Advertisement

Cultural Heritage and the Semantic Web

  • V. R. Benjamins
  • J. Contreras
  • M. Blázquez
  • J. M. Dodero
  • A. Garcia
  • E. Navas
  • F. Hernandez
  • C. Wert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3053)

Abstract

Online cultural archives represent vast amounts of interesting and useful information. During the last decades huge amounts of literature works have been scanned to provide better access to Humanities researchers and teachers. Was the problem 20 years ago one of scarceness of information (precious originals only to consult in major libraries), today’s problem is that of information overload: many databases online and many CD collections are available; each with their own search forms and attributes. This makes it cumbersome for users to find relevant information. In this paper, we describe a case study of how Semantic Web Technologies can be used to disclose cultural heritage information in a scalable way. We present an ontology of Humanities, a semi-automatic tool for annotation, and an application to exploit the annotated content. This tool, positioned somewhere in the middle, between a basic editor and a fully automatic wrapper, helps annotators performing heavy knowledge acquisition tasks in a more efficient and secure way.

Keywords

Cultural Heritage Resource Description Framework Domain Ontology Source Text Rule Engine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D.: Editorial: Problem-solving methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 49(4), 305–313 (1998); Special issue on Problem-Solving MethodsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D., Decker, S., Gomez-Perez, A. (KA)2: Building ontologies for the internet: a mid term report. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51(3), 687–712 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borst, W.N.: Construction of Engineering Ontologies. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CBL. Common business library (1999), http://www.commerceone.com/solutions/default.html
  5. 5.
    Contreras et al.: D31: Annotation Tools and Services, Esperonto Project: http://www.esperonto.net
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Decker, S., Maurer, F.: Editorial: organizational memory and knowledge management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51(3), 511–516 (1999); Special Issue on Organizational Memory and Knowledge ManagementCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, S., Erdmann, M., Fensel, D., Studer, R.: Ontobroker: Ontology Based Access to Distributed and Semi-Structured Information. In: Meersman, R., et al. (eds.) Semantic Issues in Multimedia Systems. Proceedings of DS-8, pp. 351–369. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodero, J.M., Contreras, J., Benjamins, R.: Test Case Ontology Specification Cultural Tour. D9.2, Esperonto Project, http://www.esperonto.net
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Rice, J.: The ontolingua server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46(6), 707–728 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, http://www.ifla.org
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5/6), 625–640 (1995); Special issue on The Role of Formal Ontology in the Information TechnologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A.T., Wielinga, B.J.: Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46(2/3), 183–292 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Protete 2000, tool: http://protege.stanford.edu
  20. 20.
    RDF. Resource description framework (1998), http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax
  21. 21.
    RDFS. Resource description framework schema (1998), http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-rdf-schema-19980814.
  22. 22.
    Schreiber, A.T., Akkermans, J.M., Anjewierden, A.A., de Hoog, R., Shadbolt, N.R., Van de Velde, W., Wielinga, B.J.: Knowledge Engineering and Management, The Common KADS methodology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    SUO Standard Upper Ontology, http://suo.ieee.org/
  24. 24.
    Swartout, W., Tate, A.: Coming to terms with ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 14(1), 19–19 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods, and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2), 93–155 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waterman, D.A., Hayes-Roth, F., Lenat, D.B.: Building Expert Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading (1983)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    XML. Extensible markup language (1998), http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-xml-971208.
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. R. Benjamins
    • 1
  • J. Contreras
    • 1
  • M. Blázquez
    • 1
  • J. M. Dodero
    • 3
  • A. Garcia
    • 2
  • E. Navas
    • 2
  • F. Hernandez
    • 2
  • C. Wert
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligent Software Components, S.A. 
  2. 2.Residenca de Estudiantes 
  3. 3.Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 

Personalised recommendations