## 3 A 3D Data Ecosystem in Germany and across Europe  
Beyond the meta-analysis of studies on 3D infrastructures, a second part of this article is dedicated to mapping an ecosystem for 3D for cultural heritage at the European and national levels, the latter with a specific focus on a German ecosystem. The research used a qualitative methodology adopted from policy analysis including categorizing policy documents, defining fields of activity, and comparing different spatial references (c.f. [49]). Several studies analyzed EU projects on digitization for cultural heritage (recently [4; 50; 51]). In addition, the Heritage Research Hub [52] maintains an overview of previous and current projects in the field. Other studies have examined specific facets, such as EU-level policies [53] or the state of digitization in European cultural heritage institutions [54]. A recent analysis of national cultural heritage hubs was conducted by the 4 CH project, which mapped 51 national and sectoral hubs [55].  
With regard to funding, previous programs have primarily focused on technological developments. However, there has been a paradigm shift in funding politics and policies since 2010. Since then, in addition to the still extant priorities on the forming of technical infrastructures as digital research environments or repositories, other topics became increasingly important objects of funding--examples are human resource development, transnational knowledge exchange and cooperation, the enhancement of social and economic impacts, and valorization and dissemination of digital 3D objects [56]. An evaluation of the EU research funding programs until 2014 stated that the aim to \"foster the dissemination, transfer and take-up of program results\" was only limited and covered by these programs [3]. In response to that, the Horizon Europe program aims for \"an understanding of Europe's intellectual basis\" and the usage of \"new technologies [...] as they enable new and richer interpretations of our common European culture while contributing to sustainable economic growth\" [57] (p. 5). The program also aims to strengthen the development of infrastructures to foster the research, education, and publication of \"knowledge-based resources such as collections [or] archives\" [58] (p. 4), see also [59; 60]. Therefore, it is crucial to closely interlink a viewer infrastructure for 3D models with corresponding teaching, community, standardization, and innovation measures (see Table 3). Three-dimensional data infrastructures are also developing in a highly dynamic environment, especially in Europe, where numerous national, domain-specific, and international initiatives compete with each other.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline
**International (e.g., EU Level)** & **Multnational** & **Germany** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{p{142.3 pt}}{There are various standardization initiatives around 3D heritage data. CIDOC CRM is a generic metadata scheme for heritage objects, with relevant work by ARIADNE+ [61] and 4 CH [62] to adopt and extend for digital 3D heritage documentation. Concerning open metadata standards CARARE, 3D ICONS, the European 3D content task force and the ICOM Group have conducted significant work. The IIIF 3D community group [63] coordinates and facilitates open standards for viewing and 3D annotations. Quality measures for 3D content were proposed; for example, by the VIGIE Study [23]. Regarding 3D data formats, the Khronos Group [64] or Web3D, [65], for example, define overarching formats. See [24] for a recent overview. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Overview of an ecosystem on 3D data, 2023.