutions, especially small ones, struggle with scarce funding, staff time, and technical know-how to keep pace with rapid digital change. Strategic goals may exist in policy documents, but resources rarely follow. Even EU-funded projects often vanish once grants end, leaving expired domains and broken infrastructures. Training gaps and staff burnout add to the problem, while subsidy cuts in a “war economy” deepen insecurity. Without sustainable support, many institutions cannot maintain or develop digital heritage capacities.

Resource constraints: lack of money, staff, and technical expertise to support digital cultural heritage projects.
Skill and training gaps: institutions struggle to keep up with technological developments due to time, energy, or knowledge limitations.
Fragmented infrastructure: smaller institutions often cannot build or maintain their own digital systems in a fragmented landscape.
Perception barriers: some institutions view digital initiatives negatively, which can reduce adoption and engagement.
Funding instability: subsidy cuts, crises, or the end of grant-funded projects jeopardize ongoing digital preservation efforts.
Archive sustainability risks: some digital archives have disappeared entirely due to insufficient long-term support.

Original comments

Ongelma on rajalliset resurssit tahi resurssien ohjautuminen muualle: puuttuvat työkalut FINNA, FINNAn monikielisyyden tuen puute (vaikka keinoälypohjaiset käännökset mahdollistaisivat vaikka mitä)
Lack of resources (money, people, but also knowledge) from institutions to invest in adapting to digital projects
Some notable obstacles would be resources and know-how (lack of training, inability to keep up with developments due to time and energy constraints, etcetera), especially for smaller institutions who may find it difficult to develop or even create infrastructure for their (digital) cultural heritage on their own - especially in a fragmented digital landscape.
Keskeiset tavoitteet on kirjattu OKM:n dokumentteihin, ongelmana resurssit.
Negative perspectives about what digital cultural heritage initiatives could represent for local institutions
Funding during war economy (subsidy cuts).
But also many digital archives are struggling with sustainability and funding. Some have disappeared, including those funded by various EU grants, with domains expiring once the projects are over.
Developing technological capacity in building/use tech infrastructure for digital preservation at affordable costs

Open access

AI-generated summary: There is broad demand for stronger frameworks that guarantee open, ethical access to cultural heritage across jurisdictions. Yet restrictive regulations, commercial capture, and weak enforcement undermine the public domain. The lack of international consensus on how heritage should be shared in AI and digital ecosystems leaves room for exploitation. A sustainable approach requires regulation that protects cultural commons while still enabling fair reuse, ensuring that open access remains more than a fragile ideal.

Clearing barriers for open access: remove legal, licensing, technical, and practical obstacles that hinder digitization and sharing.
Advocacy for smaller institutions: develop strategies to help them participate in open heritage initiatives and collaborate with researchers.
AI regulation risks: resist rules that limit heritage institutions’ ability to collaborate or share data with researchers.
Copyright and licensing challenges:
- Extended collective licensing threatens digital preservation.
- Contract-based licenses under copyright law make digitization costly compared to exception-based approaches.
- Issues around copyright for language model training datasets.
Balancing access with cultural meaning: open access should support understanding, interpretation, and reimagining of cultural heritage without flattening culture and knowledge.
Ethical use of open materials: ensuring responsible reuse while maximizing availability.
Practical challenges in accessibility: licensing, legal, and technical issues slow digitization and reuse; even when information exists, uptake can be difficult.
Community dialogue: sharing experiences and knowledge is critical to overcome barriers and improve access.

Original comments

Clearing barriers for open
Pyrkiä vastustamaan sellaista tekoälyyn liittyvää sääntelyä, joka rajoittaisi kulttuuriperintöorganisaatioiden mahdollisuuksia tehdä yhteistyötä tutkijoiden kanssa.
Extended collective licensing threatens digital preservation of culture
Heritage collections closing up in the face of AI
Goal: better advocacy strategies for smaller institutions
Balancing open access to cultural heritage and it's use in understanding, interpreting and reimagining our past, present and future with the flattening of culture and knowledge that is occurring because of and through AI.
Kielimallien kouluttamisessa käytettävä aineisto vs. tekijänoikeudet
Avoimena pitäminen. Esteiden torjunta. Eettisyys avoimen materiaalin käytössä.
Aineistojen saatavuuteen ja saataville saamiseen liittyy hankalia asioita, jotka saattavat hidastaa digitalisointia tai digitaalisen aineiston jakamista. Esimerkiksi lisensointikysymykset, juridiset kysymykset, tekniset kysymykset. Ja vaikka tietoa on, sen haltuunotto on vaikeaa. Mielestäni keskeistä olisi päästä keskustelemaan asioista yhdessä ja jakaa kokemusta ja tietoa.
Tekijänoikeuslain ratkaisuna sopimuslisenssi poikkeussäännöksen sijaan tekee kulttuuriperinnön digitalisoinnin kustannuksiltaan suureksi
Licensing and Interoperability Issues

Accessibility, usability, and reuse of digital heritage

AI-generated summary: Digitisation alone is not enough: if systems are siloed, interfaces poor, or multilingual access missing, collections remain invisible. Tools like FINNA lack full multilingual support despite existing AI translation potential. Without interoperability, shared metadata standards, and user-friendly platforms (for images, 3D models, annotations), the public and researchers cannot make meaningful use of heritage. Sustainability requires infrastructures designed for real use — accessible, inclusive, and open to reuse across languages, platforms, and sectors.

Making heritage meaningful: simple digitization is not enough; high-quality digital surrogates that can be reused are essential.
Improving accessibility and discoverability: collections must be presented so users can explore, study, and interact meaningfully.
Platform usability challenges: archival search environments are often outdated, confusing, and modeled on physical archives, frustrating users.
User experience and engagement: long lists, tiny thumbnails, and repetitive search workflows reduce joy and public participation.
Fragmentation and trust issues: multiple platforms, clunky systems (e.g., archive.org), and challenges for small organizations in navigating them.
Participation and interactive features: enabling the public to contribute to cultural value, add to collections, and engage in heritage creation.
Language and translation barriers: inadequate translations and lack of guidance on what should be open limit accessibility.
Goal alignment: improving accessibility, usability, and reuse of digital collections is central to meaningful public engagement.

Original comments

Omasta mielestäni digitaalisen kulttuuriperinnön tärkein tavoite on kulttuuriperinnön näkyväksi tuominen avoimesti, jotta tavalliset ihmiset voivat tutustua siihen, omaksua kulttuuriperintöä ja inspiroitua kulttuurista. Pelkkä digitointi digitoinnin vuoksi tuntuu olevan monessa paikassa mantrana; huonolaatuiset digitaaliset surrogaatit eivät kuitenkaan edesauta kulttuuriperinnön merkityksellistämistä laajemmalle yhteiskuntaan. Hyvä laatu ja materiaalin uudelleenkäyttö ovat tärkeitä.
Tavoite on lisätä saatavuutta ja saavutettavuutta
Problem: Archival search environments for finding digital cultural heritage artifacts are typically boring, outdated, and confusing. They are still based on the physical archive, and prioritize historical order, provenance, inventories, and record groups – things that everyday people don't care about. These traditional archives create long lists of unrelated items and tiny thumbnails that force users into repetitive and disconnected "open-view-close-repeat” viewing scenarios that frustrate users. They provide lists of cultural artifacts, often hundreds of pages long, and not much else. The overall traditional search experience lacks aesthetics and joy, and forfeits many opportunities for greater public engagement
Tavoitteet: saavutettavuus & (uudelleen)käytettävyys.
Alustojen vanhanaikaisuus & sekavuus: minkä alustan uskaltaa valita, liikaa eri wikejä, archive.org kömpelyys,
Though we value GLAM and related topics, in most cases they don't reach out to the user/public easily.
Tavoite on lisätä saatavuutta ja saavutettavuutta sekä lisätä osallistavia toiminnallisuuksia, kuten lisätä ihmisten mahdollisuutta osallistua kulttuuriperintöä koskevaan arvonmäärittelyyn ja itse kulttuuriperinnön kartuttamiseen, keräämiseen ja tuottamiseen.
Over the years working with cultural organizations I have realized some lack adequate translations of key documents in the local languages. Also there is lack of understanding on what should be made open and accessible
Tavoite: aineistojen parempi saatavuus/saavutettavuus
Ensuring the growth of new contributors while encouraging them to the larger and deeper cooperation and avoiding intimidation and exclusion.
Aineistojen digitoinnin resurssointi.

The cultural commons technological ecosystem

AI-generated summary: The digital cultural commons depends on infrastructures that are open, interoperable, and resilient. Small institutions often remain confined to local systems that reveal only a fraction of their holdings, while multilingual and technical barriers block international visibility. Reliance on centralised or government-controlled platforms raises questions of permanence and trust, especially amid political volatility. Globally, digitisation progresses unevenly, with the Global South lagging unless supported by both governments and NGOs. Decentralised, open-source platforms and international solidarity are key to ensuring that cultural heritage remains visible, usable, and sustainable across borders.

International visibility: small institutions struggle to make collections visible internationally, especially when content is in minority languages.
Metadata and interoperability: lack of standardized metadata and interoperable systems keeps collections siloed and hard to interpret or evaluate.
Decentralized archiving and cloud solutions: educating on decentralized approaches and international cloud/server solidarity supports fair and resilient access.
European initiatives: ECCCH and ECHOES provide frameworks and funding to support accessible and interactive presentation.
Global framework need: establish international standards that protect, open, and ethically share public domain cultural heritage across countries and communities.
Technology dependency: reliance on non-European tools, ontologies, and platforms (e.g., Getty) creates risks in volatile political climates.
Fragmentation challenges for small institutions: “De-Googling” and navigating multiple platforms is extremely difficult for organizations with limited resources.

Original comments

Olemme pieni museo <name>, jolla on paljon kulttuuriaineistoa. Olemme liittyeet paikalllisen kunnallisen museon kautta MuseoPlus järjestelmään, mutta sen kautta saamme vain pienen osan aineistostamme näkyviin. Iso aineistostamme kaipaa kansainvälistä näkyvyyttä, mutta miten? Yksi iso ongelma on että osa aineistostamme on venäjän ja valko-venäjän kielistä.
International cloud/server solidarity.
Metadata and interoperability: Without standardized metadata and interoperable systems, collections remain siloed, hard to interpret, and difficult to assess. Even with digitization, the lack of holistic frameworks for evaluating social, cultural, and economic outcomes makes it hard to justify long-term investment.
A goal for digital cultural heritage is then to educate on decentralised forms of archiving cultural data and promote the fair use of cultural heritage in large language models and other AI applications such as the generation of synthetic media.
Dependency on non-European tools/technology/ontologies (Getty!), etc. (in volatile political climate).
Global framework: We need a global framework that protects, opens, and ethically shares public domain cultural heritage in ways that countries, institutions, and communities worldwide can adopt and sustain.
De-googling erittäin haastavaa pienelle organisaatiolle.
Tärkeää on jo digitoitu kulttuuriperintöaineisto sellaiseen muotoon että se on esitettävissä, tutkittavissa, ja ennen kaikkea saatavilla. Digitoitu kulttuuriperintö käsittää jo paljon erilaista kuvamateriaalia ja 3D-mallinnettua materiaalia. Esimerkiksi 3D-mallien esittämiseen tarvitaan helposti käytettävää teknologiaa (ei Sketchfab), joka mahdollistaa kohteen tarkastelun, annotoinnin ja hyödyntämisen (myös kaupallisen). EU:n ECCCH European Cloud for Cultural Heritage periaatteet saattaisivat olla tähän hyvä väline (ja siihen on ECHOES projektissa tarjolla rahoitustakin). Näiden digitaalisten aineistojen esittäminen käyttäjäystävälllisesti on haastavaa (esimerkiksi Sotasampo), sen vuoksi tarvitaan uusia keinoja ja alustoja niitä varten.
Tietojen saatavuuden varmistaminen hajautetun julkaisun avulla. Yhdysvaltain poliittinen tilanne on herättänyt pohtimaan, miten pysyvä mikään julkiseen valtaan nojaava keskitetty julkaisukanava digitaalisille aineistoille, oli kyse sitten kulttuuriperinnöstä tai muusta, voi olla.
Creating digital platforms - the technical aspects of preserving and digitising the culture and heritage records has been the biggest challenge. The approach to this is also supported by creating various Open platforms but in terms of reachability and accessibility there are various developments needed.
Driving the support system - to make a large repository for digitising and preserving the cultural heritage contents there is support required by both goverment and non-governmental bodies. The scalability for these in 3rd world and developing countries is happening in a very slow pace. Decentralised models with Open Source platforms would help everyone contributes and participate in large scale.
Content or Digital Commons digitisation and accessibility.

Resilience and preparedness

AI-generated summary: The heritage field must prepare for crises that threaten both digital and physical collections — from authoritarian restrictions to environmental disasters. Current infrastructures often lack contingency planning, redundancy, or distributed backups. Reliance on a few central systems or commercial providers increases fragility. Building resilience means developing decentralised, community-driven solutions, ensuring continuity beyond project cycles, and embedding preparedness into both technical and organisational practices.

Preparedness by design: embedding resilience and readiness into digitization processes from the start.
Decentralized infrastructure: avoiding dependence on a single system to reduce vulnerability.
Standards and skills development: strengthening technical expertise and standardization to ensure effective preservation and reuse.
Sustainable funding: securing resources for long-term digitization, storage, management, and curation.
Technological obsolescence: evolving formats, hardware, and software threaten ongoing access to digital artifacts.
Preservation of heritage at risk: including both material and intangible cultural heritage.
Prevention of deliberate destruction: measures to protect against intentional loss of digital heritage.
Strengthening crisis preparedness: enhancing institutional and societal capacity to respond to digital heritage risks.

Original comments

Tärkeimmät tavoitteet: valmiustilan sisäänrakentaminen digitalisointiprosessiin (preparedness by design), hajautettu infrastruktuuri, että emme ole yhden järjestelmän varassa, osaamisen ja standardien vahvistaminen ja osallisuus sekä rahoituksen turvaaminen.
Tech obsolescence and resource demands: Digital cultural artifacts risk becoming inaccessible due to evolving formats, hardware, and software. This challenge is compounded by the substantial financial and labor investments needed to digitize, store, manage, and curate collections over time.
preservation of heritage at risk
tarkoituksellisen tuhoamisen estäminen
henkisen kriisivalmiuden vahvistaminen.

Trust, authenticity, and reliability

AI-generated summary: In an era of disinformation and synthetic media, trust in digital cultural heritage cannot be assumed. Communities worry about losing control over how their heritage is presented, while commercial or authoritarian actors may manipulate narratives. The challenge is to ensure authenticity and reliability through transparent metadata, provenance tracking, and open verification methods. Without this, both institutions and communities risk disengagement, and the cultural commons risks losing credibility.

Authenticity vs. AI-generated content: distinguishing real heritage from synthetic material is essential for credibility.
Trust in heritage organizations: positioning institutions as reliable stewards of quality collections and skilled staff in a rapidly evolving information landscape.
Digital accessibility to fact and history: especially important amid erasure, polarization, and contested narratives.
Responsible web and social media archiving: over-collection without careful selection leads to unintelligible, unmanageable archives.
Long-tail trust challenges: ensuring that less visible or smaller pieces of information maintain credibility and provenance.
Verification and provenance: tools like the Content Authenticity Initiative support the integrity of digital heritage.
Challenges for smaller communities: ensuring accuracy and reliability in user-generated platforms (e.g., Wikipedia) is difficult but critical.

Original comments

Distinguishing authentic digital heritage from AI-generated content will become critical, in my opinion. So anything that is AI related is not necessarily a problem or a concern, but I think it's important to talk about it.
Using and strengthening the trustworthiness of cultural heritage organisations (based on the quality of their collections and their skilled staff) and position them as stewards of high quality information in an information landscape that shifts due to technological evolutions and geopolitical realities.
Especially in this current moment of erasure and polarisation, digital accessibility to fact (and story/history) is crucial.
We are working on archiving social media with care, and we feel that current web archiving does not pay enough attention to the format and nature of networked social objects. So, instead of careful selection and handling of these things, we are trawling and gathering and archiving far too much, which become unmanageable, unintelligible piles of digital web archive files that nobody looks at. Especially in this current moment of erasure and polarisation, digital accessibility to fact (and story/history) is crucial.
Etenkin pienempien yhteisöjen kohdalla esimerkiksi Wikipediaan kirjoitettujen tekstien luotettavuus ja paikkansapitävyys ovat iso kysymys.
tiedon eheyden ja alkuperän varmistaminen (AI ja esim. Content Authenticity Initiative) yms …
Ongelmat: tiedon longtail luottamus
Probably generative AI, best thing is to stay away.

AI

AI-generated summary: AI brings powerful tools for image recognition, automatic description, multilingual translation, and contextualisation, but it also poses severe risks. Training on cultural data without consent threatens ownership and sustainability, while generative AI may distort or trivialise heritage. Decision-making in AI development often occurs far from the communities whose traditions are at stake, creating alienation and possible abandonment of practices. The priority is to balance opportunities with safeguards — ensuring AI supports, rather than exploits, the cultural commons.

Opportunities for AI:
- Image recognition and facial recognition.
- Automatic description, tagging, and ontology-based annotation.
- Enhancing museum and archival contextualization of cultural heritage.
Risks associated with AI:
- Generative AI may misrepresent or flatten cultural heritage.
- Potential misuse in ways that compromise authenticity, privacy, or ethics.
AI training with heritage data: careful selection of datasets is required to ensure accuracy and prevent harmful outcomes.
Management of AI risks: balancing the use of AI for enhancing collections while avoiding negative impacts.

Original comments

Keinoälyn hyödyntämisen mahdollisuudet: kuvantunnistus, kasvojen tunnistus, automaattinen kuvailu ja asiasanoitus (ontologiat) yhdessä museaalista kontekstualisointia yms.
Tekoälyn mahdollisuudet ja uhkien hallinta
Challenge/problems: risks associated with AI
Tekoälyn tuomat mahdollisuudet kulttuuriperintöaineistojen esiintuomisessa
AI training and its uses of digital cultural heritage
Minority languages should make **and implement** expert-made rule-based linguistic tools, instead of abandoning such work.
With the advent of technology and rapid growth in functionality of AI tools, one of the major/key policy issues for discussion during Oulu Löyly can be around Copyright and Open Access Policies around the heritage content available, the usage of it in AI model trainings and the credits for the content generated by AI using this source.

Equity, representation, and ethical use

AI-generated summary: Heritage digitisation and reuse often replicate existing inequalities: dominant languages, cultures, and institutions gain visibility, while marginalised communities remain overlooked. Ethical use requires widening definitions of heritage, including living practices and local knowledge, and ensuring communities have agency over how their data is represented, accessed, and reused. Without this, digitisation risks reinforcing cultural hierarchies rather than fostering inclusion and diversity.

Bias and homogenization: online heritage often reflects Western perspectives and synthetic content, reinforcing cultural stereotypes and digital divides.
Equitable selection of heritage: decisions about what to preserve must consider diversity and fairness.
Erasure and invisibilization: marginalized groups’ digital heritage is at risk from disinformation, deep fakes, and systemic neglect.
Ethical ownership and representation: communities of origin must have agency over how their heritage is used and shared.
Indigenous rights and consultation: respecting indigenous voices and including them in decision-making processes.
Sensitive data handling: storing and sharing material safely and sustainably while preserving meaningful context; anonymization may reduce cultural value.
Ethical use of AI: AI applications should support rather than harm cultural heritage, particularly for projects requiring human judgment.
Minority language considerations: avoiding low-quality AI outputs by using properly curated, OCR-processed legacy data for language preservation and model training.
Resource and digitization gaps: lack of digitization, funding, and resources exacerbate homogenization and bias.

Original comments

The online heritage is biased and homogenized, caused by lack of digitization, resources, costs and AI simulations that tend to homogenize and digital divide from bias.
Kuka tekee valinnat digitaalisen kulttuuriperinnön säilyttämisen kohteista? Miten valinnoista saa mahdollisimman tasa-arvoisia ja moninaisuutta huomioivia?
Perpetuation of Western culture through foundational large language models and related to this predominance of synthetic data populating the internet promoting cultural stereotypes
Aineiston paljous ja sen heikkotasoinen automaattinen luokittelu ja kuratointi.
White supremacist erasing, invisibilizing, destroying digital cultural heritage of marginalized groups globally including deep fakes, disinformation, etc. This also includes losing general digital internet culture (e.g. the internet archive).
Ethical ownership, representation and digital colonialism: Communities of origin often lack agency over how their heritage is used or shared. While we have made great strides, this still needs attention.
Se, että alkuperäiskansojen oikeuksia kunnioitetaan sekä se, että heitä kuunnellaan ja otetaan mukaan päätöksiin.
Sensitiivisen ja tunnistetietoja sisältävän aineiston jakaminen uudelleenkäyttöön ja tallentaminen turvallisesti sekä kestävästi. Anonymisoitu aineisto ei ole tulevaisuudessa kulttuuriperintöalalla niin arvokasta, koska siinä on poistettu niin paljon oleellista tietoa. Aina aineistoa tallennettaessa kulttuuriperintö siirtyy uuteen kontekstiin, jossa se ei enää muokkaudu, mutta se voidaan ottaa uudelleen käyttöön, jos se on tallennettu mahdollisimman laajasti ja useista näkökulmista. Esimerkiksi videon tallentaminen käsityön tekemisestä ei onnistu, jos aineisto pitää anonymisoida.
An ethical use of artificial intelligence in some projects that require human intelligence. This will adversely affect cultural heritage sector.
- the potential (mis)use of minority languages text for ai generative language models (small corpora of bad quality gives bad results)
- legacy data should be ocr-read and made available
lack of digitization, resources, costs and AI simulations that tend to homogenize and digital divide from bias.
Kuka tekee valinnat digitaalisen kulttuuriperinnön säilyttämisen kohteista? Miten valinnoista saa mahdollisimman tasa-arvoisia ja moninaisuutta huomioivia?
Perpetuation of Western culture through foundational large language models and related to this predominance of synthetic data populating the internet promoting cultural stereotypes

Community knowledge, environmental awareness

AI-generated summary: Community-held knowledge and intangible practices are crucial for addressing sustainability challenges, from food and water to energy and land use. Yet this knowledge is increasingly at risk due to environmental degradation and loss of transmission. Digitisation must respect ownership, apply standards suitable for citizen science and community data, and recognise heritage as part of the ecological and social fabric. Scaling community-based work sustainably — both organisationally and ecologically — is essential to prevent the erosion of cultural and environmental diversity.

Community knowledge as structured data: rendering local and intangible heritage useful for research, metrics, and sustainability applications (water, energy, food, etc.).
Sustainability focus: both ecological and organizational; integrating cultural heritage with broader sustainability challenges.
Expanding understanding of heritage: documenting and sharing a wider range of cultural sites and living heritage to empower communities.
Community ownership and agency: especially regarding AI applications, to ensure heritage remains meaningful and engaged with by practitioners.
Scaling community-based work: finding ways to make initiatives sustainable and resilient, leveraging technology responsibly.
Standards and ontologies: developing frameworks to structure data and guide AI and other technological interventions.
Ecological challenges and technology impacts: ensuring new technologies like AI do not compromise sustainability or heritage integrity.

Original comments

A critical goal is to render the local knowledge and intangible heritage practices safeguarded by communities useful as structured data and metrics in the sustainability nexus, within responsible research contexts. The data can be useful in dealing with interconnected sustainability issues, related to water, energy, food, and energy, while community knowledge is progressively at risk to be lost and forgotten due to multiple factors such as environmental degradation. This may require many approaches, including applying data standards for the documentation of citizen science or community science data configured for the cultural heritage domain.
Perintöyhteisöjen omistajuuden lisääminen koskien erityisesti tekoälysovelluksia. Kulttuuriperintöä ei voi turvata tuleville sukupolville, jos toiminta ei ole vahvasti yhteisölähtöistä. Tekoälyn osalta haaste on kirkas, päätöksiä syntyy kaukana yhteisöistä, joten uhkana on myös että perinteenharjoittajat eivät tulevaisuudessa enää koe perinnettä omakseen, siksi hylkäävät sen. Ja näin maamme rikas perintödiversiteetti kuihtuu ja kuolee.
Goal: To expand the understanding of what cultural heritage is, so that we document and share a wider range of cultural heritage sites and aspects of living heritage. That way we can empower people to be aware of and to keep their heritage alive in new contexts.
For me these would relate to how making it more sustainable (both in an ecological sense and organisational one), and related how to scale community-based work
Ecological challenges and impacts combined with new technologies such as AI.
Creating standards and ontologies within this climate.

Previous page: Statistics

Next page: Joint advocacy