SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Ariadne: Interoperability

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
ariadnenetwork
ariadnenetwork

Ariadne Training Workshop Ljubljana, Slovenia 21 January 2016 Presentation by Holly Wright, Archaeology Data Service (ADS)

Related slideshows

Open Data Publication - Requirements, Good practices, and Benefits
Open Data Publication - Requirements, Good practices, and BenefitsOpen Data Publication - Requirements, Good practices, and Benefits
Open Data Publication - Requirements, Good practices, and Benefits
 
Integrating Data for Archaeology
Integrating Data for ArchaeologyIntegrating Data for Archaeology
Integrating Data for Archaeology
 
EAA2014 Istanbul - Barriers and Opportunities for Linked Open Data use in Arc...
EAA2014 Istanbul - Barriers and Opportunities for Linked Open Data use in Arc...EAA2014 Istanbul - Barriers and Opportunities for Linked Open Data use in Arc...
EAA2014 Istanbul - Barriers and Opportunities for Linked Open Data use in Arc...
 
1 of 14
ARIADNE is funded by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme Interoperability Holly Wright
Overview • Why do we care about interoperability? Isn’t it enough to just make our data available for re-use? • Once you go through all the hard work of preserving and disseminating your data, a whole world opens up! • By combining your data with the data of others in new ways, we can create new knowledge and understanding that was not possible before.
Overview • Metadata • Controlled vocabularies, thesauri or ontologies • Geo-Data • Linked Open Data • Portals
Metadata • Metadata sits at the heart of interoperability. Without good metadata, interoperability isn’t possible. • Metadata should, whenever possible be based on standards • It often takes some time and research to determine what the appropriate standards are for your metadata • Very often the metadata created for a project, may not conform to a standard, and mapping has to take place. This isn’t a bad thing, but if metadata is already standards compliant (all or in part), its much less work!
Mapping • Use of standards-based ontologies, thesauri and controlled vocabularies can help your data become interoperable. • The most widely used ontology in Cultural Heritage is the CIDOC CRM, which is an ISO standard. • Not specific to any one domain, so no terminology or relationships are presented that are specific to archaeology. • Extensions have been developed like the CRM-EH and CRMarcheo
Mapping • Working with ontologies can require a lot of work and expert knowledge, which may or may not be necessary • Using thesauri; lists of agreed upon terms with simple, hierarchical relationships is often all that is needed • Even using controlled vocabularies, where you just map to a list of terms can be an easy path to interoperability • Example is the SENESCHAL project, which brought together archaeology vocabularies and thesauri used by the national agencies for England, Scotland and Wales, which can now be used as standards
Mapping • ARIADNE is using the CIDOC CRM and experimenting with the new CRMarchaeo, but for archaeological subjects has chosen to map to the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) as a central spine • Mappings are made in the partner’s native language (and English if desired) • This means you can search for a subject in Hungarian, and get results in German (English is just the glue)
Geo data • Lots of work has been done with making archaeological data interoperable with regard to place • One of the best examples is the Pelagios project – Links online resources to the historic past, primarily within the classical world, meant to be primarily machine readable – New initiative called Peripleo, which provides a map interface
Temporal Data • Most of the work has been done on what and where, as its (relatively) easy • By far the most difficult aspect of making archaeological data interoperable is dealing with WHEN • When is always dependent on where (bronze age is different depending on where you are in the world • CRMarchaeo has tried to deal with this using a concept called ‘space-time’ volumes • PeriodO is using ‘assertions’ to build consensus around temporal terms
Different Approaches • Some approaches for making data interoperable use a top-down approach – Using a controlled vocabulary to which everyone agrees to map their data – Mapping to an ontology like the CIDOC CRM • Some approaches for making data interoperable use a bottom-up approach – Using a variety of sources showing where an archaeological place is mentioned in a text to create a research resource – Using the assertions used by different people in different place to build up assertions about archaeological time periods
Linked Open Data • Most of what underlies all of the examples shown is based on technologies and concepts that use Linked Data, preferable Linked Open Data (LOD) • Linked Data is a very different way of organising data • Rather than using relational tables found in most traditional databases, it uses a graph data structure, which has no hierarchy.
Linked Open Data • Everything is built using a subject-predicate- object relationship that can linked in any direction, pulled apart and recombined in any direction. • It allows the use of inference to leap across concepts. • We even use it as important part of our CMS.
Portals • Interoperable data can be brought together and searched from a single interface, often a portal. This is known as a federated query. • One of the earliest examples of portal was part of the ARENA2 project. • Most of the previous examples are portals, using data from a variety of sources which has been made interoperable.
Acknowledgements ARIADNE is a project funded by the European Commission under the Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, contract no. FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES-2012-1- 313193.

More Related Content

Ariadne: Interoperability

  • 1. ARIADNE is funded by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme Interoperability Holly Wright
  • 2. Overview • Why do we care about interoperability? Isn’t it enough to just make our data available for re-use? • Once you go through all the hard work of preserving and disseminating your data, a whole world opens up! • By combining your data with the data of others in new ways, we can create new knowledge and understanding that was not possible before.
  • 3. Overview • Metadata • Controlled vocabularies, thesauri or ontologies • Geo-Data • Linked Open Data • Portals
  • 4. Metadata • Metadata sits at the heart of interoperability. Without good metadata, interoperability isn’t possible. • Metadata should, whenever possible be based on standards • It often takes some time and research to determine what the appropriate standards are for your metadata • Very often the metadata created for a project, may not conform to a standard, and mapping has to take place. This isn’t a bad thing, but if metadata is already standards compliant (all or in part), its much less work!
  • 5. Mapping • Use of standards-based ontologies, thesauri and controlled vocabularies can help your data become interoperable. • The most widely used ontology in Cultural Heritage is the CIDOC CRM, which is an ISO standard. • Not specific to any one domain, so no terminology or relationships are presented that are specific to archaeology. • Extensions have been developed like the CRM-EH and CRMarcheo
  • 6. Mapping • Working with ontologies can require a lot of work and expert knowledge, which may or may not be necessary • Using thesauri; lists of agreed upon terms with simple, hierarchical relationships is often all that is needed • Even using controlled vocabularies, where you just map to a list of terms can be an easy path to interoperability • Example is the SENESCHAL project, which brought together archaeology vocabularies and thesauri used by the national agencies for England, Scotland and Wales, which can now be used as standards
  • 7. Mapping • ARIADNE is using the CIDOC CRM and experimenting with the new CRMarchaeo, but for archaeological subjects has chosen to map to the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) as a central spine • Mappings are made in the partner’s native language (and English if desired) • This means you can search for a subject in Hungarian, and get results in German (English is just the glue)
  • 8. Geo data • Lots of work has been done with making archaeological data interoperable with regard to place • One of the best examples is the Pelagios project – Links online resources to the historic past, primarily within the classical world, meant to be primarily machine readable – New initiative called Peripleo, which provides a map interface
  • 9. Temporal Data • Most of the work has been done on what and where, as its (relatively) easy • By far the most difficult aspect of making archaeological data interoperable is dealing with WHEN • When is always dependent on where (bronze age is different depending on where you are in the world • CRMarchaeo has tried to deal with this using a concept called ‘space-time’ volumes • PeriodO is using ‘assertions’ to build consensus around temporal terms
  • 10. Different Approaches • Some approaches for making data interoperable use a top-down approach – Using a controlled vocabulary to which everyone agrees to map their data – Mapping to an ontology like the CIDOC CRM • Some approaches for making data interoperable use a bottom-up approach – Using a variety of sources showing where an archaeological place is mentioned in a text to create a research resource – Using the assertions used by different people in different place to build up assertions about archaeological time periods
  • 11. Linked Open Data • Most of what underlies all of the examples shown is based on technologies and concepts that use Linked Data, preferable Linked Open Data (LOD) • Linked Data is a very different way of organising data • Rather than using relational tables found in most traditional databases, it uses a graph data structure, which has no hierarchy.
  • 12. Linked Open Data • Everything is built using a subject-predicate- object relationship that can linked in any direction, pulled apart and recombined in any direction. • It allows the use of inference to leap across concepts. • We even use it as important part of our CMS.
  • 13. Portals • Interoperable data can be brought together and searched from a single interface, often a portal. This is known as a federated query. • One of the earliest examples of portal was part of the ARENA2 project. • Most of the previous examples are portals, using data from a variety of sources which has been made interoperable.
  • 14. Acknowledgements ARIADNE is a project funded by the European Commission under the Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, contract no. FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES-2012-1- 313193.