Text Encoding Initiative Semantic Modeling. A Conceptual Workflow Proposal

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 612)


In this paper we present a proposal for the XML TEI semantic enhancement, through an ontological modelization based on a three level approach: an ontological generalization of the TEI schema; an intensional semantics of TEI elements; an extensional semantics of the markup content. A possible TEI enhancement will be the result of these three levels dialogue and combination. We conclude with the ontology mapping issue and a Linked Open Data suggestion for digital libraries based on XML TEI semantically enriched model.


Ontology TEI XML Interoperability LOD Digital libraries 


All web sites were last visited on 4 December 2015

  1. 1.
    Kruk, S.R., McDaniel, B.: Semantic Digital Libraries. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cover, R.: XML and semantic transparency. Technology report, CoverPages (1998).
  3. 3.
    Burnard, L.: Resolving the Durand Conundrum. J. Text Encoding Initiative (6) (2013). doi: 10.4000/jtei.842
  4. 4.
    Renear, A., Sperberg-McQueen C.M., Huitfeldt C.: Towards a semantics for XML markup. In: Furuta, R., Maletic, J.I., Munson, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering, DocEng 2002. ACM Press, McLean (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Renear, A., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Huitfeldt, C.: Meaning and interpretation of markup. In: Markup Languages: Theory & Practice vol. 2 no. 3. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tummarello G., Morbidoni C., Pierazzo E.: Toward textual encoding based on RDF. In: ELPUB2005. Challenges for the Digital Content Chain: Proceedings of the 9th ICCC International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Peeters Publishing, Leuven (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peroni S., Gangemi A., Vitali F.: Dealing with markup semantics. In: Ghidini C., Ngonga Ngomo, A., Lindstaedt, S., Pellegrini, T. (eds.) Proceedings the 7th International Conference on Semantic Systems. ACM, New York (2011). doi: 10.1145/2063518.2063533
  8. 8.
    Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Huitfeldt, C.: What is transcription? Literary Linguist. Comput. 23(3), 295–310 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Huitfeldt C., Marcoux Y.: What is transcription? Part 2. Talk given at Digital Humanities 2009, College Park, Maryland (2009). Slides on the Web at
  10. 10.
    Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Huitfeldt C., Marcoux Y.: Transcriptional implicature. A contribution to markup semantics. Paper given at Digital Humanities 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Berners-Lee, T.: The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE Intell. Syst. J. 21, 96–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ivezic, N., Marjanovic, Z.: Mapping XML schema to OWL. In: Doumeingts, G., Müller, J., Morel, G., Vallespir, B. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability, pp. 243–252. Spinger, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    TEI Consortium, (eds.) TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange,
  14. 14.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: An overview of OntoClean. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 201–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bedini, I, Gardarin G., Nguyen B.: Transforming XML schema to OWL using patterns. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), Palo Alto (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peroni S., Vitali F.: Annotations with EARMARK for arbitrary, overlapping and out-of order markup. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2009), pp. 171–180. ACM, New York (2009). doi: 10.1145/1600193.1600232
  17. 17.
    Barabucci G., Di Iorio A., Peroni S., Poggi F., Vitali F.: Annotations with EARMARK in practice: a fairy tale. In: Tomasi F., Vitali F. (eds.) Proceedings of the first Workshop on Collaborative Annotations in Shared Environments: Metadata, Vocabularies and Techniques in the Digital Humanities (DH-CASE 2013). ACM, New York (2013). doi: 10.1145/2517978.2517990
  18. 18.
    Eide Ø., Ore C.E.: TEI, CIDOC-CRM and a Possible Interface between the Two. In: First ADHO International Conference Digital Humanities 2006, pp. 62–65 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peroni, S., Shotton, D.: FaBiO and CiTO: ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. Web Seman. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 17, 33–34 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mazzini S., Ricci F.: EAC-CPF ontology and linked archival data. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives (SDA) (2011).
  21. 21.
    Mueller M.: TEI-Nudge or Libraries and the TEI, Center for Scholarly Communication & Digital Curation Blog (2013).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Literary StudiesUniversity of Roma Tor VergataRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Classical Philology and Italian StudiesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations