Advertisement

Ontologies for Cultural Heritage

  • Martin Doerr
Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)

Summary

In the cultural heritage domain information systems are increasingly deployed, digital representations of physical objects are produced in immense numbers and there is a strong political pressure on memory institutions to make their holdings accessible to the public in digital form. The sector splits into a set of disciplines with highly specialized fields. Due to the resulting diversity, one can hardly speak about a “domain” in the sense of “domain ontologies” [33]. On the other side, study and research of the past is highly interdisciplinary. Characteristically, archaeology employs a series of “auxiliary” disciplines, such as archaeometry, archaeomedicine, archaeobotany, archaeometallurgy, archaeoastronomy, etc., but also historical sources and social theories.

Keywords

Cultural Heritage Formal Ontology Core Ontology Facet Classification Metadata Element 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, Applications, http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/uses_applications.html.
  2. 2.
    The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, References, http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/references.html.
  3. 3.
    Conservation OnLine, Resources for Conservation Professionals http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Simple Knowledge Organisation Systems (SKOS) - home page, http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos.
  6. 6.
    STAR Project - Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources, http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/star.
  7. 7.
    Successive drafts of the model and minutes of the Harmonisation Groups meetings are available from the CIDOC CRM Web site at http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/frbr_inro.html and the FRBR Review Group Web site at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/FRBR-CRMdialogue_wg.htm.
  8. 8.
    International Organization for Standardisation, MPEG-7 Overview ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N6828 http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-7/mpeg-7.htm, 2004.
  9. 9.
    T. Baker, M. Dekkers, R. Heery, M. Patel, and G. Salokhe. What Terms Does Your Metadata Use? Application Profiles as Machine-Understandable Narratives. Journal of Digital Information 2(2), 2(No. 65), 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Bennett, Chr. Hengel-Dittrich, E. O’neill, and B. Tillett. VIAF (Virtual International Authority File): Linking Die Deutsche Bibliothek and Library of Congress Name Authority Files. In WLIC2006, Seoul Korea, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Bonora, Ch. Ossicini, and G. Raffa. From Relational Metadata Standards to CRM Ontology: a Case Study in Performing Arts. In Proc. of CIDOC2006, Gothenburg, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.M. Bower and M. et al Baca. Union List of Artist Names - A User’s Guide to the Authority Reference Tool, Version 1.0, Getty Art Information Program. G.K. Hall, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Cali. Reasoning in Data Integration Systems: Why LAV and GAV Are Siblings. In Proc. of ISMIS 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2871, pages 562–571. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Calvanese, G. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and R. Rosati. Description Logic Framework for Information Integration. In Proc. of the 6th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’98), pages 2–13., Trento, Italy, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Clauss. Epigraphic Data Bank http://www.manfredclauss.de/gb/index.html. Clauss/Slaby, 2003.
  16. 16.
    N. Crofts, M. Doerr, T. Gill, S. Stead, and M. Stiff. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Version 4.2 http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/cidoc_crm_version_4.2.doc, 2005.
  17. 17.
    A. D’Andrea and G. Ferrandino. Shared Iconographical Representations with Ontological Models. In Proc. of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, CAA2007, Berlin, Germany, 2-6 April 2007. CAA.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Doerr. Mapping of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set to the CIDOC CRM. Technical Report TR-274, FORTH-ICS, July 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Doerr. The CIDOC CRM - An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata. AI Magazine, 24(3), 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Doerr. Modelling Learning Subjects as Relationships. Intuitive Human Interface, LNAI 3359:200–214, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Doerr, J. Hunter, and C. Lagoze. Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration. Journal of Digital information, 4(1)(169), 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Doerr and D. Kalomoirakis. A Metastructure for Archeological Terminology. In Proc. of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference (CAA 2000), Ljubljana, Slovenia, April 18-21 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Doerr, G. Markakis, M. Theodoridou, and M. Tsikritzis. DIATHESIS: OCR based semantic annotation of newspapers. In Proc. of the third SEEDI International Conference: Digitization of cultural and scientific heritage, Cetinje, Montenegro, September 13-15 2007.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Doerr and A. Sarris, editors. CAA2002, The Digital Heritage of Archaeology, Proceedings of the 30th Conference, Heraklion, Crete, April 2003. Hellenic Ministry of Culture.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Doerr, K. Schaller, and M. Theodoridou. Integration of Complementary Archaeological Sources. In Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Prato, Italy, April 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ch. Fellbaum, editor. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.-Cl. Gardin. The structure of archaeological theories. Studies in Modern Archaeology Vol. 3: Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, 3:7–25, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Gorgels, L. Aroyo, Y. Wang, R. Brussee, l. Rutledge, and N. Stash. Personalized Museum Experience: The Rijksmuseum Use Case. In Proc. Museums and the Web 2007 Conference, Toronto, Canada, 2007. Archives & Museums Informatics.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Grant, editor. SPECTRUM - The Museum Documentation Standard. The Museum Documentation Association, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Grant, J. Nieuwenhuis, and T. Petersen, editors. International guidelines for museum object information: the CIDOC information categories. 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Greengrass. E-science Challenges in the World of Historical Studies, 2006.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    T.-R. Gruber. Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43((5-6)):907–928, 1995. Special issue on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. Guarino. Formal Ontology in Information Systems. In FOIS’98, pages 3–15, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Guercio, J. Barthelemy, and A. Bonardi. Authenticity Issue in Performing Arts using Live Electronics. In Proceedings of the 4th Sound and Music Computing Conference (SMC07), pages 226–229, Lefkada, Greece, 2007.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Guizzardi, H. Herre, and G. Wagner. On the General Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modeling. In Proc. Conceptual Modeling - ER 2002: 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, volume 15, pages 65–78, Tampere, Finland, 2002. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Harpring. Proper Words in Proper Places: The Thesaurus of Geographic Names. MDA Information, 2(3), 5-12., 2(3):5 12, 1997.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Heery and M. Patel. Application Profiles: Mixing and Matching Metadata Schemas. Ariadne, (Issue 25), 2000.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Hermon and F. Niccolucci. A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Typology Archaeological Research. In CAA 2002. The Digital Heritage in Archaeology. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, pages 307–310, Heraklion, Crete, April, 2002 2002. Proceedings of the 30th Conference, CAA.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    I. Hodder. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Hunter. Combining the CIDOC/CRM and MPEG-7 to Describe Multimedia in Museums. Museums and the Web, 2002.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Hunter. The Role of Information Technologies in Indigenous Knowledge Management, chapter Chapter 9. Indigenous knowledge and libraries. Australian Academic & Researchers Libraries., 2005.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    E. Hyvonen, E. Makela, M. Salminen, A. Valo, K. Viljanen, S. Saarela, M. Junnila, and S. Kettula. Museumfinland Finnish Museums on the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 3((2)):224–241, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    C. Kakali, I. Lourdi, Th. Stasinopoulou, L. Bountouri, C. Papatheodorou, M. Doerr, and M. Gergatsoulis. Integrating Dublin Core Metadata for Cultural Heritage Collections Using Ontologies. In Proceeding of 10th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, Hanoi, Vietnam, 10-13 December 2007. To appear.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    M. Keynes. Ontology-driven Event Recognition on Stories. Technical report, KMI-TR-135, Knowledge Media Institute, 2003.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    C. Lagoze. Business Unusual: How “event awareness” may breathe life into the catalog. In Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control in the New Millennium: Confronting the Challenges of Networked Resources and the Web, Washington, DC., 2000.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    C. Lagoze and J. Hunter. The ABC Ontology and Model. Journal of Digital Information 2(2), (Article No. 77), 2001.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    P. LeBoeuf. Frbr and Further. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 32((4)): 15–22, 2001.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    P. LeBoeuf. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Frbr): Hype or Cure-All. Haworth Press, Inc, 2005.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    P. LeBoeuf, Ch. Lahanier, G. Aitken, P. Sinclair, P. Lewis, and K. Martinez. Integrating Museum & Bibliographic Information: The SCULPTEUR Project. In Proc. ICHIM 2005 Conference, Paris, 2005.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J. Lehmann, S. Borgo, C. Masolo, and A. Gangemi. Causality and Causation in DOLCE. In Vieu L. (eds) Varzi, A.C., editor, Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Proceedings of the International Conference FOIS 2004, pages 273–284, Torino, November 4-6 2004. IOS Press Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    A. Magkanaraki, S. Alexaki, V. Christophides, and D. Plexousakis. Benchmarking RDF schemas for the Semantic Web. In Proc. First International Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web, number 12, pages 132–146, Sardinia, Italy, 2002. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. Makkonen and H. Ahonen-Myka. Utilizing Temporal Information in Topic Detection and Tracking. In Proc. of the 7th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2003), pages 393–404, Trondheim, Norway, 2003. Springer.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    A. Maple. Faceted Access: A Review of the Literature, 1995.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    C. Masolo, S. Borgo, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, and A. Oltramari. Ontology Library (final). IST Project 2001-33052 WonderWeb: Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. Deliverable D18., 2003.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    J. McCarthy. Programs with Common Sense, pages 403–418. Semantic Information Processing. MIT Press, Minsky, M. (ed). edition, 1969.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    C. Meghini, M. Doerr, and N. Spyratos. Sharing Co-reference Knowledge for Data Integration. DELOS Network of Excellence, 2007. In Second DELOS Conference - Working Notes. Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    A. Mikheev, M. Moens, and C. Grover. Named Entity Recognition without Gazetteers. In EACL, pages 1–8, 1999.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Boston Museum of Fine Arts. CAMEO: Conservation & Art Material Encyclopediahttp://cameo.mfa.org/.
  59. 59.
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. Telos: Representing Knowledge about Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8((4)):325–362, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    International Council of Museums ICOM. ICOM Definition of a Museum http://icom.museum/statutes.html#2, 2001.
  61. 61.
    International Council of Museums ICOM. ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums http://icom.museum/ethics.html, 2006.
  62. 62.
    M. Patel, T. Koch, M. Doerr, and Chr. Tsinaraki. D5.3.1: Semantic Interoperability in Digital Library Systems. Deliverable, Project no.507618, DELOS, A Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries, June 2005.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    JL. Peterson. Petri net theory and the modeling of systems. Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Oxford University Press, editor. Art & Architecture Thesaurus. Getty Trust Publications, 1994.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    SR. Ranganathan. A descriptive account of Colon Classification. Bangalore: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science., 1965.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    PA. Reed. CIDOC Relational Data Model. A Guide. ICOM/CIDOC, 1995.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    V. Roux and P. Blasco. Logicisme et format scd: dune epistemologie pratique a de nouvelles pratiques editoriales hermes. 2004. CNRS - editions.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    K.G Saur, editor. IFLA Study Group on the functional requirements for bibliographic records. Functional requirements for bibliographic records: final report, http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm, volume vol. 19 of New Series. UBCIM Publications, Munich, 1998.
  69. 69.
    E. Schulten, H. Akkermans, G. Botquin, M. Doerr, N. Guarino, N. Lopes, and N. Sadeh. Call for Participants: The E-CommerceProduct Classification Challenge. IEEE Intelligent System, 16((4)):86–c3., 2001.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    The SHIC Working Party. Social, Historical and Industrial Classification (2nd edition). The Museum Documentation Association, Cambridge, UK, 1993.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    B. Smith. Ontology. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, pages 155–166, 2003. Floridi, L. (ed). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    B. Smith. Against Idiosyncrasy in Ontology Development. In B. Bennett and Fellbaum C., editors, Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2006), pages 15–26, Amsterdam, 2006. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    DA. Smith and G. Crane. Disambiguating Geographic Names in a Historical Digital Library. In Proc. of the 5th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2001), pages 127–136, Darmstadt, Germany, 2001. Springer.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    D. Tudhope and C. Binding. A Case Study of a Faceted Approach to Knowledge Organisation and Retrieval. DigiCULT, Resource Discovery Technologies for the Heritage Sector, (Thematic Issue 6):2833, 2004.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    D. Tudhope, C. Binding, D. Blocks, and D. Cunliffe. Query Expansion via Conceptual Distance in Thesaurus Indexed Collections. Journal of Documentation, 62((4)):509–533, 2006. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    M. vanGendt, A. Isaac, L. vanderMeij, and S. Schloback. Semantic Web Techniques for Multiple Views on Heterogeneous Collections: A Case Study. In Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2006), pages 426–437, Alicante, Spain, 2006. Springer.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    M. Vargas-Vera and D. Celjuska. Event Recognition on News Stories and Semi-Automatic Population of an Ontology. Web Intelligence, pages 615–618, 2004.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    SM. Vinas. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Elsevier Oxford, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Doerr

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations