International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 63–69 | Cite as

Representing gazetteers and period thesauri in four-dimensional space–time

Article

Abstract

Gazetteers, i.e., lists of place-names, enable having a global vision of places of interest through the assignment of a point, or a region, to a place name. However, such identification of the location corresponding to a place name is often a difficult task. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the two sets, places and names, because of name variants, different names for the same place and homonymy; the location corresponding to a place name may vary in time, changing its extension or even the position; and, in general, there is the imprecision deriving from the association of a concept belonging to language (the place name) to a precise concept (the spatial location). Also for named time periods, e.g., early Bronze Age, which are of current use in archaeology, the situation is similar: they depend on the location to which they refer as the same period may have different time-spans in different locations. The present paper avails of a recent extension of the CIDOC CRM called CRMgeo, which embeds events in a spatio-temporal 4-dimensional framework. The paper uses concepts from CRMgeo and introduces extensions to model gazetteers and period thesauri. This approach enables dealing with time-varying location appellations as well as with space-varying period appellations on a robust basis. For this purpose a refinement/extension of CRMgeo is proposed and a discretization of space and time is used to approximate real space–time extents occupied by events. Such an approach solves the problem and suggests further investigations in various directions.

Keywords

Gazetteer Period thesaurus CIDOC CRM 4-Dimensional space–time 

References

  1. 1.
    http://www.cidoc-crm.org. Accessed 15 June 2015
  2. 2.
    Doerr, M., Hiebel, G.: CRMgeo: linking the CIDOC CRM to GeoSPARQL through a spatiotemporal refinement. Technical Report: ICS-FORTH/TR-435. http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMgeo/docs/TR435-CRMgeo (2013). Accessed 15 June 2015
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Niccolucci, F., Hermon, S., Doerr, M.: The formal logical foundations of archaeological ontologies. In: Barcelo, J.A., Bogdanovic, I. (eds.) Mathematics and Archaeology, pp. 86–99. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kenny, J., Richards, JD.: Pathways to a shared European information infrastructure for cultural heritage. Internet Archaeology 18/6 (2005). (Section 4, Fig. 2)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binding, C.: Implementing archaeological time periods using CIDOC CRM and SKOS. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvnen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pp. 273–287. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    http://www.geonames.org. Accessed 15 June 2015
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    http://pleiades.stoa.org. Accessed 15 June 2015
  10. 10.
    Klir, G.J., Bo, Y.: Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Niccolucci, F., D’Andrea, A., Crescioli, M.: Archaeological applications of fuzzy databases. In: Stani, Z., Veljanovski, T. (eds.) Computing Archaeology for Understanding the Past. CAA 2000. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 28th Conference, Ljubljana, April 2000 (BAR International Series 931). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 107–116 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holmen, J., Ore, C.-E.: Deducing event chronology in a cultural heritage documentation system. In: Frischer, B., Webb Crawford, J., Koller, D. (eds.) Making History Interactive. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Proceedings of the 37th International Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, United States of America, March 22–26 (BAR International Series S2079), pp. 122–129. Archaeopress, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomsen, CJ.: Kortfattet udsigt over midesmaeker og oldsager fra Nordens oldtid. In: Rafn, C.C. (ed.) Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed (in Danish), pp. 27–87. Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab, Copenhagen (1836)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Todd, I.A.: Kalavasos-Tenta Guide, p. 9. The Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Given, M., Knapp, A.B.: The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project, p. 30. UCLA, Los Angeles (2003). (Table 3.1)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peltenburg, E.J. (ed): Early Society in Cyprus. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doerr, M., Plexousakis, D., Kopaka, K., Bekiari, C.: SupportingChronological reasoning in archaeology. In: Niccolucci, F., Hermon, S.(eds.) Beyond the Artifact Digital Interpretation of the Past—Proceedings of CAA2004 Prato 1317 April 2004, pp. 13–17. Archaeolingua, Budapest (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    http://perio.do. Accessed 15 June 2015
  21. 21.
    Bettini, C., Dyreson, C.E., Evans, W.S., Snodgrass, R.T., Wang, X.S.: A Glossary of time granularity concepts. In: Etzion, O., Jajodia, S., Sripada, S. (eds.) Temporal Databases Research and Practice, pp. 406–413. Springer, Berlin (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: An overview of OntoClean. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 151–171. Springer, Berlin (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Niccolucci, F., Hermon, S.: Time, chronology and classification. In: Barcelo, J.A., Bogdanovic, I. (eds.) Mathematics and Archaeology, pp. 265–279. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Belussi, A., Migliorini, S.: A framework for managing temporal dimensions in archaeological data. In: 21st International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME), pp. 81–90. IEEE Explore (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PINPratoItaly
  2. 2.STARCThe Cyprus InstituteNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations