The CrossCult Knowledge Base: A Co-inhabitant of Cultural Heritage Ontology and Vocabulary Classification

  • Andreas VlachidisEmail author
  • Antonis Bikakis
  • Daphne Kyriaki-Manessi
  • Ioannis Triantafyllou
  • Angeliki Antoniou
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 767)


CrossCult is an EU-funded research project aiming to spur a change in the way European citizens appraise History, fostering the re-interpretation of what they may have learnt in the light of cross-border interconnections among pieces of cultural heritage, other citizens’ viewpoints and physical venues. Exploiting the expressive power, reasoning and interoperability capabilities of semantic technologies, the CrossCult Knowledge Base models and semantically links desperate pieces of Cultural Heritage information, contributing significantly to the aims of the project. This paper presents the structure, design rationale and development of the CrossCult Knowledge Base, aiming to inform researchers in Digital Heritage about the challenges and opportunities of semantically modelling Cultural Heritage data.


Cultural heritage Ontology Digital humanities Semantic web Vocabulary classification CIDOC-CRM 



This work has been funded by CrossCult: “Empowering reuse of digital cultural heritage in context-aware crosscuts of European history”, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, We would like to thank Louis Deladiennee (LIST), Kalliopi Kontiza (National Gallery), Yannick Naudet (LIST), Joseph Padfield (National Gallery) and Evgenia Vasilakaki (TEI-A) for their valuable comments and contributions during the course of this research.


  1. 1.
    Adair, B., Filene, B., Koloski, L. (eds.): Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World. Left Coast Press, Philadelphia (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyvönen, E.: Publishing and using cultural heritage linked data on the semantic web. Synth. Lect. Semant. Web: Theor. Technol. 2(1), 1–159 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ronzino, P., Amico, N., Niccolucci, F.: Assessment and comparison of metadata schemas for architectural heritage. In: Proceeding of CIPA, 12 September 2012Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oldman, D., Doerr, M., de Jong, G., Norton, B.: Realizing lessons of the last 20 years: A manifesto for data provisioning & aggregation services for the digital humanities (a position paper). D-lib magazine, 20(7/8) (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    King, L., Stark, J.F., Cooke, P.: Experiencing the digital world: the cultural value of digital engagement with heritage. Herit. Soc. 9(1), 76–101 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doerr, M.: The CIDOC conceptual reference module: an ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Mag. 24(3), 75–92 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miles, A., Bechhofer, S.: SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference (2009).
  8. 8.
    Brickley, D., Miller, L.: FOAF vocabulary specification 0.99 (2014).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Vlachidis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonis Bikakis
    • 1
  • Daphne Kyriaki-Manessi
    • 2
  • Ioannis Triantafyllou
    • 2
  • Angeliki Antoniou
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information StudiesUniversity College LondonLondonEngland
  2. 2.Department of Library Science and Information SystemsTechnological Educational Institute of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Department of Informatics and TelecommunicationsUniversity of PeloponneseTripoliGreece

Personalised recommendations