Implementing Archaeological Time Periods Using CIDOC CRM and SKOS

Abstract

Abstract. Within the archaeology domain, datasets frequently refer to time periods using a variety of textual or numeric formats. Traditionally controlled vocabularies of time periods have used classification notation and the collocation of terms in the printed form to represent and convey tacit information about the relative order of concepts. The emergence of the semantic web entails encoding this knowledge into machine readable forms, and so the meaning of this informal ordering arrangement can be lost. Conversion of controlled vocabularies to Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) format provides a formal basis for semantic web indexing but does not facilitate chronological inference -as thesaurus relationship types are an inappropriate mechanism to fully describe temporal relationships. This becomes an issue in archaeological data where periods are often described in terms of (e.g.) named monarchs or emperors, without additional information concerning relative chronological context. An exercise in supplementing existing controlled vocabularies of time period concepts with dates and temporal relationships was undertaken as part of the Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources (STAR) project. The general aim of the STAR project is to demonstrate the potential benefits in cross searching archaeological data conforming to a common overarching conceptual data structure schema -the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). This paper gives an overview of STAR applications and services and goes on to particularly focus on issues concerning the extraction and representation of time period information.

Automatic Metadata Generation in an Archaeological Digital Library: Semantic Annotation of Grey Literature

“…The glossary resources used in the process are Simple Names for Deposits and Cuts, Find Type Index, Material Index, Small Finds and the Bulk Find Material glossary. All the KOS resources had been previously expressed in SKOS format for the purposes of the STAR project [18,19].…”

Preserving Our Digital Heritage: Information Systems for Data Management and Preservation

“…The development of an archaeological semantic web has been a long-held vision (Richards 2006) but, until recently, there were few working examples. A number of the basic building blocks are now in place, including mappings of data schemas to standard high level ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM and the provision of classification systems, thesauri and authority files as Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) web services, through projects such as STELLAR and STAR (Binding et al 2008;Binding 2010;Tudhope et al 2011). …”

The Temporal Dimension in a 4d Archaeological Data Model: Applicability of the Geoinformation Standard

“…Assigning phases to excavation objects or parts of sites is a fundamental task in archaeology (Koussoulakou and Stylianidis, 1999;Cripps et al, 2004;Smedja, 2009;Binding, 2010). In this way, different objects are grouped together to give an idea of the story the site objects are telling (Cripps et al, 2004).…”

“…Mostly, the phasing is (partly) based on the stratigraphic sequence, thus, on the spatial distribution of the excavation objects in the 3D space (Cripps et al, 2004). Establishing a relative ordering is in most cases easier to perform and agree on than absolute dating (Binding, 2010). However, Koussoulakou and Stylianidis (1999) have identified six items that can hamper appropriate phasing:…”