SENESCHAL

SENESCHAL: Semantic ENrichment Enabling
Sustainability of arCHAeological Links
Peter McKeague
(On behalf of pro...
Outline of talk
 Part I
RCAHMS
 What we do
 What we hold
 Classifying

 Part II

Drivers for Linked Data

 Part III
...
RCAHMS Mission Statement
• Identifies, surveys and analyses the
historic and built environment of Scotland

• Preserves, c...
RCAHMS vocabularies

SC656461

SC335945

Monuments

SC1224403

Objects

Maritime Craft

SC694685

Events
Standards: Midas Heritage

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/midas-heritage/
CIDOC Conceptual Reference Mode...
Monuments: Internal staff database
Thesaurus: Events

Pick lists

Thesauri
Monuments
Objects
Maritime Craft

Pick list

Pi...
Information is published on Canmore

Thesauri
Monuments
Objects
Maritime Craft

http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk
Information is published on Canmore

Thesauri
Monuments
Objects
Maritime Craft
RCAHMS thesauri: text search

http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/apex/f?p=210:1:
RCAHMS thesauri: term definition

http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/apex/f?p=210:1:
RCAHMS thesauri : suggest a term

http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/apex/f?p=210:1:
Part II: Drivers for Linked Data
We already publish our thesauri as key reference datasets for use by professional
archaeo...
Drivers for Linked Open Data
It is Government policy

Open Data White paper June 2012:
http://data.gov.uk/sites/default/fi...
Drivers for Linked Open Data
It is Government policy: Open Data White Paper June 2012:
• Public data policy and practice w...
... And a practical use

An online submission form to report fieldwork from contractors to curators
Part III: The partners

“the key to interoperability”
http://www.heritagedata.org/

©University of Glamorgan
Lineage
STAR: Semantic Technologies for Archaeological resources
2007-2010
AHRC funded project with English Heritage to ap...
The SENESCHAL Project
 seneschal n. Historical
 The steward or major-domo of a medieval great house

 12 month AHRC fun...
Interoperability
 “The terminology of a subject is the key to
interoperability” (John F. Sowa)
 Interoperability require...
You say potato, I say tomato…
 Multiple datasets, multiple
organisations, multiple languages
 Unification of data struct...
Typical interoperability issues encountered
 Simple spelling errors
 POSTHLOLE”, “CESS PITT”, “FURRROWS”, FLINT SCRAPPER...
Solutions - SENESCHAL
 Controlled vocabularies (again)
 Commonly agreed concepts, terminology and identifiers
 Existing...
Vocabularies online as (SKOS) Linked Data
 Vocabularies from English Heritage






Monument Types Thesaurus
Objects...
(partial) SKOS model
skos:ConceptScheme

skos:topConceptOf

dc:title,
dc:description

[literal value]

skos:hasTopConcept
...
Data licensing and attribution using CC REL

 Attribution back to original data providers
URI
cc:attributionURL

cc:attri...
General System Architecture
Native
vocabularies

Additional
metadata

web controls & applications

Linked Data
REST API
ST...
Linked Data API (preliminary)
 The project will implement a Linked Data (restful) API
 The base URI maybe http://www.her...
Project deliverables

http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/
Schema List

http://heritagedata.org/test/getAllSchemes.php
Scottish Monument types

http://heritagedata.org/test/schemes/1.html
Scottish Monument types: Top level

http://heritagedata.org/test/schemes/1/concepts/405.html
Scottish Monument types: concept

http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/1/concepts/409
http://heritagedata.org/test/searchForm.php
http://heritagedata.org/test/sparql.php
Versioning (preliminary)
 /schemes/{id} – returns current version of the specified scheme
 /schemes/{id}/versions – retu...
Published vocabularies
Vocabulary

England

Scotland

Wales

Monument type

YES

YES

YES

Objects

YES

YES

Maritime cra...
A question of jurisdiction
TENEMENT (Scotland)
http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/1/concepts/467

A large building conta...
A question of jurisdiction

SC683414

Cruck Framed Byre, Latheron, Caithness
http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/86630/

...
A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?

DP151933

The Cenotaph, George Square, Glasgow: http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/143264/
A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?
Multilinguality
 Multilingual
labels & notes
 Search in one
language,
retrieve
another
 Potential to
manage
regional te...
Challenges for RCAHMS
Controlled vocabularies online
 Integration of project deliverables into RCAHMS processes
 Managin...
Summary
 Controlled vocabularies online
 Linked data (SKOS)
 Downloadable files

 Linking out
 Mapping between the di...
“the key to interoperability”
http://www.heritagedata.org/

©University of Glamorgan
Cigs lod rcahms_seneschal_pm_20131118
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cigs lod rcahms_seneschal_pm_20131118

2,555 views
2,362 views

Published on

SENESCHAL: Semantic ENrichment Enabling Sustainability of arCHAeological Links / Peter McKeague, RCAHMS, on behalf of the SENESCHAL Project team

Presented at Linked Open Data: current practice in libraries and archives (Cataloguing & Indexing Group in Scotlland 3rd Linked Open Data Conference), Edinburgh, 18 Nov 2013

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,555
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I am giving this presentation on behalf of the SENESCHAL Project led by the University of South Wales - who provide the wizardry - knowledge and skills to transform key reference datasets for heritage in Britain. This presentation is given from the perspective of a vocabulary owner wanting to, but lacking the skills, to get involved in publishing Linked Data.In the talk I will introduce some of the work of the Royal Commission What we do, hold and how we use vocabularies to classify and index some of our records. I will then look at the drivers for engaging with Linked Data before looking at SENESCHAL.Who is involved, where the project is at and what is still to be done.
  • Our monuments inventory table works with the relevant industry standards – MIDAS heritage which is informed by the CIDOC- CRM . ISO 21127 (2005) CIDOC is the documentation committee of the International Council of Museums and the Council of Europe Cultural Heritage Committee
  • Information is entered via controlled field in the internal staff database (eliminating errors)
  • Web services from the Oracle database are consumed by the web development team who design and publish Canmore – our online serachable database. Information from individual classifications is concatenated into a single string.
  • And thesauri terms are key to searches on Canmore There is also a link to our online thesauri
  • Where users can select thesaurus and search by hierarchy – or by text Preferred terms are represented in Upper case, non-preferred in lower-case with a re-direction to the relevant preferred term. Terms do not have unique identifiers
  • The online form also allows users to suggest candidate terms which are validated locally at RCAHMS.
  • We already publish our thesauri (and data) online through Canmore – where information can be accessed by professional archaeologists in local government , central government and accessed by anyone interested in the subject. So why do more?The thesauri are not visible Existing architecture limits the potential of the terminologyThey lack persistent URIs that would allow our resources to act as hubs for the Web of Data Drivers are external - primarily from the research community - and in Scotland this is computer science not the heritage professionals There is little perceived value – or demonstrable gain from the end user used to accessing data from a range of disparate sources .
  • Explicit in the UK Government Open Data white paper from 2012 with drivers for Open data in Scottish Government documentation relating to Scotlands Digital Future
  • Key point here is Key point is that Public data from different departments about the same subject will be published in the same, standard formats and with the same definitions Public data policy and practice will be clearly driven by the public and businesses who want to use the data, including what data is released, when and in what form Public data will be published in reusable, machine-readable form Public data will be released under the same open licence which enables free reuse, including commercial reuse Public data will be published using open standards, and following relevant recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium Public data from different departments about the same subject will be published in the same, standard formats and with the same definitions Public data underlying the Government’s own website will be published in re-usable form Release data quickly, and then work to make sure it is available in open standard formats, including Linked data forms.
  • OASIS: as part of a planning condition in both Scotland and England most commercial archaeological fieldwork is reported through OASIS - an online form developed and maintained by the Archaeology Data Service on behalf of EH and RCAHMS. Currently users are able to terms for monuments and objects as free text though there is a link to the RCAHMS online thesaurus for Scotland. The types of activity reported are controlled by check boxes but do not map to the event terms used by RCAHMS and EH. SO there is a clear requirement for vocabulary alignment.
  • The AHRC funded SENESCHAL project was set up to address the need for persistent URIS for key vocabularies - explore vocabulary alignment and develop RESTful services for the data.Leading the project Professor Doug Tudhope with Ceri Binding at The Hypermedia Unit, School of Computing and Mathematics at the University of South Wales who are providing the specialist knowledge required to transform and align datasets provided by EH, RCAHMS and the RCAHMS as well as the AD who in addition to developing and hosting the OASIS form, have extensive online digital archives
  • Through the STAR and Stellar projects, in partnership with EH, the University of South Wales has an extensive background working with heritage information – While the STAR and STELLAR research objectives were met,  they encountered a lack of vocabulary control (with unique identifiers) that hindered the full potential of the resulting Linked Data.Hence the current Knowledge Transfer Project widened out to include both Scotland and Wales.
  • Like all good projects, it has an acronym: SENESCHAL the steward of a medieval great house.The project deliverables are to Provide Controlled vocabularies online - as linked data (SKOS) and as downloadable files This part was completed in July 2013.It intends to develop RESTFUL web services – term suggestion, term validation and legacy data alignmentAnd tools to align data with controlled vocabularies through browser-based ‘widget controls
  • In both the STAR project and the more recent STELLAR project we observed from legacy archaeological datasets a tendency to allow free text data entry (leading to simple anomalies), and to “decorate” controlled terms with additional text (so the terms are no longer controlled!). Minor differences in spelling or punctuation can hinder the successful alignment of vocabulary so affecting wider interoperability and building up problems for the future.Not dictated or handled by CRM itself – left to implementation. Each is a barrier to full interoperability. Data can therefore conform to an ontology, but still lack interoperability.Quoted source: http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cnl4ss.pdf - Refers to syntactic interoperability, still need common data model for greater semantic interoperability.
  • Issues encountered in archaeological metadata range from simple spelling errors to a conscious attempt to create additional structure or description within free text fieldsThere are multiple datasets, multiple organisations, multiple languages and dialectsUnification of data structures is possible BUT incompatible terminology hinders cross-searching and prevents greater interoperability.Applications attempting to reuse data must all individually sort out the same old problems Addressed through data cleansing and controlled vocabularies though there are tensions between descriptive and controlled vocabularies...
  • The following is a breakdown of various issues as empirically observed in some existing (archaeological) metadata sets intended to conform to controlled vocabularies. Simple spelling errors , alternate word forms / Prefixes and suffixes , nested delimiters, terms not intended for indexing, or should not be included in any thesauri, or more specific phrases...
  • Controlled vocabularies (again)Commonly agreed concepts, terminology and identifiersExisting / new thesauri – community contributions?Openness and availabilityLicensing, web services, downloads, data formatsAlignment of existing dataData cleansing toolsAlignment techniquesAlignment of new dataInteractive embedded data entry toolsValidation at point of data entry Rather than trying to solve this vocabulary problem, help to prevent it from happening in the first place
  • The SKOS data model to manage the concepts and their relationships
  • and managing the data licencing and attribution . RCAHMS data is licenced under an OGL, everything else is under a CC0 licence
  • Copies of the original Vocabularies are transformed through templates developed as part of Stellar into SKOS RDF vocabularies which are added to the Seneschal data store which feeds out data as Web services and to Sparql endpoint
  • The project will implement a Linked Data (restful) API It has now established a base URI and proposes a number of REST APIs
  • So just over halfway through the project what has been achieved? They have established the domain heritagedata.org with information about the project, links to the data providers and to the vocabularies.
  • Provides a list of al l the contributed vocabularies - we can select the RCAHMS monument thesaurus
  • Provides a record for the concept Monument thesaurus and lists the top level terms in that scheme.Note the property for the licenincg (repeated at every level)The coverage – which references the Ordnance Survey URI for Scotland (Only at top level)Also across all schema the ability to download a concept in one of a series of formats: n3, turtle, JSON and xmlWe select the Broad Term Domestic
  • Defines the Broad term and lists the narrow terms - we select Broch
  • This is the concept level record for ‘Broch’
  • users may also search for a term within a chosen thesaurus
  • with the results providing a list of matches, the URI for each returned term and the scope note.
  • there is also a SPARQL end point
  • Seneschal is also exploring managing versioning within the schema , though this requires more thought as it could get complicated – need to think this through a bit more before committing to it!
  • As you will see we have each published thesauri for Monuments, England and Scotland have Object and maritime thesauri. England and Wales use period thesauri..England has events and archaeological sciences vocabularies - RCAHMS also has similar lists but has not declared them as part of SENESCHAL. For monuments this is wrapped around issues of jurisdiction whereas he terms in the Events thesauri are equally applicable in England and Scotland so there seems little point in re-inventing the wheel.... So should there be a single Thesaurus of British Cultural heritage ?
  • Jurisdiction : There are differences in the way we use monument terms – beyond regionality. The Scottish tenement is a very different concept from the English and Welsh concept of a parcel of land and the Scottish tenement does not equate to architectural terms containing tenement in England or Wales
  • And again with Crucks – where a component in the architecture defines the monument type.Scotland has Cruck-framed buildings, barns and byres whereas England has Cruck house. Both refer to techniques of construction a cruck-framed building in Scotland is a very different concept to its English neighbour.
  • Moving to a SKOS based approach of defining the Concept rather than the term allows us to address issues of language and regionality.This is the cenotaph in George Square, Glasgow
  • SENESCHAL has benefited from a BordnaGaidlig sponsored project led by Historic Scotland translate the existing terms in the Scottish Monument thesaurus into Gaelic. To date we have added about 100 of these terms into the thesaurus: So the concept for Cenotaph includes both preferred and variant terms expressed in Gaelic.
  • And this can be expressed as a graph.Concept 205: CENOTAPH has preferred terms in English and Gaelic but also manages alternate versions of the gaelicConcept 205 is a narrower term of Concept 203: Commemorative MonumentAnd a related term of 206: Commemorative Cairn 210: War memorial and 1727: Tomb They are all part of the Concept shemes: Scottish Monuments Thesausus
  • Integration of project deliverables into RCAHMS processes Managing candidate terms – we have a working system !Issues over jurisdiction - is a single thesaurus desirable – depends what the subject matter is! Moving the goalposts- we have a successful website what is the benefit of Linked data...And I still don’t know (or need to know? ) what do do with the SPARQL endpoint... Or turtle...
  • Cigs lod rcahms_seneschal_pm_20131118

    1. 1. SENESCHAL SENESCHAL: Semantic ENrichment Enabling Sustainability of arCHAeological Links Peter McKeague (On behalf of project partners) peter.mckeague@rcahms.gov.uk www.rcahms.gov.uk http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk
    2. 2. Outline of talk  Part I RCAHMS  What we do  What we hold  Classifying  Part II Drivers for Linked Data  Part III SENESCHAL  Project Partners  The Project so far  Prospects
    3. 3. RCAHMS Mission Statement • Identifies, surveys and analyses the historic and built environment of Scotland • Preserves, cares for and adds to the information and items in its national collection • Promotes understanding, education and enjoyment through interpretation of the information it collects and the items it looks after
    4. 4. RCAHMS vocabularies SC656461 SC335945 Monuments SC1224403 Objects Maritime Craft SC694685 Events
    5. 5. Standards: Midas Heritage http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/midas-heritage/ CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) http://www.cidoc-crm.org/
    6. 6. Monuments: Internal staff database Thesaurus: Events Pick lists Thesauri Monuments Objects Maritime Craft Pick list Pick list
    7. 7. Information is published on Canmore Thesauri Monuments Objects Maritime Craft http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk
    8. 8. Information is published on Canmore Thesauri Monuments Objects Maritime Craft
    9. 9. RCAHMS thesauri: text search http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/apex/f?p=210:1:
    10. 10. RCAHMS thesauri: term definition http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/apex/f?p=210:1:
    11. 11. RCAHMS thesauri : suggest a term http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/apex/f?p=210:1:
    12. 12. Part II: Drivers for Linked Data We already publish our thesauri as key reference datasets for use by professional archaeologists in national organisations, in local authority Historic Environment Records as well as by anyone interested in the historic environment. BUT Our vocabularies (and other data) are not visible The thesaurus architecture limits the potential of the terminology Terms lack the persistent URIs that would allow our resources to act as hubs for the Web of Data. Interoperability ---For heritage, the main exponents of Linked Data are from the research community, and in Scotland primarily from Computer Scientists
    13. 13. Drivers for Linked Open Data It is Government policy Open Data White paper June 2012: http://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Open_data_White_Paper.pdf Scotland’s Digital Future April 2013: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00421478.pdf
    14. 14. Drivers for Linked Open Data It is Government policy: Open Data White Paper June 2012: • Public data policy and practice will be clearly driven by the public and businesses who want to use the data, including what data is released, when and in what form • Public data will be published in reusable, machine-readable form • Public data will be released under the same open licence which enables free reuse, including commercial reuse • Public data will be published using open standards, and following relevant recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium • Public data from different departments about the same subject will be published in the same, standard formats and with the same definitions • Public data underlying the Government’s own website will be published in re-usable form • Release data quickly, and then work to make sure it is available in open standard formats, including Linked data forms.
    15. 15. ... And a practical use An online submission form to report fieldwork from contractors to curators
    16. 16. Part III: The partners “the key to interoperability” http://www.heritagedata.org/ ©University of Glamorgan
    17. 17. Lineage STAR: Semantic Technologies for Archaeological resources 2007-2010 AHRC funded project with English Heritage to apply semantic and knowledge-based technologies to the digital archaeological domain. STAR developed new methods for linking digital archive databases, vocabularies and the associated grey literature, exploiting the potential of a high level, core ontology and natural language processing techniques. http://hypermedia.research.southwales.ac.uk/kos/star/ STELLAR: Semantic Technologies Enhancing Links and Linked data for Archaeological Resources 2010-2011 AHRC funded project with the ADS and English Heritage. Building on the outcomes of STAR, STELLAR provided support for non-specialist users to map and extract datasets. http://hypermedia.research.southwales.ac.uk/kos/stellar/ SENESCHAL: Semantic ENrichment Enabling Sustainability of arCHAeological Links 2013-2014 AHRC funded project with the ADS, English Heritage, RCAHMS, RCAHMW and Wessex Archaeology. http://hypermedia.research.southwales.ac.uk/kos/SENESCHAL/ and http://www.heritagedata.org
    18. 18. The SENESCHAL Project  seneschal n. Historical  The steward or major-domo of a medieval great house  12 month AHRC funded project  March 2013 - February 2014  Deliverables  Controlled vocabularies online  Linked data (SKOS)  Downloadable files  Web services  term suggestion, term validation, legacy data alignment  Tools to align data with controlled vocabularies  Browser-based ‘widget’ controls
    19. 19. Interoperability  “The terminology of a subject is the key to interoperability” (John F. Sowa)  Interoperability requires more than just a common data model  Data compatibility occurs on 2 levels – semantic and syntactic. Ontologies / data structures deal with the semantic but not necessarily the syntactic  “The CRM relies on existing syntactic interoperability and is concerned only with adding semantic interoperability” (CIDOC CRM documentation)
    20. 20. You say potato, I say tomato…  Multiple datasets, multiple organisations, multiple languages  Unification of data structures is possible, BUT…  Incompatible terminology hinders cross search and prevents greater interoperability  Applications attempting to reuse data must all individually sort out the same old problems  E.g. Get all the iron age post holes… Feature Period Post-hole IRON AGE Posthole |ron age POST HOLE Iron age? POSTHLOLE EARLY IRON AGE POST HOLE (POSSIBLE) 250 BC POSTHOLES C 500-200 B.C. Solution: data cleansing and controlled vocabularies?
    21. 21. Typical interoperability issues encountered  Simple spelling errors  POSTHLOLE”, “CESS PITT”, “FURRROWS”, FLINT SCRAPPER”  Alternate word forms  “BOUNDARY”/”BOUNDARIES”, “GULLEY”/”GULLIES”  Prefixes / suffixes  “RED HILL (POSSIBLE)”, “TRACKWAY (COBBLED)”, “CROFT?”, “CAIRN (POSSIBLE)”, “PORTAL DOLMEN (RE-ERECTED)”  Nested delimiters  “POTTERY, CERAMIC TILE, IRON OBJECTS, GLASS”  Terms not intended for indexing  “NONE”, “UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT”, “N/A”, “NA”, “INCOHERENT”  Terms that would not be in (any) thesauri  “WOTSITS PACKET”, “CHARLES 2ND COIN”, “ROMAN STRUCTURE POSSIBLY A VILLA“, “ST GUTHLACS BENEDICTINE PRIORY”, “WORCESTER-BIRMINGHAM CANAL”, “KUNGLIGA SLOTTET”, “SUB-FOSSIL BEETLES”  More specific phrases  “SIDE WALL OF POT WITH LUG”, “BRICK-LINED INDUSTRIAL WELL OR MINE SHAFT”, “ALIGNMENT OF PLATFORMS AND STONES”
    22. 22. Solutions - SENESCHAL  Controlled vocabularies (again)  Commonly agreed concepts, terminology and identifiers  Existing / new thesauri – community contributions?  Openness and availability  Licensing, web services, downloads, data formats  Alignment of existing data  Data cleansing tools  Alignment techniques  Alignment of new data  Interactive embedded data entry tools  Validation at point of data entry  Rather than trying to solve this vocabulary problem, help to prevent it from happening in the first place
    23. 23. Vocabularies online as (SKOS) Linked Data  Vocabularies from English Heritage      Monument Types Thesaurus Objects Thesaurus Event Types Thesaurus Maritime Craft Thesaurus RCHME Cultural Periods List / MIDAS Archaeological Periods List  Vocabularies from RCAHMS  Monument Thesaurus (Scotland)  Multilingual - includes Scottish Gaelic translations!  Objects (Scotland)  Maritime Craft (Scotland)  Vocabularies from RCAHMW  Monument Thesaurus (Wales)  Event (Wales)  Period (Wales)  Moving from term based towards concept based indexing  Start to create links between concepts… between vocabularies… between datasets… between sites… between countries  Cross searching of (multilingual) cultural heritage resources
    24. 24. (partial) SKOS model skos:ConceptScheme skos:topConceptOf dc:title, dc:description [literal value] skos:hasTopConcept skos:inScheme skos:broader, skos:narrower, skos:related skos:Concept skos:member skos:Collection skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel, skos:notation, skos:scopeNote, skos:changeNote [literal value]
    25. 25. Data licensing and attribution using CC REL  Attribution back to original data providers URI cc:attributionURL cc:attributionURL cc:license cc:license skos:ConceptScheme skos:Concept URI cc:attributionName cc:attributionName [literal value] dct:creator dct:creator URI dc:source URI dc:source
    26. 26. General System Architecture Native vocabularies Additional metadata web controls & applications Linked Data REST API STELLAR (SKOS) templates (upload) SKOS RDF vocabularies Web Services REST API SPARQL query endpoint SENESCHAL data store
    27. 27. Linked Data API (preliminary)  The project will implement a Linked Data (restful) API  The base URI maybe http://www.heritagedata.org/ or http://purl.org/xxx/..  Seneschal is a sub-project within the wider scope of ‘heritagedata.org’ – so:  http://www.heritagedata.org/seneschal - wiki/blog for project details, and  <base uri>/schemes/123 (e.g.) for actual data API – see below…  Proposed REST API:            /schemes – return list of all SKOS concept schemes held /schemes/search - (with parameters) – search for schemes /schemes/{id} – return details of specified SKOS concept scheme (current version) /schemes/{id}.html, .n3, .rdf, .json – return different serializations of that data, obtained either by content negotiation or by direct request including extension /schemes/{id}/concepts – return list of ALL SKOS concepts in specified scheme /schemes/{id}/concepts/search – search for concepts in the specified scheme /concepts – return list of all SKOS concepts in ALL schemes /concepts/search - (with parameters) – search for concepts in any scheme /concepts/{id} – return details of specified SKOS concept (current version) /concepts/{id}.html, .n3, .rdf, .json – return different serializations of the data, obtained either by content negotiation or by direct request including extension /concepts/{id}/schemes - return list of all schemes referencing the specified concept
    28. 28. Project deliverables http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/
    29. 29. Schema List http://heritagedata.org/test/getAllSchemes.php
    30. 30. Scottish Monument types http://heritagedata.org/test/schemes/1.html
    31. 31. Scottish Monument types: Top level http://heritagedata.org/test/schemes/1/concepts/405.html
    32. 32. Scottish Monument types: concept http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/1/concepts/409
    33. 33. http://heritagedata.org/test/searchForm.php
    34. 34. http://heritagedata.org/test/sparql.php
    35. 35. Versioning (preliminary)  /schemes/{id} – returns current version of the specified scheme  /schemes/{id}/versions – returns all versions of the specified scheme  /schemes/{id}/versions/{id} – returns specified version of the specified scheme  /concepts/{id} – returns current version of the specified concept  /concepts/{id}/versions – returns all versions of the specified concept  /concepts/{id}/versions/{id} – returns specified version of the specified concept dct:hasVersion [skos:ConceptScheme] data:schemes/123 (dct:isVersionOf) [skos:ConceptScheme] data:schemes/123/versions/20111005 dct:hasVersion (dct:isVersionOf) [skos:ConceptScheme] data:schemes/123/versions/2013020301
    36. 36. Published vocabularies Vocabulary England Scotland Wales Monument type YES YES YES Objects YES YES Maritime craft YES YES Period YES Events (activities) YES ??? Archaeological Sciences YES ??? Components YES Building materials YES Evidence YES YES
    37. 37. A question of jurisdiction TENEMENT (Scotland) http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/1/concepts/467 A large building containing a number of rooms or flats, access to which is usually gained via a common stairway. TENEMENT (England) http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/eh_tmt2/concepts/68997 A parcel of land. TENEMENT (Wales) http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/10/concepts/68997 TENEMENT BLOCK (England) http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/eh_tmt2/concepts/71489 Use for speculatively built 19th century "model dwellings", rather than those built by a philanthropic society. TENEMENT BLOCK (Wales) http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/10/concepts/71489 TENEMENT HOUSE (England) http://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/eh_tmt2/concepts/71476 SC674834 289 Allison Street, Glasgow: TENEMENT http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/148111/ Originally built as a family house. Converted into flats during the 19th or 20th century.
    38. 38. A question of jurisdiction SC683414 Cruck Framed Byre, Latheron, Caithness http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/86630/ A Cruck House in Wick, Worcestershire Cruck cottage in Wick Philip Halling http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
    39. 39. A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh? DP151933 The Cenotaph, George Square, Glasgow: http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/143264/
    40. 40. A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?
    41. 41. Multilinguality  Multilingual labels & notes  Search in one language, retrieve another  Potential to manage regional terms
    42. 42. Challenges for RCAHMS Controlled vocabularies online  Integration of project deliverables into RCAHMS processes  Managing candidate terms  Publishing additional vocabularies  Jurisdiction  - a single British thesaurus for Cultural heritage?  Adding images  Moving the goalposts
    43. 43. Summary  Controlled vocabularies online  Linked data (SKOS)  Downloadable files  Linking out  Mapping between the different thesauri  Web services  term suggestion, term validation, legacy data alignment  Tools to align data with controlled vocabularies  Browser-based ‘widget’ controls http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/work-in-the-pipeline/
    44. 44. “the key to interoperability” http://www.heritagedata.org/ ©University of Glamorgan

    ×