Tag Archives: Semantic Web

Colonisation of Britain

Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists – archaeological geomatics – the majick of spatial data in archaeology – archaeological information systems for the digital age:

Colonisation of Britain Linked Data

Colonisation of Britain Linked Data

The Colonisation of Britain project was undertaken by Wessex Archaeology, commissioned by English Heritage, and involved the digitisation of the archive material of Roger Jacobi.

The project aimed to provide a comprehensive survey of the Upper Palaeolithic resource, with a pilot study of the Mesolithic in England involving three counties. A comprehensive survey of these periods (c.38,000-c 6500 BP) was considered of particular importance because many of the sites and find spots represent evidence for the recolonisation of Britain after the Last Glacial Maximum by hominid groups. Unlike earlier recolonisations this event is part of the most northerly early migration of social groups of anatomically modern humans.

The major primary source of data for the survey is the invaluable and extensive archive compiled over many years by the late Dr Roger Jacobi. Securing this archive was identified as a priority in itself. The project included the digitisation of the Jacobi Archive, both as an image dataset and as a structured relational database, enhanced with additional information from SMR/HERs.

One of the outputs from the project is a Linked Data version of the outputs and Archaeogeomancy were pleased to be commissioned to undertake this component.


The work was undertaken using the Stellar toolkit, produced by the Hypermedia Research Unit at the University of South Wales. This is a freely available toolkit which facilitates the creation of Linked Data resources from tabular data, either in the form of delimited text files or relational databases. The source material used was the outputs available from Wessex Archaeology and soon to be available from the Archaeology Data Service, where the Linked Data will also soon be available.

The method for working with the data using the Stellar toolkit involves two main processes. Firstly, the data is mapped to one or both of the ontologies supported by the toolkit, namely the CRM-EH (for archaeological fieldwork data) which is an extension to the other ontology supported, namely the CIDOC CRM which supports the full range of cultural heritage information. For the Colonisation of Britain project, a mapping was undertaken the the main CIDOC CRM ontology as the data does not relate to archaeological investigations, rather describes collections of objects from the Jacobi archive.

The second stage is to create templates representing this mapping for use with the Stellar application. This uses the templates and the source data to produce CIDOC CRM compliant Linked Data in the form of RDF files. The format of the templates is defined by the String Template system, “a java template engine (with ports for C#, Python) for generating source code, web pages, emails, or any other formatted text output“. The user defined templates created for this project reference the core Stellar templates written by Ceri Binding (University of South Wales) which do most of the heavy lifting.

A further stage was also undertaken to align geospatial elements of the source data with Ordnance Survey data. Where placenames occurred in the source data, these were converted to Ordnance Survey OpenSpace URIs using the Open Refine platform drawing on the OS Reconciliation API (see below for details). This included parish and county names which were linked to the OS BoundaryLine dataset. A further piece of work will be undertaken which will take this one step further and add GeoSPARQL nodes to the Linked Data resource, enabling the data to be more fully included in Linked Geospatial Data graphs.


This mapping describes the data as it is stored in the digitised version of the Jacobi archive; this means that some concepts are not fully resolved, for example places of origin, as it cannot be stated with certainty that any two identical place names refer to the same place. It is of course, still possible to query the semantic data using the longer chains so for example with respect to place names, whilst two occurrences of the same place name are represented in the output Linked Data as two distinct places, they can be linked by virtue of having the same place name appellation.

The heart of the Linked Data resource is each collection of artefacts described by the original card index. This is modelled as the CIDOC CRM concept E78 Collection. Each artefact collection is described by an index card (E31 Document) which documents the collection itself as well as the ‘site’ ie the place of origin (E53 Place). Where specific spatial coordinates exist, these have been included as appellations of the spatial nodes (E47 Spatial Coordinates). Spatial metadata such as precision is represented as classifications of the spatial nodes (using E54 Dimensions, E58 Measurement Units and E55 Type).

The artefact collection can form part of a larger collection, for example a named collection (E78 Collection) curated by a museum (E40 Legal Body), and is classified using the classificatory schemes used by both Jacobi and Wessex Archaeology through their enhancement (all using E55 Type). Additional information is stored as notes associated with particular concepts as appropriate. The index cards describe collections by material type so the resultant Linked Data does likewise, with each collection having a type of material (E57 Material).

Finally, assertions made through the project by the specialists were the product of a specific activity (E13 Attribute Assignment). This allows each collection to be associated with an archaeological period (eg Mesolithic) represented here as a purely temporal concept (E49 Time Appellation) and this linkage can be extended as required to link to eg the Heritage Data period resources, represented using SKOS.

Open Refine

The Open Refine platform is a very useful way of converting spatial data stored as text strings (eg names of counties, parishes, etc) into URIs suitable for inclusion in Linked Data resources. For details on how to use this, see the official Ordnance Survey documentation and also this very helpful blog by John Goodwin.


The Linked Data data can be visualised in a variety of ways. The image presented here have been created using Gruff to be demonstrative of the shape of the Linked Data. The image shown here illustrates the overall shape of the resource using one specific record; the collection, associated places, classifications, curatorial organisations and the project itself can all be seen. Also noteworthy are the nodes in the bottom right of the image which relate to the Ordnance Survey TOIDs referenced in this case.

Example showing the Linked Data for record 00748

Example showing the Linked Data for record 00748 (click for a larger view)


The Stellar templates used for the project are included here for information. They are dependent on the CRM-EH and CRM templates distributed with the Stellar Toolkit. Templates are distributed using a Creative Commons license so do make use of them for any purpose, the only restriction on usage is that proper attribution be made.

For more information on writing custom templates, see the Stellar Tools documentation, the String Template documentation or get in touch.


Thanks are due to Chris Brayne and Matt Leivers (Wessex Archaeology) for commissioning the project and doing all the really hard work successfully undertaking the main Colonisation of Britain project. A big thanks to Ceri Binding (University of South Wales) for support on the Stellar Toolkit and thanks also to Michael Charno (Archaeology Data Service) for liaising over ADS handover and specific requirements.

The post Colonisation of Britain appeared first on Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists.

CAA2014: Ontologies and standards for improving interoperability of archaeological data: from models towards practical experiences in various contexts

Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists – archaeological geomatics – the majick of spatial data in archaeology – archaeological information systems for the digital age:

CAA2014 banner

CAA2014 banner


The session was organised by Anne-Violaine Szabados, Katell Briatte, Maria Emilia Masci, and Christophe Tufféry. Reinhard Foertsch and Sebastian Rahtz chaired the session.

There were a number of highlights. The number of papers referencing the CIDOC CRM demonstrates the impact and uptake of this robust ontology within the cultural heritage sector. With increased uptake and demonstrable use cases, this can only snowball and bring the benefits so many people have discussed over the past ten years and more. Dominic Oldman and Sebastian Rahtz’s paper in particular set the scene here, talking about experiences with the CLAROS and ResearchSpace projects.

Discussion of the PeriodO project was particularly striking. The approach to taken to provide a Linked Data resource of period assertions is a very neat solution to the problem of diverse views of archaeological periods and the inclusion of a spatial component promises to make for an incredibly powerful resource. I look forward to making use of this in my research.

There was significant diversity in the subject matters of presentations, ranging from 3D models to coins to archaeological deposits, features, sites and monuments. It was particularly pleasing to note there is now a significant group of researchers working with ontologies, providing an active community for ideas to be discussed within and ideas mooted and developed. It is a privilege to be a part of this. With groups such as the ARIADNE Linked Data SIG and the CAA Semantic SIG, there are also forums within which we can collaborate and communicate.


  1. › The Digital Archaeological Workflow: A Case Study from Sweden  – Marcus Smith, Swedish National Heritage Board 08:55-09:20 (25min)
  2. › Find the balance – Modelling aspects in Archaeological Information Systems  – Frank Schwarzbach, Dresden University of Applied Sciences 09:20-09:45 (25min)
  3. › linkedARC.net: addressing the standards question in archaeological digital data management using Linked Open Data  – Frank Lynam, Trinity College Dublin 09:45-10:10 (25min)
  4. › Dykes of standards supporting polders of data: the practices used in the Netherlands for making archaeological data available and accessible  – Valentijn Gilissen, Data Archiving and Networked Services 10:10-10:35 (25min)
  5. › Integration of Archaeological Datasets Through the Gradual Refinement of Models  – Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, Institute of Heritage Sciences, Spanish National Research Council 10:50-11:15 (25min)
  6. › Building comprehensive management systems for cultural – historical information  – Chryssoula Bekiari, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas 11:15-11:40 (25min)
  7. › To Boldly or Bravely Go? Experiences of using Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources  – Keith May, English Heritage (& University of South Wales) 11:40-12:05 (25min)
  8. › Aligning the Academy with the Cultural Heritage Sector through the CIDOC CRM and Semantic Web technology.  – Dominic Oldman, British Museum – Sebastian Rahtz, IT Services, University of Oxford 12:05-12:30 (25min)
  9. › Making the links to Portable Antiquities Scheme data  – Daniel Pett, The British Museum, Portable Antiquities Scheme 14:00-14:25 (25min)
  10. › The interoperability of the ArSol database (Soil Archives): reflections and feedbacks experiences on the use of the CIDOC-CRM ontology and the integration of thesauri  – Emeline Le Goff, UMR 7324 CITERES – Olivier Marlet, UMR7324 CITERES 14:25-14:50 (25min)
  11. › Geosemantic Tools for Archaeological Research (GSTAR)  – Paul Cripps, Archaeogeomancy, Hypermedia Research Unit, University of South Wales 14:50-15:15 (25min)
  12. › Linked Open Pottery  – Ethan Gruber, American Numismatic Society – Tyler Jo Smith, University of Virginia 15:15-15:40 (25min)
  13. › Uncertainty handling for ancient coinage  – Karsten Tolle, Databases and Information Systems 15:40-16:05 (25min)
  14. › Some Issues on LOD in Cultural Heritage: the Case of Historical Place Names  – Oreste Signore, CNR-ISTI 16:20-16:45 (25min)
  15. › Periods, Organized (PeriodO): a Linked Data gazetteer to bridge the gap between concept and usage in archaeological periodization  – Adam Rabinowitz, The University of Texas at Austin 16:45-17:10 (25min)
  16. › A metadata schema for cultural heritage documentation data retrieval through publication- Using STARC metadata schema to handle 3D Cultural Heritage Documentation (The case of recording sites in Israel)  – Yiakoupi Kyriaki, The Cyprus Institute 17:10-17:35 (25min)
  17. › An Ontology for 3D Visualization in Cultural Heritage  – Valeria Vitale, King’s College London, Department of Digital Humanities 17:35-18:00 (25min)
  18. › Poster Session & Conclusion  – Anne-Violaine Szabados, UMR 7041, LIMC – Katell Briatte, DGP – DSIP – Maria Emilia Masci, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa – Christophe Tufféry, Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives, Cités, Territoires, Environnement et Sociétés 18:00-18:20 (20min)


The post CAA2014: Ontologies and standards for improving interoperability of archaeological data: from models towards practical experiences in various contexts appeared first on Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists.


Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists – archaeological geomatics – the majick of spatial data in archaeology – archaeological information systems for the digital age:

Eiffel Tower

Eiffel Tower

On Thursday 24th April, I gave a presentation on my PhD research project (GSTAR) to the 2014 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference, Paris, France. The presentation formed part of the session S07 Ontologies and standards for improving interoperability of archaeological data: from models towards practical experiences in various contexts organised by Anne-Violaine Szabados, Katell Briatte, Maria Emilia Masci, and Christophe Tufféry. Reinhard Foertsch and Sebastian Rahtz chaired the session.

Some notes on the session can be found here.

Eiffel Tower

Eiffel Tower

The abstract describes the talk, which covered work to date in the first year of the project:

Much work has been undertaken over the past decade relating to the application of semantic approaches to archaeological data resources, notably by English Heritage and the University of South Wales. These two organisations, over the course of a number of projects, developed an archaeological extension to the CIDOC CRM ontology through the Ontological Modelling Project (Cripps & May, 2010), then applied this to a number of archaeological resources through the subsequent STAR project (May, Binding and Tudhope, 2011), implementing tools to facilitate integration of other resources through the STELLAR project (May, Binding, Tudhope, & Jeffrey, 2012), and now, in partnership with the Bespoke HER User Group, RCAHMS, RCAHMW and Wessex Archaeology, are implementing SKOS based vocabularies and associated tools to enable the augmentation of these semantic resources through the SENESCHAL project.

From the outset, it was observed that the spatial component of archaeological data would be a key element, archaeological data being inherently spatial in nature. To date, most current applications of spatial semantics in the heritage sector have focussed on place names and named locations for sites and monuments and object provenances. The GSTAR project aims to extend semantic approaches to archaeological data fully into the geospatial domain and is instead focussing on the detailed spatial data emerging from archaeological excavation and survey work and is investigating approaches for the creation, use, management and dissemination of such spatial data within a geosemantic framework, building on the CIDOC CRM, with particular reference to sharing and integration of disparate resources.

This paper will present work to date in the first year of the GSTAR project. This has been centred on the identification of suitable platforms and methods for the integration of semantic and geospatial data including comparisons of different approaches emerging from the Semantic Web and Geospatial research communities. Testing and prototyping has been accomplished using sample data from the Archaeology Data Service, making use of available geospatial and (geo)semantic tools, both FOSS and commercial.

Cripps, P. and K. May 2010. To OO or not to OO? Revelations from Ontological Modelling of an Archaeological Information System, in: Nicolucci, F. and S. Hermon (eds.), Beyond the Artifact. Digital Interpretation of the Past. Proceedings of CAA2004, Prato 13–17 April 2004. Archaeolingua, Budapest, pp. 59-63.

May, K., C. Binding and D. Tudhope 2011. A STAR is Born: Some Emerging Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources, in: Jerem, E., F. Redő and V. Szeverényi (eds.), On the Road to Reconstructing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Proceedings of the 36th International Conference. Budapest, April 2-6, 2008. Archeaeolingua, Budapest, pp. 111-116 (CD-ROM 402-408).

May, K., C. Binding, D. Tudhope and S. Jeffrey 2012. Semantic Technologies Enhancing Links and Linked Data for Archaeological Resources, in: Zhou, M., I. Romanowska, Z. Wu, P. Xu and P. Verhagen (eds.), Revive the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Proceedings of the 39th International Conference, Beijing, April 12-16.. Pallas Publications, Amsterdam, pp. 261-272.

The presentation is available on Slideshare:

The presentation also prompted some positive comments on Twitter, which was lovely:

The post GSTAR @ CAA2014 appeared first on Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists.

Linking Geospatial Data 2014

Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists – archaeological geomatics – the majick of spatial data in archaeology – archaeological information systems for the digital age:

LGD14 Barcamp, featuring open plan space and beanbags.

LGD14 Barcamp, featuring open plan space and beanbags.

I was very pleased to attend this event co-organised by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) through the SmartOpenData project, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), the UK Government (data.gov.uk), the Ordnance Survey (OS) and Google. Hosted by Google Campus London, the two day event comprised presentations, lightening talks and a barcamp, all focussing on the use of geospatial data within the world of Linked Data. It was refreshing to be amongst researchers, users, developers and commercial folk all working in this area; I for one picked up some good ideas to help with my research project and hopefully my contributions were of use.

It was certainly good to bring together the camps working in this area: the geospatial technologists on the one side and the web folks on the other (And people like me who have one foot in each camp, as well as limbs in other domains, my primary domain being digital cultural heritage of course). To make this stuff work it’s going to take both groups working together through their respective consortia, the W3C and OGC.


I noted a number of specific highlights that really inspired and gave me food for thought. Some reinforced my own perceptions and others gave me some new ideas for application to my project. The extensive use of IRC and Twitter combined with fast internet access throughout the event made it possible to discuss and find out more whilst talks were ongoing. The format lent itself to interaction and I was impressed by the amount of progress made in such a short space of time, with new working groups forming and ideas for revisions to standards such as GeoSPARQL forthcoming.

Some of my favourite bits:

Ontologies and Linked Data

The discussion of the relationship of ontologies to Linked Data resources was informative. Whilst there is tendency in the world of the web to target the low hanging fruit, publish data and sort out issues later, it is my opinion that there needs to be robust semantics within our Linked Data resources. Otherwise we have a web of mess rather than semantically interoperable data. I noted a couple of points made by Tim Duffy (British Geological Survey) that resonated here:

Kerry Taylor (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) gave some examples of where ontological development can support but also restrict aims, showing how things can go wrong when trying to implement the various standards out there. This is an important point; ontologies need to be simple enough to work with but also suit the domain and applications.

GeoSPARQL and geometries

It was interesting to note that the use of Well Known Text (WKT) within GeoSPARQL can be problematic; hearing Lars G. Svensson (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) talk about their experiences was reassuring given my experiences over the past few months!

Two crucial issues were raised by Raphaël Troncy (Eurecom) relating firstly to the use of coordinate systems and secondly to the way in which geometries are represented. I have often found the way in which geospatial data is used on the web to be problematic, with web developers focussing solely on location with only minimal respect for Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS), Spatial Reference System (SRS) or Spatial Reference Identifiers (SRID). In many cases, this is an acceptable way of working (if you just want features on maps in roughly the right place) but lack of clarity regarding spatial frameworks is problematic for any more detailed use of geospatial data. Being explicit about coordinate systems is essential for transforming between different coordinate systems and also takes into account factors such as tectonic plate movement. Put simply, assuming WGS84 is the only way to reference coordinates is a gross oversimplification.

Secondly, he went on to talk about the implementation of this within GeoSPARQL. The standard does support CRS (a good start) but the implementation is a little complex in my view. He suggested making CRS definitions simply part of the semantic model rather than being fudged into a geometry node as they currently are; a geometry node currently comprises up to three parts, the first being an (optional) SRID, the second being the geometry itself and the third being a literal describing the format of the geometry (eg a WKT or GML literal). It was suggested that these could better be stored as individual assertions relating to a geometry object and this was well received and may well appear in the next version of the standard: hurrah!


A thorny issue if ever there was one. With heritage data in particular, it is important to know provenance of vocabularies. This topic came up a couple of times and it was pleasing to hear that a lightweight solution exists (current and then historical, versioned namespaces; bit clunky but doable) and versioning can be more fully supported using ontologies designed for the purpose.


A key question with Linked Data is how do you know who is using your data? Does this matter? Arguably not, but as with anything, proper citation and accreditation is useful, polite and can be used to demonstrate impact (a good thing when looking for funding). Turns out that Adam Leadbetter (British Oceanographic Data Centre) and Dicky Allison (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) have both been using the Heritage Data vocabularies I blogged about previously, which is great stuff but this only came to light through seeing the inclusion of English Heritage as a provider on one of their slides!

Precision & Accuracy

Important concepts for heritage data are precision and accuracy. When working with historic maps in particular it is important to be able to record tolerances against which data has been captured. As with coordinate systems, this is an area often ignored in the world of Linked Data with coordinates expressed to spurious levels of precision (ten decimal places is a *seriously* precise measurement!) with no metadata to describe overall accuracy. Coming from a geospatial background where these are core items of metadata, the lack of proper support for this within current Linked Data standards is problematic. It took a speaker working with heritage data to make this point; nice one Rob Warren (Big Data Institute, Dalhousie University).


There was talk of temporal aspects to data, most spatial data have some kind of temporal component to it. Interestingly, the data I work with is placed in archaeological time and rarely do we have any absolute temporal data; chronologies are typically relative and imprecise with occasional pegs to actual temporal classes generally used in Linked Data (timestamps, dates, etc). I think this makes for an interesting area to try out ideas and the way this is represented in cultural heritage ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM, whilst being a bit different to the norm, actually encapsulates some very powerful constructs for working with spatio-temporal data.

Cool stuff!

Last but not least, there was a liberal spread of really cool stuff.


Strabon had a few mentions, with a point made that the GeoKnow report on platforms had evaluated an old version and actually Strabon is now a very capable and scalable system. Being a semantic spatio-temporal system built from the ground up rather than than adding semantic, spatial and temporal functionality to an existing system sounds promising. I will certainly be reviewing it in more detail as a result.


Also, building on the Strabon system comes Sextant. This application is described as:

Sextant is a web-based system for the visualization and exploration of time-evolving linked geospatial data and the creation, sharing, and collaborative editing of `temporally-enriched’ thematic maps which are produced by combining different sources of such data and other geospatial information available in standard OGC file formats (e.g., KML).

This looks like a very interesting platform for mapping geosemantic data, one which I will definitely be investigating further.


An absolutely brilliant piece of work was presented by John Goodwin (Ordnance Survey) called entitled Rapid Assembly of Geo-centred Linked Data applications (RAGLD). A collaboration between the University of Southampton, Ordnance Survey and Seme4, this project provides a neat suite of developer tools (currently in beta) for working with Linked Geospatial Data. Massive +1 from me!


Another really interesting platform is map4rdf. This is described as:

map4rdf is a mapping and faceted browsing tool for exploring and visualizing RDF datasets enhanced with geometrical Information. map4rdf is an open source software. Just configure it to use your SPARQL endpoint and provide your users with a nice map-based visualization of your data.

Again, this is one I will be investigating further for my GSTAR project.

Campus London

Is just cool. Enough said. Love their displays of historical computer gear and of course the open plan, bean bag filled working space. Really tempted to join up and hang out there more (if only the trains to London didn’t require a mortgage…)

[flickr-gallery mode="photoset" photoset="72157642122872833"]


A brilliant event, well organised and some amazing ideas and discussion. Not only that, but an excellent forum for meeting people working in the same subject area; my Twitter peeps grew considerably as a result and I’ve added lots of new folks to my LinkedGeoData list.

Big thanks of course to John Goodwin and Phil Archer for leading on the organisation front.

Looking forward to LGD 15 :-)

The post Linking Geospatial Data 2014 appeared first on Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists.

GSTAR: investigation of methods for working with geosemantic data, integrating geospatial data with semantic data

Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists – archaeological geomatics – the majick of spatial data in archaeology – archaeological information systems for the digital age:

Mapping rubble by Brian Hoffman

Mapping rubble by Brian Hoffman

The first investigation in the GeoSemantic Technologies for Archaeological Research (GSTAR) research project is nearing completion, an assessment of approaches to the integration of geospatial archaeological data into a semantic framework to provide geosemantic capabilities.

The investigation draws on archaeological excavation data lodged with the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) and made available as Linked Data (LD) through the ADS’s Linked Data platform. The data relates to the Cobham Golf Course site and was produced by Oxford Archaeology (OA) as part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) project then turned into a Linked Data resource through the Semantic Technologies Enhancing Links and Linked data for Archaeological Resources (STELLAR) project, undertaken by the Hypermedia Research Unit at the University of South Wales (USW).

Mapping a feature by Wessex Archaeology

Mapping a feature by Wessex Archaeology

The GSTAR literature review identified two strands of integration approaches within published literature. Emerging from the semantic web and Linked Data communities, an approach involving the direct inclusion of geospatial data within semantic resources, leveraging World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards for Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards for Well Known Text (WKT, part of the Simple Features specification) and GeoSPARQL. Emerging from the Geographic Information Science (GISc) community, approaches involving the use of Web Feature Services (WFS) within broader Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) running in parallel and linked to to semantic resources.

This initial GSTAR investigation looked at both these strands with a view to assessing suitable modes for subsequent use in the next phases of the GSTAR project. A WISSKI installation has also been setup to allow for the minting of any additional URIs needed.

GeoSPARQL route

This involved creating geosemantic data aligned with the CRM-EH extension to the CIDOC CRM ontology, stored within the Oracle Spatial & Graph platform and accessed via GeoSPARQL using an Oracle WebLogic web server and the Jena Framework.

[code language=”xml”]
<owl:Class rdf:about="http://purl.org/crmeh#EHE0022_ContextDepiction">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://purl.org/crmeh#CRMEH"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://erlangen-crm.org/110404/E47_Spatial_Coordinates"/>
<rdfs:label>Context Depiction</rdfs:label>
The Spatial co-ordinates of a Context, defining the actual spatial extent of the context. Usually recorded at the time of excavation or other investigative work
The OWL definition of the EHE0022 class used to describe depictions

Further triples were also added to describe the depiction using the GeoSPARQL ogc:hasGeometry and ogc:asWKT properties.

[code language=”xml”]
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasGeometry">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource=""/>
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.opengis.net/spec/geosparql/1.0"/>
<skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">hasGeometry</skos:prefLabel>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date">2011-06-16</dc:date>
<dc:contributor>Matthew Perry</dc:contributor>
<dc:description xml:lang="en">
A spatial representation for a given feature.
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Geometry"/>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">
A spatial representation for a given feature.
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Feature"/>
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">hasGeometry</rdfs:label>
<dc:creator>OGC GeoSPARQL 1.0 Standard Working Group</dc:creator>
<skos:definition xml:lang="en">
A spatial representation for a given feature.

The OWL definition of the hasGeometry property

GIS Server route

A second approach used the same base platform and data but accessed the geospatial component via WFS provided by GeoServer, drawing on the Oracle database.

Next steps

The results of this stage and the GSTAR project in general will be presented at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) conference to be held in Paris, France during April 2014.

Thanks are due to the University of South Wales for funding the GSTAR project and to the people and organisations responsible for the tools, technologies and data being used. Also my PhD supervisor (Prof. Douglas Tudhope; USW), advisors (Dr Mark Ware and Dr Alex Lohfink: USW) and fellow researchers Ceri Binding (USW), Dr Andreas Vlachidis (USW) and Michael Charno (ADS) for their input.

The post GSTAR: investigation of methods for working with geosemantic data, integrating geospatial data with semantic data appeared first on Archaeogeomancy: Digital Heritage Specialists.