Enhancing Semantic Expressivity in the Cultural Heritage Domain

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.

[1]  Antoine Isaac,et al.  Supporting Linked Data Production for Cultural Heritage Institutes: The Amsterdam Museum Case Study , 2012, ESWC.

[2]  Raphaël Troncy,et al.  The Semantic Web: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events , 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  Martin L. King,et al.  Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies , 1995 .

[4]  Silvio Peroni,et al.  A Simplified Agile Methodology for Ontology Development , 2016, OWLED.

[5]  Silvio Peroni,et al.  FaBiO and CiTO: Ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations , 2012, J. Web Semant..

[6]  Boris Motik,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: structural specification and functional-style syntax , 2008 .

[7]  F. K. Cylke INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS , 1979 .

[8]  Amanda K Sprochi Linked Data for Libraries, Archives and Museums: How to Clean, Link and Publish Your Metadata, by Seth Van Hooland and Ruben Verbough , 2016, Medical reference services quarterly.

[9]  Lyn Condron,et al.  Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records , 2004 .

[10]  Patrick Lavey Linked Data for Libraries, Archives and Museums: How to Clean, Link, and Publish Your Metadata , 2017 .

[11]  Antoine Isaac,et al.  Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets. , 2011 .

[12]  Noreen Whysel,et al.  Linked open data for cultural heritage: evolution of an information technology , 2013, SIGDOC '13.

[13]  Richard P. Smiraglia,et al.  The FRBR Family of Conceptual Models: Toward a Linked Bibliographic Future , 2014 .

[14]  Manolis Gergatsoulis,et al.  The Semantic Mapping of Archival Metadata to the CIDOC CRM Ontology , 2011 .

[15]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  METHONTOLOGY: From Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering , 1997, AAAI 1997.

[16]  Patricia Harpring,et al.  Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images , 2006 .

[17]  Oscar Corcho,et al.  The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data , 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[18]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Connecting the Smithsonian American Art Museum to the Linked Data Cloud , 2013, ESWC.

[19]  Ed Jones FRBR, Before and After: A Look at Our Bibliographic Models , 2017 .

[20]  James Cheney,et al.  PROV-O: The PROV ontology:W3C recommendation 30 April 2013 , 2013 .

[21]  Maria Letizia Mancinelli,et al.  Mapping ICCD archaeological data to CIDOC-CRM: the RA Schema , 2013, CRMEX@TPDL.

[22]  María Poveda-Villalón,et al.  OWL: - Experiences and Directions - Reasoner Evaluation - 13th International Workshop, OWLED 2016, and 5th International Workshop, ORE 2016, Bologna, Italy, November 20, 2016, Revised Selected Papers , 2017, OWLED.

[23]  Karen Coyle FRBR, Before and After: A Look at Our Bibliographic Models , 2015 .

[24]  Peroni Silvio,et al.  SAMOD: an agile methodology for the development of ontologies , 2016 .

[25]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  Modelling OWL Ontologies with Graffoo , 2014, ESWC.

[26]  Marie-France Plassard,et al.  Functional requirements for bibliographic records : final report , 2013 .

[27]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  PROV-O: The PROV Ontology , 2013 .

[28]  Manolis Gergatsoulis,et al.  Mapping Encoded Archival Description to CIDOC CRM , 2011 .

[29]  Madely du Preez Understanding FRBR: What It is and How It will Affect Our Retrieval Tools , 2008 .

[30]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  Zeri e LODE. Extracting the Zeri photo archive to linked open data: formalizing the conceptual model , 2014, IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries.

[31]  John Bradley,et al.  Factoid-based prosopography and computer ontologies: towards an integrated approach , 2015, Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit..

[32]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  Scholarly publishing and linked data: describing roles, statuses, temporal and contextual extents , 2012, I-SEMANTICS '12.

[33]  Ruben Verborgh,et al.  Linked Data for Libraries, Archives and Museums: How to Clean, Link and Publish Your Metadata , 2014 .