Rich Semantics for Interactive 3D Models of Cultural Artifacts

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 672)

Abstract

The automated processing of 3D models of cultural artifacts can be significantly improved with formally defined high-level structured descriptors. Despite the large number of multimedia ontologies, however, the semantic enrichment of 3D models still has open issues. Many 3D ontologies are semi-structured only, cover a very narrow knowledge domain, do not provide comprehensive coverage for geometric primitives, or do not exploit the full expressivity of the implementation language. This paper presents the first attempt to transform the entire XML Schema-based vocabulary of the latest version of the X3D ISO standard (ISO/IEC 19775, 19776, and 19777) to OWL 2, complemented by fundamental concepts and roles of the 3D modeling industry not covered by X3D. The result of this effort is the most comprehensive formally grounded 3D multimedia ontology to date with standard alignment, which can be used for the representation, annotation, and efficient indexing and retrieval of 3D models.

Keywords

Multimedia ontology X3D 3D annotation 3D model retrieval Cultural heritage 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim, H., Kang, Y., Cha, M., Han, S.: Cluster rendering on large high-resolution multi-displays using X3DOM and HTML. Multimed. Syst. (2015). doi:10.1007/s00530-015-0495-0
  2. 2.
    Callet, P.: 3D reconstruction from 3D cultural heritage models. In: Ioannides, M., Quak, E. (eds.) 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage. LNCS, vol. 8355, pp. 135–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44630-0_10 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sfikas, K., Pratikakis, I., Koutsoudis, A., Savelonas, M., Theoharis, T.: Partial matching of 3D cultural heritage objects using panoramic views. Multimed. Tools Appl. 75(7), 3693–3707 (2016). doi:10.1007/s11042-014-2069-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mallik, A., Chaudhury, S.: Acquisition of multimedia ontology: an application in preservation of cultural heritage. Int. J. Multimed. Inf. Retr. 1(4), 249–262 (2012). doi:10.1007/s13735-012-0021-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu, C.-H., Groza, T., Hunter, J.: Reasoning on crowd-sourced semantic annotations to facilitate cataloguing of 3D artefacts in the cultural heritage domain. In: Alani, H. (ed.) ISWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8219, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41338-4_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, X., Lv, T., Wang, S., Wang, Z.: An ontology and SWRL based 3D model retrieval system. In: Li, H., Liu, T., Ma, W.-Y., Sakai, T., Wong, K.-F., Zhou, G. (eds.) AIRS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4993, pp. 335–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68636-1_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber, E., Smith, T.J.: Linked Open Greek Pottery. In: 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, pp. 205–214. Oxuniprint, Oxford (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flotyński, J., Walczak, K.: Conceptual knowledge-based modeling of interactive 3D content. Vis. Comput. 31(10), 1287–1306 (2015). doi:10.1007/s00371-014-1011-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decourselle, J., Vennesland, A., Aalberg, T., Duchateau, F., Lumineau, N.: A novel vision for navigation and enrichment in cultural heritage collections. In: Morzy, T., Valduriez, P., Bellatreche, L. (eds.) ADBIS 2015. CCIS, vol. 539, pp. 488–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23201-0_49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behr, J., Eschler, P., Jung, Y., Zöllner, M.: X3DOM – a DOM-based HTML5/X3D integration model. In: 14th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, pp. 127–135. ACM Press, New York (2009). doi:10.1145/1559764.1559784
  11. 11.
    Brutzman, D., Blais, C., Harney, J.: X3D fundamentals. In: Geroimenko, V., Chen, C. (eds.) Visualizing Information Using SVG and X3D. Springer, London (2005). doi:10.1007/1-84628-084-2_3 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalogerakis, E., Christodoulakis, S., Moumoutzis, N. Coupling ontologies with graphics content for knowledge-driven visualization. In: IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 43–50. IEEE, New York (2006). doi:10.1109/VR.2006.41
  13. 13.
    Petit, M., Boccon-Gibod, H., Mouton, C.: Evaluating the X3D schema with semantic web tools. In: 17th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, pp. 131–138. ACM Press, New York. doi:10.1145/2338714.2338737
  14. 14.
    Yu, D., Hunter, J.: X3D fragment identifiers—extending the open annotation model to support semantic annotation of 3D cultural heritage objects over the Web. Int. J. Herit. Dig. Era 3, 579–596 (2014). doi:10.1260/2047-4970.3.3.579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Best practice recipes for publishing RDF vocabularies. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/. Accessed 25 July 2016
  16. 16.
    Simperl, E.: Reusing ontologies on the Semantic Web: a feasibility study. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(10), 905–925 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.datak.2009.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sikos, L.F.: A novel approach to multimedia ontology engineering for automated reasoning over audiovisual LOD datasets. In: Nguyen, N.T., Trawiński, B., Fujita, H., Hong, T.-P. (eds.) ACIIDS 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9621, pp. 3–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gruber, T.R.: Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In: Guarino, N., Poli, R. (eds.) Formal ontology in conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Deventer (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koenderink, N.J.J.P., Top, J.L., van Vliet, L.J.: Supporting knowledge-intensive inspection tasks with application ontologies. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 64(10), 974–983 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasilakis, G., Garcia-Rojas, A., Papaleo, L., Catalano, C.E., Spagnuolo, M., Robbiano, F., Vavalis, M., Pitikakis, M.: A common ontology for multi-dimensional shapes. In: 1st International Workshop on Multimedia Annotation and Retrieval Enabled by Shared Ontologies, pp. 31–43 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walczak, K., Flotyński, J.: On-demand generation of 3D content based on semantic meta-scenes. In: De Paolis, L.T., Mongelli, A. (eds.) AVR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8853, pp. 313–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13969-2_24 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orgel, T., Höffernig, M., Bailer, W., Russegger, S.: A metadata model and mapping approach for facilitating access to heterogeneous cultural heritage assets. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 15(2), 189–207 (2015). doi:10.1007/s00799-015-0138-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations