MODERN MİMARLIK MİRASININ BLOKZİNCİR TABANLI DOKÜMANTASYONU: DOCOMOMO odaklı kavramsal çerçeve

Abstract

Modern mimarlık mirası, dönüştürülen yapılarıyla dinamik bir karaktere sahiptir. 20. yüzyılın modern yapıları, dönüşüm süreçleri nedeniyle belgelenmiş olsalar bile kısa süre içinde güncelliğini yitiren kayıtlara konu olmaktadır. DOCOMOMO gibi örgütler konferanslar ve envanter çalışmaları aracılığıyla çok sayıda yapıyı gündeme getirseler de bilgi altyapıları merkezi, zor erişilebilir ve güncellenmesi güç sistemler olarak kalmaktadır. Bu makale, modern mimarlık mirası dokümantasyonuna ilişkin sorunları blokzincir teknolojisi temelli kavramsal bir çerçeve üzerinden ele almaktadır. Çalışma, her modern miras yapısı için kalıcı bir “miras kimliği” (heritage ID) tanımlayan ve bu kimliğe zaman içinde eklenen tüm sürümleri izlenebilir biçimde ilişkilendiren, izne dayalı (permissioned) bir blokzincir mimarisi tasarlamaktadır. Önerilen modelde, araştırmacılar ve öğrenciler “katkıcı”, ulusal komiteler ve uzmanlar “doğrulayıcı” rollerini üstlenmekte; akıllı sözleşmeler aracılığıyla kayıt ekleme, gözden geçirme ve onay süreçleri tanımlanmaktadır. Blokzincir üzerinde kriptografik özetler ve üst veriler saklanmakta, asıl belgeler dış depolama çözümlerine bağlanmaktadır. Böylece veri bütünlüğü ve değiştirilemezlik korunurken, depolama maliyetleri yönetilebilir düzeyde tutulmaktadır. Çalışma, dağınık aktörler arasında paylaştırılmış ve kolektif olarak güncellenebilir bir kayıt sisteminin olanaklarını kuramsal ve mimari açıdan tartışmakta; sonuç bölümünde önerinin literatüre katkısı ile güçlü ve zayıf yönleri eleştirel biçimde değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

• Modern mimarlık mirası
• blokzincir
• kültürel miras envanteri
• DOCOMOMO
• heritage ID

BLOCKCHAIN-BASED DOCUMENTATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE: A DOCOMOMO focused conceptual framework

Abstract

The modern architectural heritage possesses a dynamic character through its transformed structures. Even though 20th-century modern buildings are documented due to their transformation processes, they quickly become outdated records. Although organizations such as DOCOMOMO bring numerous buildings to the fore through conferences and inventory studies, their information infrastructures remain centralized, difficult to access, and challenging to update. This article addresses the problems related to the documentation of modern architectural heritage through a conceptual framework based on blockchain technology. The study designs a permissioned blockchain architecture that defines a permanent “heritage ID” for each modern heritage structure and links all versions added over time to this ID in a traceable manner. In the proposed model, researchers and students take on the role of “contributors,” while national committees and experts act as “validators”; processes for adding, reviewing, and approving records are defined through smart contracts. Cryptographic hashes and metadata are stored on the blockchain, while the actual documents are linked to external storage solutions. The study discusses the prospects of such a distributed, collectively updatable record from conceptual and architectural angles; the concluding section situates the proposal in the literature and critically weighs its strengths and limitations.

Keywords

• Modern architectural heritage
• blockchain
• cultural heritage inventory
• DOCOMOMO
• heritage ID

References

1. Aldweesh, A. (2023). Decentralized framework for cultural heritage conservation using blockchain, İçinde, 2023 3rd International Conference on Computing and Information Technology (ICCIT), Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, September 13-14, 2023, 591-596. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIT58132.2023.10273979
2. Alharby, M., Aldweesh, A., & Van Moorsel, A. (2018). Blockchain-based smart contracts: A systematic mapping study of academic research. İçinde, 2018 International Conference on Cloud Computing, Big Data and Blockchain (ICCBB), Fuzhou, November 15-17, 2018, 1-6. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8756390 adresinden 01.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
3. Androulaki, E., Barger, A., Bortnikov, V., Cachin, C., Christidis, K., De Caro, A., Enyeart, D., Ferris, C., Laventman, G., Manevich, Y., Muralidharan, S., Murthy, C., Nyugen, B., Sethi, M., Singh, G., Smith, K., Sorniotti, A., Stathakopoulou, C., Vukolić, M., Cocco, S. W., & Yellick, J. (2018). Hyperledger fabric: A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains.İçinde, Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference, Porto, April 23–26, 2018, 1-15. https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3190508.3190538 adresinden 18.10.2025’te alınmıştır.
4. Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., & King, J. L. (2018). Governance in the blockchain economy: A framework and research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(10), 1020-1034. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00518
5. Brown, R. G., Carlyle, J., Grigg, I., & Hearn, M. (2016). Corda: An introduction. R3 CEV. https://docs.r3.com/en/pdf/corda-introductory-whitepaper.pdf adresinden 19.09.2025’te alınmıştır.
6. Cameron, F., & Kenderdine, S. (Eds.). (2007). Theorizing digital cultural heritage: A critical discourse. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7. De Filippi, P., & Hassan, S. (2016). Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: From code is law to law is code. First Monday, 21(12). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i12.7113
8. Del Vacchio, E., & Bifulco, F. (2022). Blockchain in cultural heritage: Insights from literature review. Sustainability, 14(4), 2324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042324

9. Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC conceptual reference module: An ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Magazine, 24(3), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v24i3.1720
10. DOCOMOMO_Australia. (2026). DA Buildings register. https://docomomoaustralia.com.au/category/db_bld/ adresinden 12.08.2025’te alınmıştır.
11. DOCOMOMO_Austria. (2026). Bautenregister. https://www.docomomo.at/gebaeude/ adresinden 15.07.2025’te alınmıştır.
12. DOCOMOMO International. (n.d.). About the journal. DOCOMOMO Journal. https://DOCOMOMOjournal.com/index.php/journal/about adresinden 19.08.2025’te alınmıştır.
13. DOCOMOMO_Türkiye. (2026). Türkiye mimarlığında modernizmin yerel açılımları-sunulan yapılar. https://www.DOCOMOMO-tr.org/etkinlikler/poster-sunuslari/turkiye-mimarliginda-modernizmin-yerel-acilimlari-sunulan-yapilar adresinden 15.08.2025’te alınmıştır.
14. DOCOMOMO_France. (2026). Inventaire des bâtiments. https://www.docomomo.fr/inventaire-des-batiments adresinden 19.08.2025’te alınmıştır.
15. DOCOMOMO_Italia. (2026). Minimum documentation fiche. https://www.docomomoitalia.it/fiche/ adresinden 27.09.2025’te alınmıştır.
16. DOCOMOMO US. (2025). Explore the register. https://www.DOCOMOMO-us.org/explore-modern/explore-the-register adresinden 29.10.2025’te alınmıştır.
17. Espley, R., Collins, E., Marriott, P., & Thompson, D. (2018). ARCHANGEL: Trusted archives of digital public documents. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08342 adresinden 03.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
18. Galiev, A., Ishmukhametov, S., Latypov, R., Prokopyev, N., Stolov, E., Vlasov, I. (2019). ARCHAIN: A novel blockchain-based archival system. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.04225 adresinden 05.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
19. Giaccardi, E. (Ed.). (2012). Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture. London: Routledge.
20. Graves, M. (2012). Digital archaeology: The art and science of digital forensics. New Jersey: Addison-Wesley Professional.
21. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01
22. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
23. Hsiao, T.-C., & Shen, S. (2023). A study of digital architectural heritage preservation based on blockchain technology. The Journal of Engineering, 2023(1), e12213. https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12213
24. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge.
25. Isaac, A. (2013). Europeana data model primer. Europeana Foundation. https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Share_your_data/Technical_requirements/EDM_Documentation/EDM_Primer_130714.pdf adresinden 05.12.2025’te alınmıştır.
26. ICOMOS. (2017). The Madrid New Delhi document approaches to the conservation of twentieth-century cultural heritage http://www.icomos-isc20c.org/pdf/madrid-new-delhi-document-2017.pdf adresinden 06.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
27. Jokilehto, J. (1999). A history of architectural conservation (Butterworth-Heinemann series in conservation & museology). London: Routledge.
28. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.002.0001
29. Liu, X., Dong, F., Shui, W., & Geng, G. (2025). Blockchain in digital cultural heritage resources: Technological integration, consensus mechanisms, and future directions. npj Heritage Science, 13, Article 235. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-01818-4
30. Macdonald, S. (2013). Memorylands: Heritage and identity in Europe today. London: Routledge.
31. Migliorini, S., Gambini, M., & Belussi, A. (2025). A blockchain-based platform for ensuring provenance and traceability of donations for cultural heritage. Blockchain: Research and Applications, 6(3), 100278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcra.2025.100278
32. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Bitcoin.org. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf adresinden 08.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
33. Ongaro, D., & Ousterhout, J. (2014). In search of an understandable consensus algorithm. İçinde, 2014 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Philadelphia, June 19–20, 2014, 305-319. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc14/technical-sessions/presentation/ongaro adresinden 06.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
34. O'Sullivan, J. (2025). Blockchain for the arts and humanities. Future Humanities, 4(1), e70020. https://doi.org/10.1002/fhu2.70020
35. Parry, R. (2007). Recoding the museum: Digital heritage and the technologies of change. London: Routledge.
36. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
37. Riegl, A. (1982). The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origin (K. W. Forster & D. Ghirardo, Trans.). Oppositions, 25, 20–51.
38. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.
39. Stubbs, J. H. (2009). Time honored: A global view of architectural conservation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
40. Szabo, N. (1997). Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, 2(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548
41. Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind Bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. New York: Penguin.
42. Tasca, P., & Tessone, C. J. (2019). A taxonomy of blockchain technologies: Principles of identification and classification. Ledger, 2, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.5195/ledger.2019.140
43. Tostões, A., Ferreira, Z., & Alves, J. G. (2016). MoMove: The docomomo Virtual Exhibition. Docomomo Journal, (54), 86–88. Retrieved from https://docomomojournal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/394 adresinden 15.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
44. Trček, D. (2022). Cultural heritage preservation by using blockchain technologies. Heritage Science, 10, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-021-00643-9
45. UNESCO. (2012). Managing cultural World Heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/document/117412 adresinden 25.10.2025’te alınmıştır.
46. Weibel, S., & Koch, T. (2005). The Dublin Core metadata initiative: Mission, current activities, and future directions. D-Lib Magazine, 11(12). https://www.dlib.org/dlib/december00/weibel/12weibel.html adresinden 16.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
47. White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
48. Wood, G. (2025). Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger shanghai version, Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, 151, 1-32. https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf adresinden 16.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
49. Xu, X., Weber, I., & Staples, M. (2019). Architecture for blockchain applications. Cham: Springer.
50. Zhang, W., Taib, N., & Taib, M. (2025). Reimagining cultural heritage conservation through VR, metaverse, and digital twins: An AI and blockchain-based framework. PLOS ONE, 20(11), e0335943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335943
51. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends. İçinde, 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Honolulu, June 25-30, 2017, 557-564. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8029379 adresinden 19.11.2025’te alınmıştır.
52. Zorich, D. M. (2012). Transitioning to a digital world: Art history, its research centers, and digital scholarship. https://bmmweb.blob.core.windows.net/kressmedia/media/kress/media/resources/sponsored%20research/zorich_transitioningdigitalworld.pdf adresinden 28.11.2025’te alınmıştır.