skip to main content
research-article

Enhancing Semantic Expressivity in the Cultural Heritage Domain: Exposing the Zeri Photo Archive as Linked Open Data

Published:31 July 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Describing cultural heritage objects from the perspective of Linked Open Data (LOD) is not a trivial task. The process often requires not only choosing pertinent ontologies but also developing new models that preserve the most information and express the semantic power of cultural heritage data. Indeed, data managed in archives, libraries, and museums are complex objects themselves, which require a deep reflection on even nonconventional conceptual models. Starting from these considerations, this article describes a research project: to expose the vastness of one of the most important collections of European cultural heritage, the Zeri Photo Archive, as LOD. We describe here the steps we undertook to this end. First, we developed two ad hoc ontologies for describing all issues not completely covered by existent models (the F Entry and the OA Entry Ontology). Then we mapped into RDF the descriptive elements used in the current Zeri Photo Archive catalog, converting into CIDOC CRM and into the two new aforementioned models the source data based on the Italian content standards Scheda F (photography entry, in English) and Scheda OA (work of art entry, in English). Finally, we created an RDF dataset of the output of the mapping that could show a result capable of demonstrating the complexity of our scenario.

References

  1. Murtha Baca. 2006. Cataloguing Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Murtha Baca and Sherman Clarke. 2007. FRBR and works of art, architecture, and material culture. In Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval Tools, A. Taylor (Ed.). Libraries Unlimited, Westport, CT, 227–242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lina Bountouri and Manolis Gergatsoulis. 2011a. Mapping encoded archival description to CIDOC-CRM. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Digital Information Management. 8--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lina Bountouri and Manolis Gergatsoulis. 2011b. The semantic mapping of archival metadata to the CIDOC-CRM ontology. Journal of Archival Organization 9, 3--4, 174--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Karen Coyle. 2016. FRBR, Before and After: A Look at Our Bibliographic Models. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Marilena Daquino and Francesca Tomasi. 2015. Historical Context (HiCO): A conceptual model for describing context information of cultural heritage objects. In Metadata and Semantics Research: Communication in Computer and Information Science 544, E. Garoufallou, R. J. Hartley, and P. Gaitanou (Eds.). Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 424--436. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24129-6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Victor De Boer, Jan Wielemaker, Judith van Gent, Michiel Hildebrand, Antoine Isaac, Jacco van Ossenbruggen, and Guus Schreiber. 2012. Supporting Linked Data production for cultural heritage institutes: The Amsterdam Museum case study. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7295. Springer, 733--747. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30284-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Martin Doerr. 2010. The Europeana Data Model (EDM) mapping to CIDOC-CRM. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from http://old.cidoc-crm.org/docs/CRM-EDM_FRBR.ppt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Europeana. 2016. Definition of the Europeana Data Model v5.2.7. Retrieved May 27, 2017, from http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Share_your_data/Technical_requirements/EDM_Documentation/EDM_Definition_v5.2.7_042016.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Riccardo Falco, Aldo Gangemi, Silvio Peroni, and Fabio Vitali. 2014. Modelling OWL ontologies with Graffoo. In The Semantic Web: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8798. Springer, 320--325. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11955-7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Achille Felicetti, Tiziana Scarselli, Maria Letizia Mancinelli, and Franco Niccolucci. 2013. Mapping ICCD archaeological data to CIDOC-CRM: The RA schema. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Practical Experiences with CIDOC-CRM and Its Extensions. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1117/paper2.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mariano Fernández Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Natalia Juristo. 1997. METHONTOLOGY: From ontological art towards ontological engineering. In Proceedings of the AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium. 33--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ciro Mattia Gonano, Francesca Mambelli, Silvio Peroni, Francesca Tomasi, and Fabio Vitali. 2014. Zeri e LODE: Extracting the Zeri Photo Archive to Linked Open Data: Formalizing the conceptual model. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’14). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 289--298. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2014.6970182 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. 2009. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Antoine Isaac, William Waites, Jeff Young, and Marcia Zeng. 2011. Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-vocabdataset/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Patrick Le Boeuf, Martin Doerr, Christian Emil Ore, and Stephen Stead. 2015. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/cidoc_crm_version_6.2.1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Timothy Lebo, Satya Sahoo, and Deborah McGuinness. 2013. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Julia Marden, Carolyn Li-Madeo, Noreen Whysel, and Jeffrey Edelstein. 2013. Linked Open Data for cultural heritage: Evolution of an information technology. In Proceedings of the 31stACM International Conference on Design of Communication. ACM, New York, NY, 107--112. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2507065.2507103 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Boris Motik, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Bijan Parsia. 2012. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (Second Edition). W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michele Pasin and John Bradley. 2015. Factoid-based prosopography and computer ontologies: Towards an integrated approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 30, 1, 86--97. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt037 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Silvio Peroni. 2017. A simplified agile methodology for ontology development. In Proceedings of the 13th OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop and the 5th OWL Reasoner Evaluation Workshop (OWLED-ORE’16). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54627-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Silvio Peroni and David Shotton. 2012. FaBiO and CiTO: Ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 17, 33--43. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Silvio Peroni, David Shotton, and Fabio Vitali. 2012. Scholarly publishing and the Linked Data: Describing roles, statuses, temporal and contextual extents. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Semantic Systems (i-Semantics’12). ACM, New York, NY, 9--16. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2362499.2362502 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Inge Reist, David Farneth, R. Samuel Stein, and Remigius Weda. 2015. An Introduction to PHAROS: Aggregating Free Access to 31 Million Digitized Images and Counting. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/cidoc/BoardMeetings/CIDOC_PHAROS_Farneth-Stein-Weda_1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Max Schmachtenberg, Chris Bizer, and Heiko Paulheim. 2014. State of the LOD Cloud 2014 (Version 0.4). Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://linkeddatacatalog.dws.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/state/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Richard P. Smiraglia, Pat Riva, and Maja Umer. 2013. The FRBR Family of Conceptual Models: Toward a Linked Bibliographic Future. Routledge, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Pedro Szekely, Craig A. Knoblock, Fengyu Yang, Xuming Zhu, Eleanor E. Fink, Rachel Allen, and Georgina Goodlander. 2013. Connecting the Smithsonian American Art Museum to the Linked Data cloud. In The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7882. Springer, 593--607. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mike Uschold. 1995. Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. 74--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Seth Van Hooland and Ruben Verborgh. 2014. Linked Data for Libraries, Archives and Museums: How to Clean, Link and Publish Your Metadata. American Library Association, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Enhancing Semantic Expressivity in the Cultural Heritage Domain: Exposing the Zeri Photo Archive as Linked Open Data

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
          Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage   Volume 10, Issue 4
          October 2017
          126 pages
          ISSN:1556-4673
          EISSN:1556-4711
          DOI:10.1145/3129537
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 31 July 2017
          • Accepted: 1 January 2017
          • Revised: 1 September 2016
          • Received: 1 April 2016
          Published in jocch Volume 10, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader