Managing Cultural Assets: Challenges for Implementing Typical Cultural Heritage Archive’s Usage Scenarios

  • Kerstin DiwischEmail author
  • Felix Engel
  • Jason Watkins
  • Matthias Hemmje


In the domain of cultural heritage, a lot of archives and data collections already exist. Thus, one of the main challenges for curators and archivists in this domain consists of exchanging data with other archives and integrating similar collections. Typical usage scenarios in this area can only be realized by semantically integrating all available data sources. Therefore, the main task of semantic integration consists of bridging the different levels of heterogeneity. Semantic Web technologies might be a solution for these challenges. Ontology Matching, for example, is already successfully applied for bridging some of the heterogeneity types. However, it is not suitable for dissolving heterogeneity conflicts at all levels due to unsatisfactory matching qualities. Still, matching is crucial for the semantic integration success of the distributed data sources. As a result, a main part in semantic integration is still done manually by domain experts. It would be preferable to support their work by at least semi-automatic techniques.

In addition, a huge amount of standard vocabularies and taxonomies, which are commonly used, already exist in the domain of cultural heritage. Their automatic matching and corresponding resolving of heterogeneities between them by appropriate mappings could facilitate semantic integration. Selecting and applying fitting prevalent vocabularies and taxonomies could ease these efforts. Furthermore, standards for archives exist even on the conceptual level and their application supports digital archives in their main tasks.

The book chapter describes typical usage scenarios in the domain of cultural heritage archives and discusses the use of Semantic Web technologies to implement these scenarios. In addition, commonly used standards and vocabularies in this area are presented and ways to integrate these standards are discussed.


  1. 1.
    Bekiari C, Dörr M, Le Boeuf P (2008) FRBR. Object-oriented definition and mapping to FRBRER. International Working Group on FRBR and CIDOC CRM Harmonisation. Available online at Checked on 26 Jan 2016
  2. 2.
    Bizer C, Heath T, Berners-Lee T (2009) Linked data-the story so far. In: Semantic services, interoperability and web applications: emerging concepts. pp 205–227. IGI Global, Hershey, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CDWA Lite (2016) Available online at Updated on 1 Feb 2016, checked on 15 May 2017
  4. 4.
    CIDOC CRM (2017) Available online at Updated on 15 May 2017, checked on 15 May 2017
  5. 5.
    David J, Euzenat J, Scharffe F, Trojahn dos Santos C (2011) The alignment API 4.0. Semant Web J 2:3–10Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deuschel T, Heuss T, Humm B, Fröhlich T (2014) Finding without searching: a serendipity-based approach for digital cultural heritage. In: Proceedings of the digital intelligence (DI) conference, Nantes, 17–19 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ding L, Bao J, Michaelis JR, Zhao J, McGuinness DL (2010) Reflections on provenance ontology encodings. In: McGuinness DL, Michaelis JR, Moreau L (eds) Provenance and annotation of data and processes. Third international provenance and annotation workshop, IPAW 2010. Troy, NY, USA. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 198–205Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2012) DCMI metadata terms. Available online at Checked on 29 June 2017
  9. 9.
    Europeana Data Model Documentation (2014) Available online at Checked on 15 May 2017
  10. 10.
    Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2013) Ontology matching, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FOAF Vocabulary Specification (2014) Available online at Updated on 14 Jan 2014, checked on 15 May 2017
  12. 12.
    Hitzler P (2008) Semantic Web. Grundlagen. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg ( Available online at
  13. 13.
    Isaac A, Clayphan R, Haslhofer B (2012) Europeana: moving to linked open data. Inf Stand Q 24(2/3):34–40Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 14721:2012. Space data and information transfer systems – Open Archival Information System (OAIS) – Reference model. Available online at Checked on 15 May 2017
  15. 15.
    Kosch H, Heuer J (2005) MPEG-7. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Available online at Updated on 4 Nov 2017, checked on 11 Nov 2017
  16. 16.
    Nilsson M (2008) Description set profiles: a constraint language for Dublin Core Application Profiles. Available online at Checked on 15 May 2017
  17. 17.
    Overview of the BIBFRAME 2.0 Model (2010) BIBFRAME – Bibliographic Framework Initiative, Library of Congress. Available online at Checked on 15 May 2017
  18. 18. – Public broadcasting metadata dictionary project. Available online at Checked on 15 May 2017
  19. 19.
    Reinking K (2013) Einsatz eines Dublin Core Application Profile im digitalen Archiv der Pina-Bausch-Stiftung. Bachelorarbeit. Hochschule Darmstadt, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salman M, Buechner MFW, Vu B, Brocks H, Becker J, Heutelbeck D, Hemmje M (2016) Integrating scientific publication into an applied gaming ecosystem. GSTF J Comput (JoC) 5(1). Available online at Checked on 19 Sept 2016
  21. 21. Available online at Checked on 15 May 2017
  22. 22.
    SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference (2009) Available online at Updated on 18 Aug 2009, checked on 15 May 2017
  23. 23.
    Swoboda T, Hemmje M, Dascalu M, Trausan-Matu S (2016) Combining taxonomies using Word2vec. In: Sablatnig R, Hassan T (eds) Proceedings of the 2016 ACM symposium on document engineering, DocEng 2016, Vienna, 13–16 Sept 2016, ACM, pp 131–134. Available online at
  24. 24.
    The Apache Software Foundation (2017) Apache projects. Available online at Updated on 27 Apr 2017, checked on 15 May 2017
  25. 25.
    The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (2012) Reference model for an Open Archival Information System. Available online at
  26. 26.
    The Open Provenance Model (2011) Available online at Updated on 27 June 2011, checked on 15 May 2017
  27. 27.
    Vecco M (2010) A definition of cultural heritage. From the tangible to the intangible. J Cult Herit 11(3):321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Visser U, Schuster G (2002) Finding and integration of information – a practical solution for the semantic web. In: Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. pp 74–79. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Diwisch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Felix Engel
    • 2
  • Jason Watkins
    • 2
  • Matthias Hemmje
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligent Views GmbHDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.University of HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations