International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 71–78 | Cite as

CRMba a CRM extension for the documentation of standing buildings

  • Paola Ronzino
  • Franco Niccolucci
  • Achille Felicetti
  • Martin Doerr
Article

Abstract

Exploring the connections between successive phases and overlapping layers from different ages in an ancient building is paramount for its understanding and study. Archaeologists and cultural heritage experts are always eager to unveil the hidden relations of an archaeological building to reconstruct its history and for its interpretation. This paper presents CRMba, a CIDOC CRM extension developed to facilitate the discovery and the interpretation of archaeological resources through the definition of new concepts required to describe the complexity of historic buildings. The CRMba contributes to solving the datasets interoperability issue by exploiting the use of the CIDOC CRM to overcome data fragmentation, to investigate the semantics of building components, of functional spaces and of the construction phases of historic buildings and complexes, making explicit their physical and topological relations through time and space. The approach used for the development of the CRMba makes the model valid for the documentation of different kinds of buildings, across periods, styles and conservation state.

Keywords

Ontology Buildings archaeology Semantics CIDOC CRM 

References

  1. 1.
    Le Boeuf, P., Doerr, M., Ore, C.E., Stead, S.: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2012). Available at http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html. Accessed June 2015
  2. 2.
    Ronzino, P.: CIDOC CRMBA A CRM extension for buildings archaeology information modeling, Unpublished PhD Thesis (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morris, R.K.: The Archaeology of Buildings. Tempus, Stroud (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schuller, M.: Building Archaeology. Icomos, Munich (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brogiolo, G.P.: Archeologia dell’edilizia storica. New Press, Como (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parenti, R.: Archeologia dell’architettura, Dizionario di Archeologia. Temi, concetti e metodi, pp. 39–43 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris, E.C.: Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carandini, A.: Storie della Terra. Manuale di scavo archeologico. Einaudi, Torino (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ICCD form MA-CA (2015): Available at http://www.iccd.beniculturali.it/index.php?it/251/beni-archeologici. Accessed June 2015
  10. 10.
    MIDAS Heritage: The UK Historic Environment Data Standard, v1.1 (2012). Available at http://fishforum.weebly.com/midas-heritage-standard.html. Accessed June 2015
  11. 11.
    SDAPA—Schéma Documentaire Appliqué au Patrimoine et ál’Architecture (2010). Available at: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dp/schemaDAPA/operationnel/index.html. Accessed June 2015
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    3D-ICONS (2013): Available at http://www.carare.eu/swe/Resources/CARARE-Documentation/CARARE-2.0-schema. Accessed June 2015
  14. 14.
    LIDO (2010): Available at http://www.lido-schema.org/schema/v1.0/lido-v1.0-schema-listing.html. Accessed June 2015
  15. 15.
    CHICEBERG (2012): Available at http://eu-chic.eu/index.php/news/entry/chiceberg. Accessed June 2015
  16. 16.
    Ronzino, P., Amico, N., Niccolucci, F.: Assessment and comparison of metadata schemas for architectural heritage. CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varzi, A.C.: Mereology, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. CSLI, Standford (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Varzi, A.C.: Spatial reasoning and ontology: parts, wholes, and location. In: Aiello et al. M. (eds.) Handbook of Spatial Logic, pp. 945–1038. Berlin, Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varzi, A.C.: Parts, wholes, and part-whole relations: The prospects of mereotopology. Data Knowl. Eng. 20, 259–286 (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doerr, M., Plexousakis, D., Bekiari, C.: A metamodel for part-whole relationships for reasoning on missing parts and recostrunction, In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 412–425 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doerr, M., Hiebel, G., CRMgeo: Linking the CIDOC CRM to GeoSPARQL through a spatiotemporal refinement, Technical Report: ICS-FORTH/TR-435 (2013). Available at http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMgeo/docs/TR435-CRMgeo. Accessed June 2015
  22. 22.
    Doerr, M. et al.: CRMsci: the Scientific Observation Model (2014). Available at http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMsci/docs/CRMsci1.2.2. Accessed June 2015
  23. 23.
    CRMarchaeo.: Available at http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMarchaeo_v1.2.1.rdfs. Accessed June 2015
  24. 24.
    The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Available at http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/. Accessed June 2015
  25. 25.
    Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: Shaw, R., Bransford, J. (eds.) Perceiving, Acting and Knowing, pp. 67–82. New York: Wiley (1977)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harris, E.C., Parenti, R.: The stratigraphy of standing structures. Archeologia dell’Architettura 8, 9–16 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brogiolo, G.P.: Dall’archeologia dell’architettura all’archeologia della complessitá. Pyranae 1(38), 7–38 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cattani, M., Fiorini, A.: Topologia: identificazione, significato e valenza nella ricerca archeologica. Archeologia e Calcolatori 15, 317–340 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medri, M.: Manuale di rilievo archeologico. Laterza, Bari (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guizzardi, G.: The problem of transitivity of part-whole relations in conceptual modeling revised, CAiSE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Ronzino
    • 1
  • Franco Niccolucci
    • 1
  • Achille Felicetti
    • 1
  • Martin Doerr
    • 2
  1. 1.PINPratoItaly
  2. 2.ICS FORTHHeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations