Photo Archives in Linked Open Data – The Federico Zeri’s Archive Case Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10180)


Art historical photo archives that want to expose their data in Linked Open Data need to rely on shareable models. Merging possibly contradictory information may affect data reliability. In this paper are introduced two ontologies, i.e. F Entry Ontology and OA Entry Ontology, which provide a complete description of items related to Photography and Arts domains and address the description of questionable information provided by different institutions. A preliminary analysis of the Zeri’s photo archive was performed for guiding the creation of the ontologies and the mapping of all the partners’ metadata schemas.


Linked Open Data Ontology development Photo archives 



I would like to express my grateful thanks to my supervisor Dr. Francesca Tomasi (University of Bologna) for her ongoing support in writing this thesis.


  1. 1.
    Bultrini, L., McCallum, S., Newman, W., et al.: Knowledge Management in Libraries and Organizations. De Gruyter Saur, Berlin, Boston (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caraffa, C.: Photo Archives and the Photographic Memory of Art History. Deutscher Kunstverlag, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daquino, M., et al. Enhancing semantic expressivity in the cultural heritage domain: exposing the Zeri Photo Archive as Linked Open Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01188 (2016)
  4. 4.
    Daquino, M., Tomasi, F.: Historical Context (HiCO): a conceptual model for describing context information of cultural heritage objects. In: Garoufallou, E., Hartley, R.J., Gaitanou, P. (eds.) Metadata and Semantics Research. Communication in Computer and Information Science, vol. 544, pp. 424–436. Springer, Cham (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonano, C.M., Mambelli, F., Peroni, S., Tomasi, F., Vitali, F.: Zeri e LODE: Extracting the Zeri photo archive to linked open data: formalizing the conceptual model. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2014), pp. 289–298. IEEE, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillmann, D., et al.: RDA vocabularies: process, outcome, use. In: D-Lib magazine, vol. 16(1). Corporation for National Research Initiatives (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Final Report. K.G. Saur, Berlin, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le Boeuf, P., Doerr, M., Ore, C.E., Stead, S.: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2015).
  9. 9.
    Le Boeuf, P.: A strange model named FRBRoo. Cataloging Classif. Q. 50(5–7), 422–438 (2012). Taylor & FrancisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lebo, T., Sahoo, S., McGuinness, D.: PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. W3C Recommendation, 30 April 2013.
  11. 11.
    Peroni, S.: SAMOD: an agile methodology for the development of ontologies. figshare.
  12. 12.
    Peroni, S.: The semantic publishing and referencing ontologies. Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing. LGTS, vol. 15, pp. 121–193. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04777-5_5 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reist, I., Farneth, D., Stein, R.S., Weda, R.: An introduction to PHAROS: aggregating free access to 31 million digitized images and counting. In: Speech at: CIDOC 2015, New Delhi, 5–9 September (2015).
  14. 14.
    Repository for Linked Open Archival Data (ReLoad).
  15. 15.
    SAN Ontology. Documentation.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Classical Philology and Italian StudiesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations