The TAO CI ontology of vases of the Ming and Qing dynasties

Abstract

The advent of the Semantic Web and Linked Data initiative has contributed to new perspectives and opportunities regarding cultural heritage conservation. Museums have extensive collections of Chinese ceramic vases in China. Although some data sources have been digitized, the vision of cultural heritage institutions is not only to display objects and simple descriptions (drawn from metadata), but also to allow for understanding relationships between objects (created by semantically interrelated metadata). The key to achieving this goal is to utilize the technologies of the Semantic Web, whose core is Ontology. The focus of this paper is to describe the construction of the TAO CI (“ceramics” in Chinese) ontology and terminology of the domain of ceramic vases of the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) dynasties. The theoretical framework relies on the notion of essential characteristics. This notion is compliant with the ISO principles on Terminology (ISO 1087 and 704), according to which a concept is defined as a combination of essential characteristics, and with the Aristotelian definition in terms of genus and differentia. This approach is intuitive for domain experts and requires identifying essential characteristics, combining them into concepts, and translating the result into a Semantic Web language. This article proposes an approach based on a morphological analysis of the Chinese terms for vases to identify essential characteristics and a term-guided method for defining concepts. Such a term-and-characteristic guided approach makes ontology engineering less dependent on formal languages and does not require a background in Description Logics. The research presented in this article aims to publish the resulting structured data on the Semantic Web for the use of anybody interested, including museums hosting collections of these vessels, and enrich existing domain ontology building methodologies. To our knowledge, there are no comprehensive ontologies for Chinese ceramic vases. TAO CI ontology remedies this gap and provides a reference for ontology building in other domains of Chinese cultural heritage. The TAO CI ontology is openly accessible here: http://www.dh.ketrc.com/otcontainer/data/otc.owl.

Keywords

Cultural heritage Ontology Semantic web Chinese ceramic vases essential characteristics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cantone, D., Asmundo, M.N., Santamaria, D.F. & Trapani, F. (2015). Ontoceramic: An OWL ontology for ceramics classification. CILC, 122–127.

Carriero, V.A., Gangemi, A., Mancinelli, M.L., Marinucci, L., Nuzzolese, A., Presutti, V. & Veninata, C. (2019). ArCo ontology network and LOD on Italian cultural heritage. In 1st International Workshop on Open Data and Ontologies for Cultural Heritage, ODOCH 2019, Rome, Italy (pp. 97–102).

CIDOC, C. (2003). The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model.

Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC conceptual reference module: An ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Magazine, 24, 75–75.

Doerr, M., Gradmann, S., Hennicke, S., Isaac, A., Meghini, C. & Van de Sompel, H. (2010). The Europeana data model (edm). In World Library and Information Congress: 76th IFLA General Conference and Assembly (pp. 10–15).

Fernández-López, M. (1999). Overview of methodologies for building ontologies. In IJCAI99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends (Vol. 430).

Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A. & Juristo, N. (1997). Methontology: From Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering.

Gerstl, P. & Pribbenow, S. (1996). A conceptual theory of part-whole relations and its applications. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 20, 305–322. doi:10.1016/S0169-023X(96)00014-6.

Gruber, E. & Smith, T.J. (2014). Linked open Greek pottery. In 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (pp. 205–214).

10.

Gruber, T.R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 907–928. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081.

11.

Guarino, N. & Guizzardi, G. (2006). In the defense of ontological foundations for conceptual modeling. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 18, 1.

12.

Guarino, N. & Welty, C.A. (2004). An overview of OntoClean. In

Staab (Ed.), Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 151–171). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_8.

13.

ISO 1087 (2019). Terminology work and terminology science – Vocabulary, Geneva.

14.

Lantow, B. (2016). OntoMetrics: Putting Metrics into Use for Ontology Evaluation. KEOD, 186–191.

15.

Nong, J., Liang, C. & Xie, P. (2019). Research on government domain ontology construction method based on formal concept analysis. IEEE International Conferences on Ubiquitous Computing & Communications (IUCC) and Data Science and Computational Intelligence (DSCI) and Smart Computing, Networking and Services (SmartCNS), 10, 230–235.

16.

Orton, C. & Hughes, M. (2013). Classification of form and decoration. In Pottery in Archaeology (pp. 81–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511920066.009.

17.

Orton, C. & Hughes, M. (2013). History of pottery studies. In Pottery in Archaeology (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511920066.003.

18.

Özacar, T., Öztürk, Ö. & Ünalır, M.O. (2011). ANEMONE: An environment for modular ontology development. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 70, 504–526. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2011.02.005.

19.

Palincas, N. (2005). On classification in archaeology. In New Europe College Yearbook 2001–2002 (pp. 219–248).

20.

Peroni, S., Shotton, D. & Vitali, F. (2012). Latest Developments to LODE. Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. EKAW 2012. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

21.

Poveda-Villalón, M., Gómez-Pérez, A. & Suárez-Figueroa, M.C. (1998). Oops!(ontology pitfall scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems(IJSWIS), 10, 7–34. doi:10.4018/ijswis.2014040102.

22.

Read, D.W. (2007). Artifact Classification: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Routledge.

23.

Ren, Y., Parvizi, A., Mellish, C., Pan, J.Z., Van Deemter, K. & Stevens, R. (2014). Towards Competency Question-Driven Ontology Authoring. European Semantic Web Conference (pp. 752–767). Springer.

24.

Rigoir, J. & Rigoir, Y. (1968). Description et dénomination des formes céramiques. In Revue Archéologique du Centre (Vol. 4, pp. 327–334).

25.

Roche, C. (2021). De la définition formelle du concept à la définition en langue du terme. Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 13. http://ajmp.uni.wroc.pl/upload/volume-13/Roche(1).pdf.

26.

Roche, C. & Papadopoulou, M. (2019). Mind the gap: Ontology authoring for humanists. In 1st International Workshop for Digital Humanities and Their Social Analysis (WODHSA)-Episode V: The Styrian Autumn of Ontology.

27.

Sabou, M. & Fernandez, M. (2012). Ontology (network) evaluation. In

M.C.

Suárez-Figueroa (Ed.), Ontology Engineering in a Networked World (pp. 193–212). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24794-1_9.

28.

Soergel, D. (1995). The art and architecture thesaurus (AAT): A critical appraisal. Visual Resources, 10, 369–400. doi:10.1080/01973762.1995.9658306.

29.

Spies, M. & Roche, C. (2008). Aristotelian ontologies and OWL modeling. In

Rittgen (Ed.), Handbook of Ontologies for Business Interaction, Hershey (pp. 21–33). doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-660-0.ch002.

30.

Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A. & Fernández-López, M. (2012). The NeOn methodology for ontology engineering. In

M.C.

Suárez-Figueroa (Ed.), Ontology Engineering in a Networked World (pp. 21–33). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24794-1.

31.

Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A. & Fernandez-Lopez, M. (2015). The NeOn methodology framework: A scenario-based methodology for ontology development. Applied Ontology, 10, 107–145. doi:10.3233/AO-150145.

32.

Sure, Y., Staab, S. & Studer, R. (2004). On-to-knowledge methodology (OTKM). In

Staab (Ed.), Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 117–132). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_6.

33.

Uschold, M. (1998). Knowledge level modelling: Concepts and terminology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13, 5–29. doi:10.1017/S0269888998001040.

34.

Venu, S.H., Mohan, V., Urkalan, K. & Geetha, T.V. (2016). Unsupervised domain ontology learning from text. In International Conference on Mining Intelligence and Knowledge Exploration (pp. 132–143).

35.

Vrandečić, D. (2009). Ontology evaluation. In

Staab (Ed.), Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 293–313). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_13.

36.

Wei, T., Roche, C., Papadopoulou, M. & Jia, Y. (2020). An ontology of Chinese ceramic vases. In 12th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (pp. 53–63).

37.

William, Y.A. & Ernest, W.A. (2008). Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press.

38.

Winston, M.E., Chaffin, R. & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1104_2.

39.

Zouaq, A. & Nkambou, R. (2009). Enhancing learning objects with an ontology-based memory. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21, 881–893. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2009.49.

40.

先铭, 冯 (2002). 中国陶瓷. 上海古籍出版社.

41.

华, 霍 (1989). 南京博物院藏瓷器标准化命名方法东南文化. 198–201.