A metadata model and mapping approach for facilitating access to heterogeneous cultural heritage assets

  • Thomas OrgelEmail author
  • Martin Höffernig
  • Werner Bailer
  • Silvia Russegger


In the last decade, Europe has put a tremendous effort into making cultural, educational and scientific resources publicly available. Based on national or thematic aggregators, initiatives like Europeana nowadays provide a plethora of cultural resources for people worldwide. Although such massive amounts of rich cultural heritage content are available, the potential of its use for educational and scientific purposes still remains largely untapped. Much valuable content is only available in the so-called long tail, i.e. in niche resources such as specifically themed cultural heritage collections, and are difficult to access from the mainstream hubs like major search engines, social networks or online encyclopaedias. The vision of the EEXCESS project is to push high-quality content from the long tail to platforms and devices which are used every day. The realisation of such use cases requires as a basis (and in addition to the functional components) a common metadata representation and tools for mapping between the data sources’ specific data models and this common representation. In this paper, we propose a data model for such a system that combines federated search results from different cultural heritage data sources. We then propose an approach for metadata mapping, with a focus on easy configurability of mappings, which—once properly configured—can then be executed on the fly by an automatic service. We demonstrate the approach using a real-world example.


Metadata mapping Metadata enrichment Metadata crosswalk Ontology 


  1. 1.
    RDA Element analysis: Technical report 5JSC/RDA/Element analysis/Rev/2, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boeuf Le P., Doerr, M., Emil Ore, C., Stead, S.: Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model, v. 5.1.2. (2014).
  3. 3.
    Clark, J., DeRose, S.: XML path language (XPath) version 1.0. W3C recommendation 16 november 1999. W3C Recommendation (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cruz, I.F. Xiao, H., Hsu, F.: An ontology-based framework for XML semantic integration. In: IDEAS, pp. 217–226 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean, M.: Schreiber G.: OWL web ontology language: reference. W3C Recommendation, 10 February (2004).
  6. 6.
    Doerr, Martin: The CIDOC conceptual reference module: an ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Mag. 24(3), 75–92 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Europeana data model, version 5.2.4 (2013).
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    EEXCESS—Enhancing Europe’s Exchange in Cultural Educational and Scientific Resources.
  10. 10.
    Haslhofer, B., Klas, W.: A survey of techniques for achieving metadata interoperability. ACM Comput. Surv. 42(2), 7:1–7:37 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haslhofer, B., Sanderson, R., Simon, R., van de Sompel, H.: Open annotations on multimedia Web resources. Multimed. Tools Appl., 70(2):847–867 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Höffernig, M., Bailer W.: Formal metadata semantics for interoperability in the audiovisual media production process. In: Workshop on Semantic Multimedia Database Technologies (SeMuDaTe), Graz, AT, Dec (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Höffernig, M., Bailer, W., Nagler, G., Mülner, H.: Mapping audiovisual metadata formats using formal semantics. In: Declerck, T., Granitzer, M., Grzegorzek, M., Romanelli, M., Rüger, S., Stefan M., Sintek, M. (eds.) SAMT, volume 6725 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 80–94. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kondylakis, H., Doerr, M., Plexousakis, D.: Mapping language for information integration. Technical Report 385, ICS-FORTH (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, W., Bailer, W., Bürger, T., Champin, P.-A., Evain, J.-P., Malaise, V., Michel, T., Sasaki, F., Söderberg, J., Stegmaier, F., Strassner, J.: Ontology for Media Resources 1.0, W3C Recommendation February (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michal, K.: XSL transformations (XSLT) version 2.0. W3C Recommendation (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miles, A., Bechhofer, S.: SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C Recommendation (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olensky, M., Doerr, M., Gradmann, S.: Final report on EDM - FRBRoo application profile task force. Technical report, Europeana v2 project (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ORE User Guide-Primer. Oct. (2008).
  20. 20.
    Poppe, C., Martens, G., Mannens, E., Van de Walle, R.: Personal content management system: a semantic approach. J. Vis. Comuun. Image Represent. 20(2), 131–144 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanderson, R., Ciccarese, P., Van de Sompel, H.: Open annotation data model (2013).
  24. 24.
    Sanderson, R., Van de Sompel, H.: Making web annotations persistent over time. In Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on Digital libraries, JCDL ’10, pp. 1–10, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saur, K.G.: Functional requirements for bibliographic records : final report. Technical report, IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Ossenbruggen, J., Hildebrand, M., de Boer, V.: Interactive vocabulary alignment. In: Gradmann, S., Borri, F., Meghini, C., Schuldt, H.: (eds.). TPDL, volume 6966 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 296–307. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Orgel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Höffernig
    • 1
  • Werner Bailer
    • 1
  • Silvia Russegger
    • 1
  1. 1.DIGITAL - Institute for Information and Communication Technologies, JOANNEUM RESEARCHGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations