ARIADNE: Pilot deployment experiments

D14.2: Pilot deployment experiments

Author: Philipp Gerth, DAI

Ariadne is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme.

Theviewsandopinionsexpressedinthisreportarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommission.

ARIADNED14.2:Pilotdeploymentexperiments(Public)

Version:1.0(final) 11thNovember2016

Author: PhilippGerth,DAIContributingPartners

PaolaRonzino,AchilleFelicetti,PIN

MariaTheodoridou,MartinDoerr,EleniChristaki,FORTH

EdeltraudAspöck,AnjaMasur,OEAW

WolfgangSchmidle,SebastianCuy,DAI

DouglasTudhope,CeriBinding,USW

Qualityreview: HollyWright,ADS

3

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................4

1. IntroductionandObjectives........................................................................................5

2.ARIADNEReferenceModel............................................................................................7

3.LinkedDataEnrichment...............................................................................................103.1Places.............................................................................................................................................................................103.2Time................................................................................................................................................................................113.3Literature.....................................................................................................................................................................113.4ArchaeologicalTerminology................................................................................................................................123.5Actors.............................................................................................................................................................................13

4.MethodologicalApproach............................................................................................14

5.TechnicalEnvironment................................................................................................17X3MLmappingframework..........................................................................................................................................17Blazegraph..........................................................................................................................................................................17Metaphactory.....................................................................................................................................................................17

6.Scenario1:Coins..........................................................................................................186.1.DescriptionofDatasets.........................................................................................................................................18ThedFMROarchive.........................................................................................................................................................18NumismaticarchivesfromtheCOINSproject.....................................................................................................19Arachne.................................................................................................................................................................................19iDAI.field-PergamonProject.....................................................................................................................................20MuseiD-Italiacollections..............................................................................................................................................20NaturalLanguageProcessingdata..........................................................................................................................20ACDMdata..........................................................................................................................................................................21

6.2.KnowledgeGraph....................................................................................................................................................216.3.QueryPossibilities...................................................................................................................................................22

7.Scenario2:Sculptures..................................................................................................247.1.DescriptionofDatasets.........................................................................................................................................24AthenianAgora.................................................................................................................................................................24iDAI.objectsArachne.......................................................................................................................................................24BritishMuseumCollectionOnline.............................................................................................................................25iDAI.fieldproject“Chimtou”........................................................................................................................................25GazetteerofStoneQuarriesintheRomanWorld..............................................................................................25

7.2.KnowledgeGraph....................................................................................................................................................267.3.QueryPossibilities...................................................................................................................................................27Objectcentricqueryforsimilarobjects..................................................................................................................27Enhancingliteratureresearch...................................................................................................................................30

8.Scenario3:Buildings....................................................................................................338.1.DescriptionofDatasets...........................................................................................................................................338.2.KnowledgeGraph......................................................................................................................................................34ROOM37...............................................................................................................................................................................35

4

9.Scenario4:FaunalRemains..........................................................................................379.1.DescriptionofDatasets.........................................................................................................................................37AnimalBoneEvidencefromSouthernEngland..................................................................................................37HolocenehistoryofwildlifeinEurope....................................................................................................................37

9.2.KnowledgeGraph....................................................................................................................................................389.3.QueryPossibilities...................................................................................................................................................39

10.Conclusions................................................................................................................40Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................................................41AppendixA..........................................................................................................................................................................43Scenario1:Coins..............................................................................................................................................................43Scenario2:Sculptures....................................................................................................................................................43Scenario4:AnimalRemains........................................................................................................................................43AppendixB..........................................................................................................................................................................44

ExecutiveSummaryTheprimarygoalof theEUprojectARIADNE (AdvancedResearch Infrastructure forArchaeologicalDataset Networking in Europe) is to bring together and integrate existing archaeological datainfrastructures to offer researchers a unified search and discovery on awide range of distributeddatasets, which is very much needed in archaeology. In addition to the aggregation efforts thatresulted in a general catalogue of archaeological resources in the ARIADNE portal, several casestudiesexaminedatighterandsemanticallyricherintegrationusingSemanticWebtechnologies.Thepurposeof this document (deliverableD14.2) is todescribe the activities carriedoutwithinWorkPackage14-AddressingComplexity(WP14),whichresultsinthepresentationoffourdatasets.

Ingeneral,theintegrationofvariousdatasetsfacessomechallengesintermsofdifferentlanguages,terminologyanddatamodelsused.Theintegrateddatasetshavedifferentdatamodelstodescribethe content according to historical reasons and intents of the project, and where the data wascreated. After a short introduction (chapter 1), the ARIADNE Reference Model is described inchapter2.Itoffersacommonschematodescribethesedifferentdatamodels.TheglobalontologyusedinthesescenarioswasCIDOC-CRM,whichwasadaptedandextendedforthedomain-specificuseinarchaeologybytheextensionCRM-ARCHAEO.

Chapter3 includesaclassificationanddescriptionofexisting,referenceablesystemsforcontrolledvocabulary,thesauriandreferencesthatareavailableonline.Thesecontaincommontermsfortime,space and domains that are need to be harmonized and brought together to overcome thedifferencesinlanguageandterminology.

The universal workflow to import the data, transform and export it to a format, which uses theARIADNE Reference Model and common standards, is described in chapter 4. The tools andsoftware,whichhelp theusersmaptheirdata,performdata transformation, fordatastorageandforfinalpresentation,areoutlinedinchapter5.

5

Chapters 6-9describe the scenariosused to test and confirm theARIADNEReferenceModelwithreal world data. The scenarios were selected to cover a wide range of different archaeologicalresearchperspectiveswithdifferentrecordedclasses.

Finally,chapter10givesanoverviewofthedataintegrationactivities.

1. IntroductionandObjectivesThe archaeological domain produces vast amounts of very heterogeneous research data likeexcavation data, object descriptions, texts, archives, cadastral plans, historicalmaps coming fromvarious disciplines with different methodologies. This implies a big challenge for organizing,aggregating and publishing the data. The EU project ARIADNE aims at bringing together andintegrating existing archaeological data infrastructures. In addition to the aggregation efforts thatresulted in a general catalogue of archaeological resources in the ARIADNE portal(http://portal.ARIADNE-infrastructure.eu/),severalcasestudiesexaminedatighterandsemanticallyricher integrationusingSemanticWebtechnologies.Toallowan integrationofthisheterogeneousinformationwithoutthelossofmeaning,aglobal,extensibleschema,definedinD14.1,wasused.Ituses CIDOC-CRM as a backbone ontology, together with several extensions bound together anddescribedintheARIADNEReferenceModel.

The selected scenarios diverge from the proposed scenario described in the DOW, as dataavailability was a limiting factor to most of the proposals. The deployed scenarios focussed ondifferentaspectsofarchaeologicalresearch:

Coins: Numismatics is a very traditional science with a lot of experience and early initiatives instandardization. As such, itwas chosen as a very good starting point for item-level integration ofarchaeologicaldatasets.Thelinkagebetweenrepositorymetadataanditem-leveldata,aswellastheintegrationofnaturallanguageprocessingdata,weretested.

Sculptures: This scenario concerns data integration of sources from various disciplines, includingsculpture information and its archaeological context. It focuses on the provenanceof informationaccording to bibliographic references, leading to advanced literature research by using theknowledgegraphfordiscovery.

6

Buildings:ThisscenarioisabouttheapplicationoftwoextensionoftheCIDOCCRM,namelyCRMbaandCRMarchaeo,tomodelunstructuredinformationcollectedduringthearchaeologicalexcavationoftheprehistoricZominthos’PalaceinCrete.Thisisanimportantachievementasitrepresentsoneofthefirstattemptsofintegratingarchaeologicallayersandbuiltstructurewithaknowledge-basedmodel.

AnimalRemains: Inthisscenariodifferentzooarchaeologydatasetsaboutboneassemblagesfoundin diverse archaeological sites were integrated and different statistical queries were run on thecommonrepository.

Wood/Dendrochronologycasestudy: An additional case study is described in the ARIADNEdeliverable D15.3 - Semantic Annotation and Linking. This case study investigated the semanticintegration of archaeological datasets with grey literature in different languages, as a combinedeffort between ARIADNEWP15 andWP16. The case study is based on archaeological interest indifferent types of wooden material, samples taken, wooden objects and dating viadendrochronological techniques. Information from Dutch, English, Swedish archaeological reportswasextractedbyNaturalLanguageProcessingpipelines.TheworkwasundertakenbyUniversityofSouthWalesonthetechnicalside,incollaborationwithDANSandSND.

Like the case studies described below in D14.2, thewood/dendrochronology case study uses the

CIDOC-CRM as a backbone ontology, together with the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus for

commonvocabulary,expressingthesemantic integrationinRDF.ThecasestudyDemonstratorisa

SPARQLquerybuilderWebapplicationthatseekstohidethecomplexityoftheunderlyingontology.

Astheuserselectsfromthe interface,anunderlyingSPARQLquery isautomaticallyconstructed in

terms of the semantic framework.Queries concernwooden objects (e.g. samples of beechwood

keels),optionallyfromagivendaterange,withautomaticexpansionoverhierarchiesofwoodtypes.

7

2.ARIADNEReferenceModel

The ARIADNE Reference Model (http://www.ARIADNE-infrastructure.eu/Resources/ARIADNE-Reference-Model)wasdevelopedbyresearchactivitiesinWP14,leadbyFORTH,andisextensivelydocumented in deliverable D14.1 – Extended CRM. The ontology CIDOC-CRM (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/) is used as a backbone for the ARIADNE Reference Model. CIDOC CRM is in use fordescribing information in the context of cultural heritage and museums. In 2006, CIDOC CRMbecame an ISO standard, and nowadays is widely used in galleries, libraries, museums, researchinstitutesandarchives. In theARIADNEReferenceModel itworksasa top-levelontology,used toenablesemanticinteroperabilitytothemoredomainspecificontologies,extendingCIDOCCRM.

Figure1ARIADNEReferenceModel

● CRMinf(CRMinf,2015):theArgumentationModelisaformalontologyproducedbyStephenStead,PaveprimeLtdandcollaborators,and is intendedtobeusedasaglobalschemaforintegrating metadata about argumentation and inference making in descriptive andempirical sciences, such as biodiversity, geography, archaeology, cultural heritageconservation,researchITenvironmentsandresearchdatalibraries.Itsprimarypurposeistofacilitate the management, integration, mediation, interchange and access to data aboutreasoningbyadescriptionofthesemanticrelationshipsbetweenthepremises,conclusionsandactivitiesofreasoning.Besidesapplication-specificextensions,thismodelisintendedtobecomplementedbyCRMsci,amoredetailedmodelandextensionof theCIDOCCRMformetadataaboutscientificobservation,measurementsandprocesseddataindescriptiveandempiricalsciences,alsocurrentlyavailableinafirststableversion.ReferencedocumentandRDFSencodingareavailableinversion0.7.

8

● CRMsci(CRMsci,2016):theScientificObservationModelisaformalontologyintendedtobeused as a global schema for integrating metadata about scientific observation,measurements and processed data in descriptive and empirical sciences, such asbiodiversity, geography, archaeology, cultural heritage conservation, research ITenvironments and research data libraries. Its primary purpose is to facilitate themanagement, integration, mediation, interchange and access to research data bydescriptionofsemantic relationships, inparticularcausalones.CRMsci is in theprocessofbeingvalidated inthecontextoftheARIADNEproject.Themodel isnot“finished”,andallconstructsandscopenotesareopentofurtherelaboration.ReferencedocumentandRDFSencodingareavailableinversion1.2.2

● CRMgeo (CRMgeo, 2013): the Spatiotemporal Model provides a linkage between thestandards of the geospatial and the Cultural Heritage community, in particular betweenGeoSPARQLandCIDOCCRM.Thismodelsaimsatbeingacomprehensivetheoryfromwhichallkindofplacescouldbedescribed,suchas-thistheplaceoftheVarusBattleoristhistheplacewhereLordNelsondied,includinggeometricspecifications.ReferencedocumentandRDFSencodingareavailableinversion1.2.

● CRMdig(CRMdig,2014)isanontologyandRDFSchematoencodemetadataaboutthestepsand methods of production ("provenance") of digitization products and synthetic digitalrepresentations,suchas2D,3DorevenanimatedModelscreatedbyvarioustechnologies.Itsdistinctfeaturesarethecompleteinclusionoftheinitialphysicalmeasurementprocessesandtheirparameters.CRMdighasbeendevelopedasacompatibleextensionofCIDOCCRM(ISO21127), which allows for querying the most relevant facts and returning completedescriptionsencodedinthismodelbygenericCIDOCCRMtermswithouttheneedtorefertoitsspecificproperties.Theapplicationssofarperfectlyconfirmthewideapplicabilityandpotentialofthismodelforallkindsofscientificdataandotherdigitalobjectsanditssuperiormaturityintermsofcoverage,genericity,expressivepowerandlevelofdetail.ReferencedocumentandRDFSencodingareavailableinversion3.2.1.

● CRMba (CRMba,2016;Ronzino, 2015): theBuildingsArchaeologymodelwas conceived tosupport the process of recording the evidences and the discontinuities of matter inarchaeologicalbuildings, inorder to identify theevolutionof thestructure throughout thecenturiesandtorecordtherelationshipsbetweeneachofthebuildingcomponentsamongthem and with the building as a whole. It aims to express the semantic relations of thestratigraphic units of a standing building, taking into account the stratigraphic analysistheoryofthestandingbuildings.CRMbaisintheprocessofbeingvalidatedinthecontextoftheARIADNEproject.Themodelisnot“finished”,allconstructsandscopenotesareopentofurtherelaboration.ReferencedocumentandRDFSencodingareavailableinversion1.4.

● CRMarchaeo (CRMarchaeo,2016):CRMarchaeo isanontologyandRDFSchematoencodemetadataabout thearchaeologicalexcavationprocess.Themodelwas created to supportthisprocessandall thevariousentitiesandactivities related to it.Themodelwascreatedstarting with standards and models already in use by national and international cultural

9

heritage institutions, and has been enriched by continuous collaboration with variouscommunities of archaeologists from different countries and schools. CRMarchaeo isintendedtoprovideallnecessarytoolstomanageand integrateexistingdocumentation inorder to formalise knowledge extracted from observations made by archaeologists,recorded in variousways and adopting different standards. Its purpose is to facilitate thesemantic encoding, exchange, interoperability and access of existing archaeologicaldocumentation. The model documents, in a transparent way, the various aspects of thearchaeological excavation process, including the technical details concerning differentmethods of excavation, the reasons for their application and the observations made byarchaeologists during their activities in the field. This approach allows the creation of anobjective documentation that can guarantee the scientific validity of the results, makingthemrevisablefollowingfurtherinvestigations,andreusableindifferentresearchcontexts,inordertoanswerfurther(andpotentiallydifferent)researchquestions.ReferencedocumentandRDFSencodingareavailableinversion1.4.

10

3.LinkedDataEnrichment

Theuseofanontologyalonedoesnotautomaticallyleadtodataintegrationofdifferentdatasets,astheontology justdescribes thesemanticsof the informationmodel.Thevaluesand terminologiesusedwill still be diverse in terms of different spellings, errors and languages. For instance, a sitename can differ from dataset to dataset. In the example below (Figure 2 Example for Linked Data

enrichmentforplacetermsusingthe iDAI.gazetteer.),twodifferentobjects,onesculpturedocumentedinArachne(Figure2ExampleforLinkedDataenrichmentforplacetermsusingtheiDAI.gazetteer.left)andone sarcophagus documented in the British Museum collection (Figure 2 Example for Linked Data

enrichmentforplacetermsusingtheiDAI.gazetteer.right),werefoundinthesameplace.Asthevalueforthesameplacediffers,itcouldnotbeidentifiedasthesamesite,thereforeitisultimatelynecessarytorefertoonlineresources,i.e.agazetteer,thatactasstandardizationtoolsinsteadoftextstringswhereverpossible.

Differentcases,wherestandardscouldbeapplied,were identifiedandwillbeexplained infurtherdetail.

Figure2ExampleforLinkedDataenrichmentforplacetermsusingtheiDAI.gazetteer.

3.1Places

The location of a find or the different spellings and the position of an archaeological site arefundamental pieces of information usedbymany systems. Therefore, it is of great importance toprovide systems, which offer a referenceable URI to the desired locationwith different languagerepresentations,spellingsandlocation.TheconceptofGazetteersasareferencesystemisquiteoldandwasadoptedearlyonbyarchaeology(e.g.Clark1932). It isprettystraightforwardtoenhance

11

them semantically. In terms of standardization it is themost advanced class and there are somepossibilities:

● Geonames(http://www.geonames.org/)isagazetteerofworldwideplacenamesandoffers

accesstoover10millionplacenames,whicharecategorizedin9differentclasses.Ithasageneric approach and offers very dense data of recent populated places. However,archaeological places are quite sparse. For example, Geonames provides only 117archaeological sites in Greece(http://api.geonames.org/search?featureCode=ANS&maxRows=1000&country=GR).

● Pleiades (http://pleiades.stoa.org/home)was started in2006asadigital representationofthe Barrington Atlas of the Roman and GreekWorld, but was soon adopted for a widerscope.With35.000ancientsites,itisthelargestgazetteerfortheancientworld.

● iDAI.gazetteer is geographical databasedevelopedat theGermanArchaeological Institute,whichprovidesmorethan1millionentriestodescribemodernandancientplacesthatareof interest to archaeologists and also acts as a hub by linking other Gazetteers likeGeonamesandPleiades.Itsscopealsoincludesgeographicdatarecordedatsiteorbuildinglevel,which is particularly usefulwhen connecting different archaeological databases thatoverlapingeographiccoverage.

3.2Time

Temporal information isas importantas spatial information. For theuse casesdescribedwehavenotusedatimegazetteer,butitishighlyrecommendedtodosointhefuture,oncethesystemsaremoretechnicallyevolvedandfilledwithdata.Thereareafewavailabletimegazetteers.

● PeriodO (http://perio.do/) is a large time gazetteer with a pragmatic data model for the

SemanticWeb.ItissupportedbytheARIADNEproject.● iDAI.chronontology (http://chronontology.dainst.org/) is a time gazetteer currently in

development at the German Archaeological Institute. It has amore complex datamodel,whichdistinguishesbetweenthedefinitionofaperiodandthedatinginformationbasedonthisdefinition.

3.3Literature

Thestandardizationinthecontextoflibrarieshasalonghistory,beginningwithin-houserulesforaspecificlibraryandleadingtotheclosecooperationbetweenlibrariesnowadays(Thacker,2000).Tothis end,metadata standards like theMARC21 and international identifiers like the InternationalStandardBookNumber (ISBN)wereestablished. ISBNnumbers,with their introduction in1972asthe ISO standard 2108, are commonly accepted and used. Unfortunately older publications don’thaveISBNnumbers,andastheregistrationisfee-based,smallerpublicationsandspecialisedbooksareoftenpublishedwithoutISBNnumbers,thereforeregistrationisn’tpossible.

12

Therearealotofnormdataservicesforbooks,forexampleWorldCat(http://www.worldcat.org/).However,Zenon,withitsfocusonclassicalstudiesandentriesfor individualarticles,wasthemostobvious choice. Zenon is the bibliographical catalogue of the German Archaeological InstituteincludingthedataofallDAIlibraries,theDEIAmmanandtheWinckelmannInstitute.Theresourcewas used for a use case since it is one of the biggest databases for classics with more than 1.2datasetsandcovers,besidebooks,e-resources,mapsandarchivalmaterial.ThemetadatastandardMARC21isusedandURIsareprovided.

3.4ArchaeologicalTerminology

Ingeneral,therearetwodifferentapproachesforarchaeologicalterminology.Onecouldclassifyanddefinetheterminologyforthewholearchaeologyandclassicsinaverygenericway,oronecouldtrytodefineaterminologyonlyforaverysubject-specificsubset.Thereisalwaysatradeoffbetweenscopeandprecision.Acombinationofbothprocedures,wherethespecialisedterminologylinkstothemoregenericterminologywithsomeoverlappingterms,couldbeahybridsolution.

Eventhoughthereisa lotofspecializedvocabularyinusebybiggerinstitutions,theyoftendonotprovide their vocabulary or it is not available in an appropriate format. The British Museum’svocabulary is already provided in SemanticWeb formats, but unfortunately, asGruber and Smith(2014,207)havestated, theyarenot linkedtoexternalvocabularies,whichmakesthe integrationwithotherdatasetsmore complicated, and thedatasets and the vocabulary anopenbut isolatedisland.

● SpecialistOntologies:theterminologyofNomisma.org(http://nomisma.org/)fordescribing

coins and the evolving terminology of Kerameikos.org (http://kerameikos.org/) fordescribingGreek ceramics is readily available in LinkedOpenData formats. They are alsoproviding links to more generic terminology, which allow an easy integration of thespecializeddatasets.

● The Getty Arts & Architecture Thesaurus, AAT in short(http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/), is a highly evolved thesaurus forthehumanities.ItoffersalotofdifferentbranchesfollowingISOstandards,butasitfollowsagenericapproach,itlacksspecializationatsomepoint.Otherlanguagesaresupported,butrarelyexistbesidesDutchandSpanish.

● The iDAI.vocab (http://archwort.dainst.org/de/vocab/) is a thesaurus of archaeologicalterminology with currently 14 different languages. Its aim is to collect and organize theterminologyusedintheservicesoftheDAI.TheGermanthesaurusoperatesasthecentralhub: a German term, for instance, is linked to translations to all the other availablelanguages. The concepts are classified according to the relations specified by the SKOSstandard. Thewords are connected to the equivalent concepts in other referenceworks,suchastheGetty'sAATandDbpedia.

13

3.5Actors

Actors are of importance in archaeology for specific find categories, e.g. the issuer of a coin,generally named on the object, or actorsmentioned in inscriptions or iconographic items. Thoseactorsarenotnecessarilyrealhistoricalpersons,theycouldalsobemythologicalcharacterslikethedeitiesofGreekmythology.

● TheVirtual International Authority File (VIAF) (http://viaf.org/) is the biggest international

authoritysystemforpersons,whichcombinesseveralreferencedatasetsandmapsthemtothesameperson.Itsdatamostlyderivesfromthedifferentlibrarysystemsandthusworkswell for realhistoricalpersonsandwriters,which canbe referencedbyURIs, for examplehttp://viaf.org/viaf/60280417.However, the information aboutmythological actors is verysparseandcontainsalotofduplicates.

● Wikidata(https://www.wikidata.org/)isthedatabackboneofWikipedia.Itcontainsalotofmythologicalcharactersandcurrently,togetherwithDBpedia,isthebestresourceavailableformythological characters. It’s also5-star LinkedOpenData, as it contains links tootherresources,e.g.https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q163709.

14

4.MethodologicalApproach

In Archaeology, relational database management systems are used almost exclusively for storinginformation indatabases,where it isverycommontousedesktopapplications likeFileMakerandMicrosoftAccess.Olderdigitalresearchdataisoftenjuststructuredasspreadsheets.Therefore,thedata integration approach has to be very flexible to allow an integration of all kinds of datasets,databasesand informationsystems.Variousdifferentkindsof structureddatacouldbe integratedbyusingXMLasacommonminimalstandard,whichcouldthenbeprocessedfurther.Thisappliestodesktopdatabases,whichallowexportingtoXML, likeFileMaker,OnlineDatabaseswithinterfacesforexportingdataintoXMLandevenallotherkindsofexportedCSVdatasets,whichcouldthenbeconvertedtoXMLusingappropriatetools.

Figure3Anoverviewofthedataflowfordataintegrationofdifferentdatasets

TomakethisdataavailablefortheSemanticWeb,oneneedstotransformtheXMLdataintotriplesinRDF/XML.Therefore,asufficientmappingspecificationisneededtosupportthetransformationofeach distinct schema of an archaeological dataset (source schema) into the ARIADNE RM (targetschema).Itiscrucialthatduringthetransformation,theinformationencodedinthesourcedatabaseisnotlostandtheinitial“meaning”ispreservedasmuchaspossible.Inseveralcases,informationinthesourcedatabaseis implicit,hiddeninforms,user interfacefieldsor- intheworstcase- intheheadofacurator,thedomainexpert.Thisimpliesthatthetransformationprocesscannotbecarriedout solely by technical people; it requires close collaboration between the domain experts, whopossess the domain knowledge, and the IT experts, who possess the semantic world technicalknowledge.

Thiscomplexprocessofmappingtheschemaofanarchaeologicaldatabasetoacommoncoherentglobalontologyisguidedbyusingamappingandtransformationtoollikethe3MMappingMemoryManager (http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/3M/) maintained by FORTH. This online open source tool isusedtodescribeandeditschemamappingsinahumanandmachine-readableway.AfterimportingtheXMLdatainto3M,threemorestepsarenecessary:

15

● Schema mapping: in this first step mappings are produced from attributes in the sourceschema (dataset) to classes in the target schema (CIDOC-CRM). Therefore, domainknowledgeabouttheexplicitandimplicitsemanticsofthesourceinformationmodel,aswellastechnicalunderstandingofthetargetontologyandthesystem,isneeded.

● URIspecification:thenextsteprequiresassigninganappropriateURItoeachresourceinthedataset.Inanidealworld,youwouldbeabletolinkdirectlytostableURIsoftheintegrateddatasource,ifthedataisavailableonline.Inthecaseofdataavailableonlyoffline,liketheiDAI.fielddata,itisonlypossibletocreatepseudo-URIs.

● Transformation:inthisfinalstepthetransformationofeverysourcedatasetrecordtoasetofappropriateRDF(https://www.w3.org/RDF/)triplesiscarriedout.

Afterthesestepsareapplied,theRDFtriplescanbeimportedintoatriplestore.Wetrieddifferenttriplestores, choosing Blazegraph (https://www.blazegraph.com/) in the end, as it provides verygood performance and usability even with more than several million triples. The data could beimportedusingconsolescripts,whichshouldbeappliedforbiggerdatasets,andawebbasedGUI-based import.Moreelaborate informationsystemsprovidean interface(i.e.OAI-PMH)mappedtoCIDOC-CRM, likeArachne, that allowsexporting thequerieddata inRDF/XML. Thesederived filescouldthenalsobeimportedintothetriplestore,tounifythedatasetsintooneresource,whichcouldbeaccessedbyaSPARQLendpointasanopeninterface.

Oncethedata is importedintothetriplestore,thiscouldbeenrichedusingLinkedOpenDatawebresources,asdescribedinchapter3.LinkedDataEnrichmentTechnically,theenrichmentworksbymappingthesourceterminologytothetargetterminology,whichshouldbereferencedbyURIsofwebresources.ThetriplesthemselvescouldbechangeddirectlywithinthetriplestoreusingSPARQLUpdate (https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/). Another approach is the manipulation of thetriples in RDF/XML before importing by using XSLT, or another programming language or by justusingatexteditorwithREGEXfunctionality.

In the final user interface, which builds upon themetaphacts platform, the user could access allintegrateddatasetswithintheBlazegraphtriplestoreviatheSPARQLendpoint.ExternaldatacouldalsobeaccessedbyutilizingFederalSPARQLqueriesonthesedistributedtriplestores,aslongastheontologyandstandardsusedoverlap.

Overall, many different datasets with various preconditions were integrated with the proceduredescribedabove,showingtheflexibilityandtheusefulnessoftheutilizedtools.

16

Figure4Exampleoftransformeddatafromsourceschema(left)totargetschema(right)

17

5.TechnicalEnvironment

X3MLmappingframework

TheX3MLmappingframework(Marketakisetal.,2016,Minadakisetal.,2015)includesamappingeditor,amappingspecificationandamappingmemorytoaccumulateknowledgeandexperience.Itsupports and guides the user during themapping process. Themapping specification is based onX3ML(X3ML,2014),anXMLbaseddeclarativelanguageaimingtosupportthecognitiveprocessofamappingdefinition. Itdescribesschemamappings inbothhumanandmachine-readableform,andsupports the close collaboration of domain and IT experts. X3ML separates schema matching –performedmainlybydomainexperts–fromURIgenerationandterminologymapping–performedmainlybyITexperts.

Blazegraph

Blazegraph is a graph database, which works as an RDF triplestore that natively supports thestandardizedquerylanguageSPARQL1.1,RDFSandtheWebOntologyLanguage(OWL).Itishighlyscalable,asitcouldberunwithastandardCPUor,forenhancedspeed,withasingleGPUandevenaGPUcluster.Itisusedasabackend,tostoreallthedataastriplesinatriplestore.

Metaphactory

The visualization of the scenarios are realized by the Metaphactory platform(http://metaphacts.com/).Metaphactory provides a basic semantic data integration by offering awiki system with widgets, which access the triplestore Blazegraph in the backend. It is an openplatform, which can be used for visualization of SPARQL queries, interactionwith the knowledgegraphandtoconstructuserinterfaces.

18

6.Scenario1:Coins

Numismatics is a very traditional science with a lot of experience and early initiatives instandardizationoftheexistingdata(i.e.Bödefeld,Vacano1978).Inrecentyears,numismaticsexcelsintermsofLinkedOpenDataintheDigitalHumanitieswithahighgradeofaccessibledatasetsandstandardized vocabulary. One major collaborative project is Nomisma.org (2016), supported bymanyinstitutions.

Nomisma.orgservesasanauthoritativeresourceinthefieldofnumismatics.ItcollectsandprovidesURIs to common numismatic concepts and terms. Furthermore, a whole ontology (NomismaOntology 2016)was created and is used to integrate the open available databases. The ontologyprovidesaneasyandunderstandablewayfornumismatiststodescribetheirdatasets,butasitisjustlimited to numismatics, it’s very domain specific, if compared to the generic approach of CIDOC-CRM. Overall, numismatics provides a very good starting point for the item-level integration ofarchaeologicaldatasets,asitishighlystandardizedanddataiswidelyavailabletodemonstratetheusefulnessofusingontologies.

6.1.DescriptionofDatasets

ThedFMROarchive

Digitale Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Österreich (dFMRO, digital Coin-finds of the RomanPeriod inAustria) isanonlineMySQLdatabaseof theNumismaticResearchGroupof theAustrianAcademyofSciences(Vondrovec2007).Sincethe1990sitdocumentscoin-findsfromtheCelticandRomanPeriodthathavebeenpublishedinvariousprintedvolumesoftheFMRO(FundmünzenderRömischenZeitinOsterreich/Coin-findsoftheRomanPeriodinAustria)fromthe1970supto2007.

StartingwithaMicrosoftAccessdatabase,itwassetupinitscurrentformin2007andhostsabout76.000 finds.All coins in thedatabasewere found inAustriaanddate fromtheCelticandRomanperiod(actuallytheentireAntiquity);theywereproperlyregisteredsonoillegalfindsareincluded,andmosthavealreadybeenpublishedby thevariousprojectsof theFMRO.Since2007,due toaformer project collaboration, the database also lists coins found in Romania. These coins werepublishedin“ColoniaUlpiaTraianaSarmizegetusa”,thefirstvolumeof“CoinsfromRomansitesandcollectionsofRomancoinsfromRomania”,andrepresentanimportantpartoftheAustrianculturalheritage.ThedFMROarchivewaschosenasthefirsthands-onexercisetomaparelationaldatabaseschematoCIDOCCRM,sinceitrepresentsalargeclassofwell-definedtraditionaldatabases.

The CIDOC-CRM Mapping is available online in the 3M Mapping Memory Manager:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping209

19

NumismaticarchivesfromtheCOINSproject

Another source of informationwe have taken into account comes from two numismatic archivesalreadyusedwithintheCOINSproject.Theyincludeasetof1670numismaticrecordscomingfromthe Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum archive (FWM) and a set of 630 records coming from thedatabaseoftheSoprintendenzaArchaeologicadiRoma(SAR).

The COINS project (Combat On-line Illegal Numismatic Sales) aimed at providing a substantialcontribution to the fight against illegal trade and theft of coins by using state-of-art InformationTechnology.Theprojectdevelopedstandardizedinventoriesbyintegratinglegacyarchivesencodedindifferentformatsandusingdifferentlanguages.ThecreationofareferencecollectionofRomanandGreekcoinswasalsooneofthemostrelevantoutcomesoftheproject.

The FWM archive: The FWM subset comes from the Department of Coins and Medals of theFitzwilliamMuseumDatabase,whichrecordsinformationonmedalsandcoinsofdifferenttypesandage,discoveredduringexcavationsorcomingfromvariousacquisitionsordonations.It iscurrentlykept by the FW museum. Relevant fields used by FWM archive include: coin maker, productionlocation,mint, coin type, category, coinname, inscription, dimensions, production technique, andreferences to images. Databases also include notes concerning record creation andmodification,dateandtime,museumacquisitioninformation.

The CIDOC-CRM Mapping is online available in the 3M Mapping Memory Manager:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping484

TheSARarchive:TheSARdatabase(originallyaMicrosoftAccessDB)wascreatedtocataloguethearchaeologicalfindsofamonetarytypemanagedbytheArchaeologicalSuperintendenceofRome,comingfrompublicandprivatecollections,andfromarchaeologicalexcavationsmadeinthecityofRomeanditsimmediatesurroundings.Themainpurposeofthearchiveistorecordandprovidethedate, the accurate descriptions (by indicating the precise origin or place of issue) and physicalcharacteristicsof the various coins. Further, it also shows the conditionsofdiscovery (excavation,auction, seizure, donation, etc.), the state of preservation and the current location (museum,superintendencies,collectionsandsoon).

The SAR database, in addition to the FWM fields reported above, also provides informationconcerningthephysicalfeaturesandconditionsofthecoins,theregioninwhichaspecificcoinwasminted (apart the exact location), specific informationon the chronology (i.e. the age, century orperiodduringwhichcoinminting tookplace),obverse/reverse inscriptionsof iconographyandthecurrentlocationofthespecificexemplartherecordrefersto.


Arachne

Arachne16 isthecentralobjectdatabaseoftheGermanArchaeological Institute(DAI).Currently itcontainsmorethan3,700,000digitalobjectswithcorrespondingmetadataandover300,000highlystructureddescriptionsofartefactsofarchaeologicalinterest.Arachnealsoallowsresearchprojects

20

tostore,manageandpublishtheirdata intheavailableonlinecatalogues.Therearecurrently485coinsfromthedigitizedmuseuminventoryandresearchprojectdatathatpresentvaryinglevelsofmetadata quality. Some are of excellent quality, such as the 107 coins with figures related toharbours found in the DFG funded ”SPP-Häfen”. Besides a detailed description, these provideextensive informationabout thebibliographic referencesanddatingopinionsofdifferentauthors.Arachne’s data is mapped to CIDOC-CRM and is provided as RDF/XML by an OAI PMH interface(http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/OAI-PMH/oai-pmh.xml?verb=Identify), which was used to harvest theabove-mentioneddata.

iDAI.field-PergamonProject

Sinceitsfirstusagein2005,theiDAI.fielddatabasehasbeenadoptedbyaround35archaeologicalprojects.Itsmainfocusistoprovideafieldresearchdatabaseforarchaeologicalresearchactivities.The modular system also contains a find module with specific attributes for coins found duringexcavationsorsurveys.Inafirstintegrationtest,517coinsofthePergamonprojectwereusedwithdetailedinformationaboutthearchaeologicalcontext.


MuseiD-Italiacollections

We also investigated the possibility to integrate the collections ofMuseiDItalia, the digital libraryintegratedinCulturaItalia.ThedataareinCIDOCCRMformandcanbeextractedviatheOAI-PMHoftherepository.MuseiDItaliaincludesseveralcollectionsofcoinsfromItalianmuseumssuchas:

● MuseoarcheologiconazionalediVenezia○ Ilmedagliere:serieromana-imitazioniofalsificazionimoderne,86coins○ Ilmedagliere:seriegrecaebizantina,758coins○ Ilmedagliere:serieromanaebarbarica,2307coins

● MuseoarcheologiconazionalediCrotone,RepertiarcheologicieNumismatica,31coins● CollezioneMuseoArcheologicoNazionale-ReggiodiCalabria,136coins● CollezionenumismaticaMuseoArcheologicoNazionalediAltamura,99coins● 3008coinsfromRegioneUmbria

The major problem with these data is that they don’t contain appropriate labels in order to bedisplayed.However, if they undergo a pre-processing stage, they canbe integratedperfectlywellwithotherdatasets.

NaturalLanguageProcessingdata

Asafurtherexperimentinthecoinintegrationusecase,weinvestigatedtheintegrationofnaturallanguage processing data (described in D16.4). 37 records of NLP data from Heslington EastExcavationArchivewereintegratedwiththerestofthecoindatasets.

21

ACDMdata

TheARIADNERegistryisthemainresourceoftheproject,wherealltheavailablecollectionsand/ordatasetsaredescribed.So,inordertohaveacompletedescriptionofthecoindatasets,weincludedtheinformationcontainedintheregistry.

6.2.KnowledgeGraph

The datasets that we adopted in this use case have several differences concerning the origin,language,purposeofcreationanduse.Havingbeencreatedbyvariousinstitutionsandfordifferentpurposes,theyhavequitedifferentdatastructures,despitethesimilarityincontent.Thedatabasesof the SAR and the dFMRO, for instance, were created with the purpose of documentingarchaeological discoveries,whichoccurredduringexcavationsor surveys, and containmany fieldsreporting information on provenance and discovery conditions. FWM, on the other side, is amuseum database whose sole purpose is to catalogue acquisition and inventory data of objectsownedandstoredbythemuseumitself,regardlessofthearchaeologicalprovenanceconditions.ThemappingofthecoindatasetsstartedwiththedFMROarchive,whichwaschosenasthefirsthands-onexercisetomaparelationaldatabaseschematoCIDOCCRM,sinceitrepresentsalargeclassofwell-definedtraditionaldatabases.Inclosecooperationwiththedomainexpertswetriedtoidentifyinformationthatwasimplicit,hiddeninforms,inuserinterfacefieldsorwasknownonlybythem.AdetaileddescriptionofthemappingofthedFMROarchivetoCIDOCCRMwaspresentedduringtheCAA2015conference(DoerretAl.2015).ThedFMROmappingwasusedasaguideforthemappingof the SAR and FWM datasets. The records of the FWM archive contain fields with condensedinformationthatneedstobepre-processedandnormalizedbeforeitcanbemappedtoCIDOCCRM.For example, all the information concerning the dimensions of a coin (height, width, weight) isencodedinonefield:

<Dimension>image(height),22,mmimage(width),20,mmweight,3.74</Dimension>

and needs to be normalized before the actual transformation takes place. It isworthmentioningthatthemappingofaschematoCIDOCCRMisnotnecessarilyunique.Theremaybedifferentwaysof approaching theproblem, all correct.However,what is individually correctmay turnout tobeproblematic if considered in the context of a largerprocess. For example, in thedFMROand SARmappings,thecoindenominationwasmappedasanE55Type,whileintheiDAIfielditwasmappedasanE54Dimension.Conceptuallybothapproachesarecorrect,buttheircoexistenceinthesameprocess is clearly problematic. Rather than imposing a unique style,we have chosen to reconcilesuch differences at the query level. The dates are also a crucial point in the integration of thedatasets.Differentformatsandapproachesmayhavebeenusedtoencodetemporalinformationinthesourcedatabases.Tomentionjustasimpleissue,thevaluezeroisusedasadateinsomeofthedatasets, possibly with different meanings: for instance, such a value might indicate the year inwhich Jesus was born, or the fact that the year is unknown, or not recorded. This poses severalproblems.First,zeroisnotavaliddateinRDF(orintheunderlyingXMLtypesystem),sothevaluehastobetransformedintoavaliddate.Butinordertocarryoutthistransformation,itisimportanttoclarifythesemanticsofthezerovalueineachdataset.

22

6.3.QueryPossibilities

Theultimategoaloftheintegrationofthediversecoindatasetsistocreateanenvironmentwhere

userswill be able to specifyqueries thatwill beevaluatedon the commonaggregated repository

and will be able to combine results coming from the different datasets. We have identified the

followingresearchquestions:

● Origin-Wheredoesthiscoincomefrom?

● Tracking-Howdiditarrivehere?

● Chronology-First/lastappearance

● Practical/symbolicvalue,incidents-Whyisitdepositedhere?

● Politicalmessage-Whywasitproduced(i.e.”minted”)?

● Economicstability,power-Whywasitwidelyused/notused?

● Statistics-Materialversusnominalvalue

Thereexistseveralqueriesthataretrivialtobeansweredbyeachdatasetseparately,howeverthey

becomeimportantiftheycanbeansweredbytheaggregatedrepository:

● Findcoinsmintedinthesameplace/areaorbythesameauthority

● Find coins produced in the same period or time span (typically the same century or

half/quartercentury)

● Findcoinshavingcommonshape/iconography/inscriptions

● Findcoinsmadebyaspecificmaterial.

Combinations of the above queries can be found useful by the researchers of the numismatic

community and our first experiments with such queries on the aggregated repository are quite

promising. Our experimental aggregated repository contains 72 records (all Roman coins) of the

dFMROarchive,627 records (allRomancoins)of theSARarchive,517 records (12Romancoins1

empty record)of thePergamonarchive (iDAIfield)and1 record fromMuseiD-Italia.The resultsof

somesimplequeriescanbeseeninthefollowingtable:

23

Query Total dFMRO SAR Pergamon MuseiD

Findallcoins1216 72 627 516 1

FindRomancoins711 72 627 12

Findbronzeassarius82 29 52 1

Findbronzecoins676 50 270 355 1

Findbronzesextans47 46

Findcoinsproducedintheyear-32

22 4 18

Table1ResultsfromexamplequeriesintheCoinsscenario

The query possibilities described above use the item specific information that is contained in thedatasets. However there is also the catalogue (registry) information, which is of significantimportance.

Theactualquerypowerliesincombiningitemlevelwithcatalogueinfo:

• Find all bronze Antoninianus coins (item level info, retrieves datasets from multipleproviders)

• Findthepublishersofallcollectionsthatcontaincoins(catalogueinfo)• Find the publishers of all collections that contain bronze Antoninianus (item level and

catalogueinfo)

ThecoinexperimentaldemonstratorprovesthattheintegrationofitemlevelinformationwithNLPdataandcatalogueinformationunderacommonconceptualschemaprovidesapowerfultoolthatcananswercomplexqueriesonheterogeneousdataatdifferentlevelsofdetail.

24

7.Scenario2:Sculptures

Theresearchonsculpturesisverytraditionalandhighlyembeddedinthecontextofmuseums.Eventhough the museum community under the hood of ICOM’s “International Committee forDocumentation”(http://network.icom.museum/cidoc/) has developed a lot of different metadatastandards likeLIDOorCIDOC-CRMfordataexchange,therearen’tmanysubject-specificstandardsestablishedforthedescriptionofsculptureobjects.Inthefollowing,theselecteddatasetsarebrieflydescribed. Only databases with permissive licenses and where the data could be extracted withreasonableeffortweretakenintoaccount.


AthenianAgora

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens started in 1931 systematically excavating theAthenian Agora. The database of the project is a single integrated online accessible archive(http://agora.ascsa.net/research?v=default) to all the different resource materials: the currentdigital-bornexcavationdocumentation,finds,architecturalplans,drawings,reportsandpublication.Priortothatthedocumentationreliedonfourdifferentanaloguenotebooks,whichgotdigitizedandannotated.All the objects are documented andmapped to theDublin Core standard and allow asearchandopenaccesstoover355.000objectscreatedin85yearsofresearchactivity.

TheSolr(http://lucene.apache.org/solr/)poweredonlinedatabaseoffersanXMLexport,whichwasused toextractmore than1000sculptureobjects.Theseobjectsarehighlycontextualisedwithallother available sources, from which 1700 archaeological contexts and 56.000 bibliographicreferencestomorethan240documentswereselected.

TheCIDOC-CRMMappingof theAgoraDatabaseareonlineavailable in the3MMappingMemoryManager:

• Sculptures:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping487

• Publications:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping511

iDAI.objectsArachne

iDAI.objects Arachne (https://arachne.dainst.org/), as the central object database of the GermanArchaeological Institute, provides researchers a free searching tool available online. Originallystartedin1995asaFilemakerdatabase,itwasintendedasanimagedatabaseforsculpturesoftheresearch archive for antique sculptures (Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik) of the University ofCologne(Scheding2014,38).In2004thedatabasemigratedtoMySQLandextendeditsfocustoallkinds of archaeological objects. Currently in its fourth version, the database holdsmore than 3.6

25

million objects with associated metadata. All 83.085 sculptures in Arachne are from Roman andGreek times, obtainedmainly through research project data, digitization of archives andmuseumcollections,likethecompleteCatalogueofSculpturesintheAntiquitiesCollectionoftheBerlinStateMuseums(AntikensammlungderStaatlichenMuseenzuBerlin).Themajorityisofexcellentquality,as the sculptures contained a detailed description and are contextualised by more than 1000archaeologicaltypesand88.000bibliographicreferenceswithlinkstotheliteraturecatalogueZenon(http://zenon.dainst.org/).Arachne’sdata ismapped toCIDOC-CRMandprovidedbyanOAIPMHinterface, which was used to harvest the above mentioned data in RDF/XML format:http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/OAI-PMH/oai-pmh.xml?verb=Identify

BritishMuseumCollectionOnline

The British Museum Collection Online database currently provides access to around 2.28 millionrecords. Digitization of the collection is still on going andwill cover every object in theMuseumcollectionwithcorrespondingscientificandconservationmetadata.ThedataisalsoexposedfortheSemantic Web as a SPARQL service: http://collection.britishmuseum.org/, providing access to allobjects in theCollectionOnline,withall object informationmapped toCIDOC-CRMandanonlinepublished thesaurus. For this scenario, a total numberof 52.000openly available sculptureswereused.

iDAI.fieldproject“Chimtou”

Since 2005, the field research documentation system iDAI.field (Schäfer, 2011), based on thecommercial software Filemaker, was developed and maintained by the German ArchaeologicalInstitute (DAI). It provides a very complex information model and supports modules fordocumentation of excavations, surveys, building studies, iconographic studies, material studies,restorationworkandscientificsampling,whichcanbeadaptedforproject-specificneeds.CurrentlyiDAI.field isusedbyaround35fieldresearchprojects fromdifferentuniversitiesandtheDAI foratotalofover1milliondatasets.For thecurrentapproachwe included thedatasetof theChimtouproject’sdatabase(https://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/33904),witharound500stoneobjects,includingsculptures,whichwerefoundinroughly120archaeologicalcontexts.ThedatawasexportedbyusingFileMaker’sexportfunctionality,whichsupportstheXMLformat.

TheCIDOC-CRMMappingoftheiDAI.fieldisonlineavailableinthe3MMappingMemoryManager:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping303

GazetteerofStoneQuarriesintheRomanWorld

For our second use casewe added a list ofmarble quarries to our data. Sincewe also extractedadditionalinformation,thisdataisahybridbetweenthenormdatasourcesdescribedinchapter3.LinkedDataEnrichmentandthesourcesof“pure”contenthighlightedinthischapter.

ThestudypublishedbyBenRussellin2013iscurrentlythemostcomprehensivecollectionofancientmarbles, and is available either online(http://www.romaneconomy.ox.ac.uk/databases/stone_quarries_database/ or as a PDF:

26

http://oxrep.classics.ox.ac.uk/docs/Stone_Quarries_Database.pdf). It isoperatedandhostedbytheOxford Roman Economy Project. All 794 quarries present in the datasets were included via thetransformation of the PDF Document to structured data in the form of CSV, which was in turntransformedtoXML.Theinformationsubmittedconsistsofsite,coordinates,location,country,andformer affiliation to Roman Imperial provinces, a short declaration of the material and itscharacteristics, and themost important literary sources.Thisoverview is suitable foran inventoryand commonbasis ifwealsopointout someminorproblems in the terminology,e.goccasionallymoderntermsarefavouredinsteadofmissingancientterms,astheyareprobablymorewell-known.

TheCIDOC-CRMMappingisonlineavailableinthe3MMappingMemoryManager:

http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping647

7.2.KnowledgeGraph

Once all thenecessary standards (chapter 3. LinkedData Enrichment) are applied and thedata isimportedintothetriplestore,thefullknowledgegraphbecomesaccessibleforfurtherinvestigationsonthedata.

CIDOC-CRMwaschosenasacommonontology,asitisawidelyacceptedandusedontologyintherealm of museums and is gaining more importance in digital humanities as well. There are alsoextensions,beside theCIDOC-CRMCore,whichcanbeused if it is requiredby thedata.WehaveusedCRMsciandCRMarchaeotodescribescientificdataacquisitionandarchaeologicalexcavationprocesses. Furthermore, we used the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)ontology to describe the bibliographical records, and the W3C Basic Geo vocabulary(https://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/)forsimplegeometrydescription.

Beforeapplyingaunifiedqueryoverallintegrateddatasets,themappingsneededtobeharmonized.Smaller differing mappings, like the assignment of measured object dimensions, needed to beharmonized. For the linked open data enrichment (chapter 3. Linked Data Enrichment) we choseWikidata for actors, Getty AAT andWikidata for archaeological terminology, Zenon for literature,andiDAI.gazetteerforplaces.

27

Figure5GraphicaloverviewoftheCIDOC-CRMmappedsculpturedatasets.


Objectcentricqueryforsimilarobjects

Theobject-centricqueryisaboutafragmentaryheadofasatyrthatwasfoundduringexcavationatChimtou in November 2010 (Scheding, 2013). First the object was registered in idai.field andafterwardsinidai.objectsArachne(http://arachne.dainst.org/entity/2295540).Theextentofthehead,thedesignationasasatyr,thestylisticandiconographiccreationandthematerialnamedaswhitemarblearefactsthatcouldbeusefulinfindingcomparableobjects.Theaimistolearnmoreabout

28

theexemplarathand,togetinformationaboutotherexemplarsandtogetanoverviewofquarrieswherethesamekindofmarble(whitemarble)wasproduced.If,forexample,ourresearchquestionistosearchforcomparablesatyrstatuesandthe“type”thatisshownbythefragmentaryhead,theparametersforaquerycanbedefinedas:

● Extent:under1.15mheight● Material:whitemarble● Term:satyrhead

Forthetechnicalfulfilmentofthequeryitwasnecessarytoenrichthetripleswithinthetriplestorewith Linked Open Data standards using SPARQL Update. All terms for the material were linkedaccordinglytoappropriateGettyAATtermsbycreatingnewtriples,whiletheactorsrepresentedonthesculpturewerenormalizedbyusingWikidataasacommonstandard.Forexample:

<http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/entity/1092353>crm:P45_consists_of<aat:300011599>

<http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/entity/1092353>crm:P62_depicts<wd:Q163709>

29

Figure6Userinterfaceforobjectcentricqueriesoverseveraldatabases

30

After these standards were applied, it was possible to apply the same query for all integrateddatabases: thiswas thebasis of a prototypical user interface, see Figure 6User interface for objectcentricqueriesoverseveraldatabases

Theresultsprovideuswithseveralcomparableobtained,reconstructedorfragmentarystatuesthatalreadypointtothefactthatthesatyrheadfromChimtoucanbeassignedthetype“Ludovisi”.Thenext stepwouldbeanevaluationof themost suitableobjectsby further research filters inanewquery, or the matching of “pairs, copies and correspondences” to evaluate the most likely type,which in the context of the satyr found at Chimtou is the Ludovisi type, with many comparableexemplarsfromnumerouscountries-especiallyItaly,butalsofromtheGreekislandofRhodes.

Enhancingliteratureresearch

Literature references are essential for research purposes. Normal bibliographical systems offer atbestathesaurustotagthebibliographicaldataset.Thisapproachislimitedbytheextentoftheusedthesaurus,andforthespecificusecaseonecouldonlysearchforliteraturecontaininginformationabout sculptures. The use of the knowledge graph could enhance literature queries and furtherinvestigation,asitallowsamoreprecisequery.

Toexemplifythisapproach,acloserlookatthemarbleisneeded.Inthiscasethereisanimportantopportunitythatisofferedbyqueriesrelatingtoquarries.Ifthequerydealswiththequestionofanoverall spectrumofone singlemarble,newparameters couldbe formulated. ThePentelicmarble(http://archwort.dainst.org/de/term/6273)waschosen,asitisoneofthemostpopularancientmarbleswithawhitesurface.Togetanoverviewofstatuesmadeofthismarble,thefollowingparameterscouldbeformulated:

● Material:Pentelicmarble● Extent:biggerthan0,70m● Term:statue

In the quarry use case the knowledge graph is used to show all literature containing informationaboutsculpturesmadeofPentelicmarble,with393hits.Aggregate functions, like thecountingofdocumentedsculpturesmadeoutofPentelicmarbleforthespecific literature,offera furtherhintaboutwhichliteraturemightdeliverthebestresults.

ThequerydeliversmanyobjectsinanoverviewfromeverydatabasethatincludesPentelicmarble.ItbecomesobviousthatPentelicmarblehasbeenusedforalongtimeinAntiquitytoproducestatuesand sculpture of every kind, mostly by the Athenian workshops. This can be a starting point forfurtherqueries.

31

Figure7SearchingforstatuesmadeofPentelicmarble

Bringing the data together faces a few challenges. For example, there are some remarkabledifferences in the terminology of the different datasets.Wewant to point out two problemswehaveobserved. For ancientmarbles there are notmanydifferences that cause problems, but thehuge quantity of marbles in the database are described using the modern and ancient termsalternatively.Also,while theGettyAATand iDai.vocabprovideusefulcategorizedandmultilingualoverviews ofmanymarbles, the BritishMuseum Collection notablymentions only the parameter“marble”withoutfurtherdetails.Forexample,aquerywiththeparameters“sculpture”and“gialloantico”willdelivermatchesineverydataset,butifweareusing“marmornumidicum”-theliterary-basedancientname-insteadof“gialloantico”,theArachnecancopewithitbutwewon’tgetthedata from the British Museum Collection. The same heterogeneous approach of the datasets is

32

alreadypresent in thearchaeological research literature.Analreadywidely accepted collectionofancientmarbleswas recently published by Ben Russell in his “Gazetteer of StoneQuarries in theRoman World”. However, a problematic aspect of Russell’s study is the occasional absence ofancientnamesforsomemarblesthatareknownfromtheliterarysources,whileotherstudiesthatwerefundamentalforthedatasetsinthelastdecadesconsequentlyusedthistechnicalterminology(For instance Gnoli, 1971; Schneider, 1986; Maischberger, 1997). Thus we have a seriousinconsistencyinolderandyoungerdatasets.

These differences can cause huge problems in a query that will sometimes deliver faulty andincomplete results. It becomes apparent that there is a need for common standards and/oragreements about the archaeological terminology and appropriate tools to assist the mappingbetweendifferentterminologies.

33

8.Scenario3:Buildings

ThescenariodescribestheapplicationoftheontologicalmodelsCRMbaandCRMarchaeotomodel

anunstructureddatasetabouttheexcavationofaprehistoricarchaeologicalsite,inCrete.Thetwo

CIDOC CRM extensions were developed within ARIADNE to cover the specific needs of the

archaeological investigationand thedocumentationofbuilt structures, and tohelparchaeologists

examineandunderstandthecomplexrelationshipsbetweenallentitiesandactivitiesrelatedto it.

Indeed,archaeologicalinvestigationsarenotonlyfocusedonexploringthesubsurfacedepositsofan

area, but they also include the study of buildings and other built structures,which can be found

standingonthesoilsurfaceorasfragmentsunderneath.


Zominthos is a prehistoric archaeological site located on the north slope of Psiloritis, the highest

mountainontheislandofCrete,Greece-atanaltitudeof1187mabovesealevel.It liesbetween

themodern village of Anogeia and the Idaean Cave, one of themost important sacred caves of

Crete.ItisthelargestknownresidentialcenterofMinoantimesonthemountains.Itwasdiscovered

in 1982 by professor Yiannis Sakellarakis. The excavations revealed a building (Figure 8 Central

Buildingoftheminoansettlement"Zominthos"

(http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/galazia-kokkini-kai-leyki-zominthos)),conventionallyreferredasthe"Central

Building"andanextendedMinoansettlement.ZominthoswasoccupiedfromtheMinoanperiodto

moderntimes.

Figure8CentralBuildingoftheminoansettlement"Zominthos"(http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/galazia-kokkini-kai-leyki-zominthos)

34

The "CentralBuilding" coversanareaof1,600 sqm. It isoneof themostwell preservedMinoan

buildings,withwallsstandingataheightover2,50m,withat least60roomsonthegroundfloor,

upperstorey,staircases,pavedfloors,corridors,courtyards,windows,entrances,lightwell,storages,

workshops,decoratedprivateroomswithfrescoes,ritualroomswithcolumns,drainagesystem,etc.

It was built of large blocks of local limestone. During the excavations, a large number of

masterpieceswere revealed: bronze figurines, bronze cups, daggers, elaborate pins and pendants

madeofbone,ivoryandbronze,jewelrywithsemi-preciousstonesorbone,seals,rhytaintheform

of animals, chaliceswith floralmotifs, cups, jars, pithoi, etc. Themain phase is dated at the Late

Minoan IA period (1700-1600 BC). It was destroyed by an earthquake around 1600 B.C., which

resultedinafirethatdevastatedthevastmajorityofbuilding’sconstructionelementsandmaterials,

like collapsed parts of the upper storey fallen paved floors, large amounts of stone slabs, burnt

woodenbeam,canefragments,mortar,frescoes,earthclayetc.(Sapouna-Sakellaraki,2013).

TheexcavationisongoingunderthedirectionofDr.Sapouna-SakellarakiEfiandundertheauspices

oftheArchaeologicalSocietyatAthens.

Thedocumentationproducedsince2005consistsofthearchaeologist'sexcavationdiaries,reports,

photos andmaps. All information is locally digitally stored and structured in folders. Someof the

contentisavailableonline,publishedonthe“interactivearchaeology”websiteandinotherarticles

andproceedings.Sincetheexcavationisongoing,thefinalpublicationoftheexcavationisnotready

yet.

In the framework of a study about the construction methods and the materials of the Central

Building, thepossibilityofusingSYNTHESIS,a cultural information systemdevelopedbyFORTH, is

underdiscussion.The information systemsupports scientific andadministrativedocumentationof

museum objects and monuments, and can be extended to enable the documentation of

archaeologicalsitesandbuiltstructures.

8.2.KnowledgeGraph

Fortheaimofthiscasestudyweselectedasubsetofinformation,whichwemodelledusingCIDOC

CRMcoreand itsextensions,mainlyCRMba,CRMarchaeo,andCRMsci.Weusedthe3Meditorto

edittheschemamapping.Thegraphrepresentingthemappingoftheselectedsubset(Room37)to

CIDOCCRMcore,CRMbaandCRMarchaeoisshownbelow(Fig.10).

35

Figure9Room37,CentralBuilding,Zominthos

(http://interactive.archaeology.org/zominthos/2016/07/field-notes-2016-week-1/)

ROOM37

Room37(Figure9Room37,CentralBuilding,Zominthos

(http://interactive.archaeology.org/zominthos/2016/07/field-notes-2016-week-1/) ) is located in thesouthwestpartoftheCentralBuilding.Theexcavationofoneoftheupperfloorswascompleted.Itcontainedmostly lepidha-earth and fallen stones. In the northeast corner, the removal of a claystructure from the upper storey was also continued. A concentrated mass of burnt clay-earthconstructionwasuncovered.Inthesoutheastcorneragroupofstonesmaybelongtothesouthernwalloftheroom,whichwasn’tfoundduringthepreviousexcavationperiod.ThesouthernedgeoftheEasternWallwasalsorevealedandtheworksextendedtotheopeningbetweentheRooms37and39.

Several animal bones, some conical cups, twowhetstones and a sealstone, from steatitewith ancarvediconographictheme,smallpiecesofburntwoodandsomesmallgroupsofceramicpots,twoofwhichwerefoundlayingonschistslabsoftheupperstorey’spavedfloor,werecollected.

36

Figure10GraphofthemappingofRoom37informationtoCIDOCCRM

A9 Archaeological Excavation Zominthos’excavation

P9 consists of

A1 Archaeological Excavation Process UnitExcavation of Room 37

O19 has found object

B2 Morphological Building SectionRoom 37

B1 Built WorkCentral Building

AP5 removed part or all of

A2 Stratigraphic Volume UnitLayer B

BP2 is constituted by

B5 Stratigraphic Building UnitClay-earth construction


A2 Stratigraphic Volume UnitLayer A

AP15 is or contains remains of

E18 Physical ThingFallen stones



B5 Stratigraphic Building UnitGroup of stones

B5 Stratigraphic Building UnitGroup of stones


A2 Stratigraphic Volume UnitLayer C


O19 has found object


A2 Stratigraphic Volume UnitLayer D

AP15 is or contains remains of BP1 has section


AP16 assigned attribute toAP16 assigned attribute to

A6 Group Declaration EventInterpretation of Group of stones

P141 Assigned

B5 Stratigraphic Building UnitSouthern wall of the room

E13 Attribute AssignementClay-earth construction

AP16 assigned attribute to

E13 Attribute AssignementSouthern wall of the room

AP16 assigned attribute to

P141 Assigned

P141 Assigned

37

9.Scenario4:FaunalRemains

This scenario evaluates the potential of integrating different scientific datasets in the domain ofarchaeometry. Two different zooarchaeology datasets, which are published by the data centres“ArchaeologyDataService” inYork,and“IANUS”attheDAI inBerlin,werechosenfor integration.Theybothfocusonanimalbonesinarchaeologicalcontexts.

ZooarchaeologyhasalongexperienceinsharingtheirdatasetsandarticlesincommunityportalslikeBone Commons (2016), which launched initially in 2006, the Zooarchaeology social network, theZOOARCHemaillist,andsoon(KansaetAl2001,185ff).Thedisciplineservesasausefulcasestudy,astheterminologyusedishighlystandardized,itsmaterialsandmethodologiesareglobalinscopeandalotofresearchquestionscanoftenbeansweredonlybytakingmultipledatasetsintoaccount.


AnimalBoneEvidencefromSouthernEngland

The“AReviewofAnimalBoneEvidencefromSouthernEngland”project,fundedbyEnglishHeritage,

aimedtoreviewtheanimalboneevidencefromLateBronzeAge-LateIronAgesitesfromsouthern

England.TheRegionalReviewreport (Hambleton2008), forwhich thisdatabaseservesasa freely

available online appendix, provides a synthetic review of published faunal assemblages.

Consequently, analyses (e.g. ageing, butchery, biometric data) focus on the exploitation and

deposition of sheep, cattle, pigs, horses and dogs.Other taxa (e.g.wildmammals, birds, fish and

amphibians)arealsodiscussed.

A total of 108 site reportswere recorded in thedatabase. These 108 'site' records correspond to

reports fromexcavationsat101 separatemonument locations. These sitesgenerated154distinct

'assemblage' records for faunal assemblages. Bibliographic references for all zooarchaeological

reportsreviewedarelistedinthedatabase.

This database was reviewed and published by the Archaeological Data Service:

https://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1000102


HolocenehistoryofwildlifeinEurope

From 1994 - 1998 the project “Holozängeschichte der Tierwelt Europas” researched the

development of the animalworld in Europe from the Late Pleistocene to theMiddleAges. Three

different institutes have collected and examined published data on the occurrence of wild and

domestic animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish) and pets from over 8000

38

archaeologicalcomplexes.Theevaluationcoveredissuessuchastheinfluenceoftheclimateonthe

animalsinthetransitionfromthePleistocenetotheHolocene,spatialdistributionshiftsofspecies

andtheinfluenceofhumaninterventioninnature.4500publicationswereexaminedandintegrated

inadatabase,whichdocumentsthefaunalremainsinmorethan8500archaeologicalsites.

This database was reviewed and published by the research data centre “IANUS”:https://dx.doi.org/10.13149/001.mcus7z-2


9.2.KnowledgeGraph

Theknowledgegraphderivedfromthemappingandalignmentofthetwodatasetsdescribedabove.

ToovercomethelanguagebarrierbetweentheGermanandEnglishdatasets,thecommonstandard

Encyclopedia of Life (2016) was used, which provided biological definitions of species in a

classificationtree.Asthethesaurus isnotavailable insemanticwebformats,thetermsusedwere

describedwithRDF/XML.

Figure11GraphrepresentationoftheCIDOC-CRMmappeddatasetsinthe"AnimalRemains"scenario

39


The integration of the zooarchaeology datasets leads to an environmentwhere users are able to

specify queries thatwill be run on a common aggregated repository andwill combine the results

comingfromthedifferentdatasets.

The first presented example is a quite species-centric query, where all sites which do containinghorseremainsareshown.Foraresearcher,whoisfocussedonthedistributiononaspecificspecies,theliteraturereferencescouldbeadesiredstartingpoint.

The second example shows the possibilities on performing statistics with the help of the querylanguageSPARQLoveracommonmappeddataset.Thebarchartshowsthefrequencydistributionofselectedspeciesinthearchaeologicalcontexts.

Figure12Visualizationofexamplequeriesofthe"AnimalRemains"scenario.

40

10.Conclusions

The four pilot experiments show a successful integration of diverse datasets, where themethodologyandthetoolsusedhaveshowntheirpracticabilityandusefulnessevenforverydiverseprerequisiteconditionsof thedatasets in termsof language,datastructureand formats.With thedata flow that we have described, the origin of the source data does notmatter as long as it ispossibletoexportthedatainastructureddatasetusinganon-proprietaryopenformat.

Fromanarchaeologicalviewpoint, itbecomesapparentthat it isnecessarytoworkwithstandardsanddeclarationsthatareassimilaraspossibletoeachother,oratleasttomaptheirownvaluelistsand thesauri to these international standards. Common standards and archaeological terminologyarefundamentalfordataintegrationandcomparability.

Combiningopenstructuredandsemanticallydescribeddataandtransparentterminologygivesriseto powerful tools in the daily work of an archaeologist working on excavations, survey data ormuseumsandcollections.Thescenarioshaveillustratedthepotentialforaneasyaccesstoahugeamount on comparable data, which could be searchedwith one single query, which offers greatopportunitiestoallarchaeologicalandinterdisciplinaryareasofexpertise.

41

Bibliography

Benecke,N.,vondenDriesch,A.andHeinrich,D., (2016)HolozängeschichtederTierweltEuropas.ForschungsdatenzentrumIANUS,Berlin.(doi:10.13149/001.mcus7z-2)

BoneCommons (2016)BoneCommons–Anonline communitybuildingand sharing resources forarchaeozoology,Availableat:http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/ (Accessed: 08.11.16)

Bödefeld,H.andVacano,O.(1978)ElektronischeDatenverarbeitunginderantikenNumismatik.EinProjektzurErfassunggriechischerMünztypenamAlthistorischenInstitutderUniversitätDüsseldorf.Chiron,8:587–604,1978.

Clark,M.K.(1935)AgazetteerofRomanremainsinEastYorkshire,Leeds

Doerr, M. and Aspöck, E. (2015) Mapping archaeological databases to CIDOC-CRM, Available at:http://www.ics.forth.gr/_publications/DOERR_MappingCIDOC_1_wFig.pdf(Accessed:03.11.2016)

Doerr,M.,Theodoridou,M.,Aspöck,E.andMasur,A. (2015)Mappingarchaeologicaldatabasestocidoc-crm. In: Proc. 43rd Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in ArchaeologyConference(CAA2015SIENA),Siena,Italy,April2015.Archaeopress.

Encyclopediaof Life (2016)Encyclopediaof Life–Global access toknowledgeabout lifeonEarth,Availableat:http://eol.org/(Accessed:08.11.2016)

Gnoli,R.(1971)MarmoraRomana,Roma

Gruber, E. andSmith, T. J. (2015) LinkedOpenGreekPottery, In: Proceedingsof the42ndAnnualConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethods inArchaeology,Oxford,205-214,Availableat:https://caa2014.sciencesconf.org/46119/document(Accessed:03.11.2016)

Hambleton, E. (2009)A Review of Animal Bone Evidence from Southern England[data-set]. York:ArchaeologyDataService[distributor](doi:10.5284/1000102)

Kansa, E., Kansa, S.,Watrall, E. (2011) Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication andCollaboration.LosAngeles.

Maischberger, M. (1997) Marmor in Rom. Anlieferung, Lager- und Werkplätze in der Kaiserzeit,Wiesbaden,Dr.LudwigReichertVerlag

Marketakis,Y.,Minadakis,N.,Kondylakis,H.,Konsolaki,K.,Samaritakis,G.,Theodoridou,M.,Flouris,G.,&Doerr,M.(2016).X3MLMappingFramework for Information Integration inCulturalHeritageandBeyond.International Journal onDigital Libraries (IJDL), Special Issue on “Extending,MappingandFocusingtheCIDOCCRM”,1-19.

Minadakis, N., Marketakis, Y., Kondylakis, H., Flouris, G., Theodoridou, M., de Jong, G., & Doerr,M.(2015).X3ML Framework: An effective suite for supporting data mappings,Extending.Proceedingsof theWorkshoponExtending,MappingandFocusing theCRMco-locatedwith 19th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (2015), Poznań,Poland,September17,2015.CEURWorkshopProceedings1656,CEUR-WS.org2016,1-12.

42

Nomisma.org(2016)Nomisma.org.Availableat:http://nomisma.org/(Accessed:03.11.2016)

Nomisma Ontology (2016) Nomisma Ontology. Available at: http://nomisma.org/ontology(Accessed:03.11.2016)

Oldman,D.,Doerr,M.,deJong,G.,Norton,B.andWikman(2014)T..Realizinglessonsofthelast20years: A manifesto for data provisioning & aggregation services for the digital humanities. D-LibMagazine,20(7/8).doi:10.1045/july2014-oldman.

Ore, C., Doerr, M., Le Bœuf, P. and S. Stead (2015) Definition of the cidoc conceptual referencemodel version 6.1. Available at: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.1 (Accessed:03.11.2016)

Ronzino, P., (2015). CIDOC CRMba A CRM Extension for buildings archaeology informationmodelling.(Unpublisheddoctoralthesis).TheCyprusInstitute,Nicosia,Cyprus

Ronzino, P., Niccolucci, F., Felicetti, A., & Doerr, M. (2016). CRMba a CRM extension for thedocumentationofstandingbuildings.InternationalJournalonDigitalLibraries.Vol. 17, n.1,March2016,pp.71-78

Ronzino, P., (2016). Harmonizing the CRMba and CRMarchaeo models. International Journal onDigitalLibraries,SpecialIssueonExtending,MappingandFocusingtheCIDOCCRM.

Russell, B. (2013) Gazetteer of Stone Quarries in the Roman World, Available at:http://oxrep.classics.ox.ac.uk/databases/stone_quarries_database/0to20/(Accessed:03.11.2016)

Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 2013. The Wealth of Psiloritis. Zominthos. Archaeology & Arts.http://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2013/11/18/the-wealth-of-psiloritis/,Accessed25October2016.

Schäfer, F. (2011) “iDAI.field - Ein modulares Dokumentationssystem für archäologischeFeldforschungsprojekte.”KölnundBonnerArchaeologica1:201-208

Scheding,P.(2013)DerKopfeinesSatyrsTypus„Ludovisi“ausSimitthus(Chimtou,Tunesien),KölnerJahrbuchfürVor-undFrühgeschichte46,Köln,133-140

Schneider,R.-M.(1986)BunteBarbaren,Worms,WernerscheVerlagsgesellschaft

Thacker, J. (2000) Standardization and Libraries, In: Study on International Sharing of JapaneseScholarlyInformation

K. Tzompanaki, K. and Doerr, M. (2012) Fundamental categories and relationships for intuitivequeryingCIDOC-CRMbasedrepositories.TechnicalReportTR-429,ICS-FORTH.

Tzompanaki,K.,Doerr,M.,Theodoridou,M.andFundulaki, I. (2013)Reasoningbasedonpropertypropagation on CIDOC-CRM and CRMdig based repositories. Online Proceedings for ScientificWorkshops,2013.

Vondrovec, K. (2007) digitale Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Österreich. Available at:http://www.oeaw.ac.at/antike/index.php?id=358(Accessed:03.11.2016)

43

AppendixA

Link collection to all CIDOC-CRM mappings in the 3M Mapping Memory Manager sorted byscenarios.

Scenario1:Coins

TheFitzwilliamMuseum,CoinsandMedals:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping484

ArchaeologicalSuperintendenceofRomeCoinsDatabase:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping168

MappingofiDAIfield_MuenzentoCIDOC-CRM:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping9

OEAWCoinsDB:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping209

Scenario2:Sculptures

AthenianAgoraDB:

• Sculptures:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping487

• Publications:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping511

iDAI.fieldChimtou:


GazetteerofStoneQuarriesintheRomanWorld:


Scenario4:AnimalRemains

HolozängeschichtederTierweltEuropas:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping765

AnimalBoneEvidencefromSouthernEngland:http://139.91.183.3/3MEditor/Index?type=Mapping&action=view&lang=en&id=Mapping764

44

AppendixB

TheARIADNEReferenceModelversion1.0indetailcanbefoundattheARIADNEwebsite:

http://www.ARIADNE-infrastructure.eu/Resources/ARIADNE-Reference-Model

CRMinfversion0.7

Referencedocument:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMinf/docs/CRMinf-0.7.pdf

RDFSencoding:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMinf_v0.7.rdfs

CRMsciversion1.2.3

Referencedocument:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMsci/docs/CRMsci1.2.3.pdf

RDFSencoding:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMsci_v1.2.3.rdfs

CRMbaversion1.4

Referencedocument:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMba/docs/CRMba_v1.4.pdf

RDFSencoding:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMba_v1.4.rdfs

CRMarchaeoversion1.4

Referencedocument:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMarchaeo/docs/CRMarchaeo_v1.4.pdf

RDFSencoding:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMarchaeo_v1.4.rdfs

CRMdigversion3.2

Referencedocument:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMdig/docs/CRMdig3.2.pdf

RDFSencoding:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMdig_v3.2.rdfs

CRMgeoversion1.2

Referencedocument:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMgeo/docs/TR435-CRMgeo.pdf

RDFSencoding:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMgeo_v1.2.rdfs

Data & Analytics

ARIADNE: Pilot deployment experiments