Paper delivered at "Opening the Past" conference, Pisa, June 2013

1. The Semantic Web
and the
Digital Archaeological
Workflow
A Case Study from Sweden
Marcus Smith
marcus.smith@raa.se

2. Swedish
Open
Cultural
Heritage

3. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’

4. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’
• Metadata aggregator &
web service for cultural
heritage institutions

5. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’
• Metadata aggregator &
web service for cultural
heritage institutions
• Monuments, buildings,
museum collections…

6. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’
• Metadata aggregator &
web service for cultural
heritage institutions
• Monuments, buildings,
museum collections…
• 40 institutions
(≈25–30 million triples)

7. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’
• Metadata aggregator &
web service for cultural
heritage institutions
• Monuments, buildings,
museum collections…
• 40 institutions
• 4.7 million database
objects
• 2.1 million artefacts
• 880 thousand photographs
• 830 thousand monuments
• 440 thousand documents
• 110 thousand historic buildings
• 40 thousand personages
• 2000 historical events
• 1500 historic maps

8. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’
• Metadata aggregator &
web service for cultural
heritage institutions
• Monuments, buildings,
museum collections…
• 40 institutions
• 4.7 million database
objects
• From the Paleolithic…
Paleolithic aurochs metatarsus – SHMM

9. SOCH
• K-samsök –
‘Cultural Cross-Search’
• Metadata aggregator &
web service for cultural
heritage institutions
• Monuments, buildings,
museum collections…
• 40 institutions
• 4.7 million database
objects
• From the Paleolithic…
• …to the present day
Copper alloy bottle cap – SHMM

10. Harvesting, Linking &
Dissemination• Object metadata
harvested from the
content provider using
OAI-PMH
Cultural Heritage
Institution’s
Database
SOCH
Local SOCH
adapter
OAI-PMH

11. Harvesting, Linking &
Dissemination• Object metadata
harvested from the
content provider using
OAI-PMH
• The metadata is then
enriched with additional
semantic links to
related objects
Burial
mound
depicted by
described by found at
ArtefactDocument
Photo
Vendel
Period
dated to

12. Harvesting, Linking &
Dissemination• Object metadata
harvested from the
content provider using
OAI-PMH
• The metadata is then
enriched with additional
semantic links to
related objects
• Links can be manually
added (UGC)
Burial
mound
has topic
Book
Wikipedia
Article
describes

13. Harvesting, Linking &
Dissemination• Object metadata
harvested from the
content provider using
OAI-PMH
• The metadata is then
enriched with additional
semantic links to
related objects
• Links can be manually
added (UGC)
• Available as RDF,
queryable via an API
SOCH
Application
RDF/XML
REST +
CQL
HTTP

14. Benefits of Linking
• Linking facilitates cross-
search

15. Benefits of Linking
• Linking facilitates cross-
search
• Linking simplifies
discovery, and clarifies
context
Objectmetadata
Relatedexternal
objects
Images
RelatedSOCHobjects

16. Benefits of Linking
• Linking facilitates cross-
search
• Linking simplifies
discovery, and clarifies
context
• Linking allows
unanticipated
connections appear! The old gallows (Galgberget), Visby – Riksantikvarieämbetet

17. Benefits of Linking
• Linking facilitates cross-
search
• Linking simplifies
discovery, and clarifies
context
• Linking allows
unanticipated
connections appear! The old gallows (Galgberget), Visby – Riksantikvarieämbetet
’Galgberget: Memories of Wisby’ – Västergötlands Museum

18. SOCH as a Platform
• SOCH as a platform for
development

19. SOCH as a Platform
• SOCH as a platform for
development
• Kringla: a web interface
http://kringla.nu/

20. SOCH as a Platform
• SOCH as a platform for
development
• Kringla: a web interface
http://kringla.nu/
• Mobile apps

21. SOCH as a Platform
• SOCH as a platform for
development
• Kringla: a web interface
http://kringla.nu/
• Mobile apps
• Mashups

22. SOCH as a Platform
• SOCH as a platform for
development
• Kringla: a web interface
http://kringla.nu/
• Mobile apps
• Mashups
• Museum portals

23. SOCH as a Platform
• SOCH as a platform for
development
• Kringla: a web interface
http://kringla.nu/
• Mobile apps
• Mashups
• Museum portals
• Over 225 million API
requests since launch
in 2010

24. Licensing & Reuse
• Only metadata is indexed
– all objects link back to a
permanent URI at the
source institution with
their full record

25. Licensing & Reuse
• Only metadata is indexed
– all objects link back to a
permanent URI at the
source institution with
their full record
• All metadata is CC0

26. Licensing & Reuse
• Only metadata is indexed
– all objects link back to a
permanent URI at the
source institution with
their full record
• All metadata is CC0
• Metadata includes
licensing information for
the main record

27. Licensing & Reuse
• Only metadata is indexed
– all objects link back to a
permanent URI at the
source institution with
their full record
• All metadata is CC0
• Metadata includes
licensing information for
the main record
• Of 1.8 million ‘rich’
objects, 1.2 million are
CC or PD

28. Licensing & Reuse
• Only metadata is indexed
– all objects link back to a
permanent URI at the
source institution with
their full record
• All metadata is CC0
• Metadata includes
licensing information for
the main record
• Of 1.8 million ‘rich’
objects, 1.2 million are
CC or PD
• SOCH is the Swedish
national aggregator for
Europeana

29. The Future of SOCH
• More institutions delivering
data

30. The Future of SOCH
• More institutions delivering
data
• SPARQL endpoint

31. The Future of SOCH
• More institutions delivering
data
• SPARQL endpoint
• Ultimately, we’d like it if
SOCH in its current form
wasn’t needed – if each
institution made their own
data available as SPARQL-
queryable RDF on the
semantic web.
SOCH
API

32. The Future of SOCH
• More institutions delivering
data
• SPARQL endpoint
• Ultimately, we’d like it if
SOCH in its current form
wasn’t needed – if each
institution made their own
data available as SPARQL-
queryable RDF on the
semantic web.

33. The Digital
Archaeological Workflow
(DAP)

34. The Problem
• No central fieldwork
register

35. The Problem
• No central fieldwork
register
• No central digital
archive for
archaeological data
’Charles Babb parts storage’ – SDASM (flickr)

36. The Problem
• No central fieldwork
register
• No central digital
archive for
archaeological data
• Digital availability of
fieldwork reports patchy

37. The Problem
• No central fieldwork
register
• No central digital
archive for
archaeological data
• Digital availability of
fieldwork reports patchy
• Existing resources not
linked ’silos’ – Doc Searls (flickr)

38. The Problem
• No central fieldwork
register
• No central digital
archive for
archaeological data
• Digital availability of
fieldwork reports patchy
• Existing resources not
linked
• Inefficient information
transfer
(digital → paper → digital)
The Output Unit.
How It Works: The Computer – Ladybird Books

39. Consequences
• Information describing the
same thing is spread
across several unrelated
data sources
• The relationships
between different objects
are either absent or not
described
• Digital information is still
processed according to
an analogue paradigm,
causing friction
• Duplication of effort
• Responsibility for
information management
unclear among
stakeholders
• Information is difficult to
find, and lacks greater
context
• Acute need for a digital
archive

40. Goals for DAP
• Fully digitised seamless
information transfer

41. Goals for DAP
• Fully digitised seamless
information transfer
• Digital archive for
archaeological data
’CERN storage servers’ – skimaniac (flickr)

42. Goals for DAP
• Fully digitised seamless
information transfer
• Digital archive for
archaeological data
• Access to source data

43. Goals for DAP
• Fully digitised seamless
information transfer
• Digital archive for
archaeological data
• Access to source data
• Semantically linked data
‘Anchor Men of the Mauretania’
Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (flickr)

44. Goals for DAP
• Fully digitised seamless
information transfer
• Digital archive for
archaeological data
• Access to source data
• Semantically linked data
• Openly licensed,
reusable data
’Come in We’re Open’ – jilleatsapples (flickr)

45. Goals for DAP
• Fully digitised seamless
information transfer
• Digital archive for
archaeological data
• Access to source data
• Semantically linked data
• Openly licensed,
reusable data
• Centralised ‘events’
(fieldwork) register
’Come in We’re Open’ – jilleatsapples (flickr)

46. Each monument has its own URI
Links to:
- monument survey data
- reports, grey literature
- GIS data, or scanned material
- Objects, small finds
- Photos, plans, drawings
- Post-ex lab analyses
National
Monumens
Register
Events +
Fieldwork
register
Fieldwork
documentat
ion
Reports, m
edia
(Samla)
Finds
(Museums)
SOCH
Map
server
Search interface
Map-based
search
Wikipedia
Objects
Monument
survey data
Fieldwork
data
Request Response
Photos, pla
ns, drawing
s
Council
decisions
Other data
sources…
Biblio-
graphy
(Libris)
Platsr
Metadata
search
Events feed
UGC
Results: Spatial
Map
UGC

47. Event-oriented
Monuments Register
• The national monuments
register is a register of
monuments(!)
’Ottarshögen in the parish of Vendel, Uppland, 1979’
Upplandsmuseet (Kringla)

48. Event-oriented
Monuments Register
• The national monuments
register is a register of
monuments(!)
• Not so much
archaeological events:
survey, excavations,
inventories, etc
Archaeological event: kittens!
A cooking pit; Straumen, Inderøya, Nord-Trøndelag
NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet (flickr)

49. Event-oriented
Monuments Register
• The national monuments
register is a register of
monuments(!)
• Not so much
archaeological events:
survey, excavations,
inventories, etc
• The information that does
exist is unstructured,
making it difficult to
search and reuse.
’bricks’ – Judy van der Velden (flickr)

50. Event-oriented
Monuments Register
Main problem:
• It’s difficult to find the results
from archaeological
investigations (events which
affect ancient monuments) – or
even if such events have
occurred!
…because:
• We lack (a system for)
structured information about
archaeological events
Solution:
• Objects describing events
must be semantically linked to
the monuments they concern
• Monuments gain a traceable
‘biography’ in the register
Benefits:
• Because this is linked data, we
can for example connect the
‘event’ of an excavation of a
site to the field documentation,
reports, and finds it generates

51. Fieldwork
Documentation
• Overwhelming majority of
excavations in Sweden
use a common digital
field recording system:
Intrasis

52. Fieldwork
Documentation
• Overwhelming majority of
excavations in Sweden
use a common digital
field recording system:
Intrasis
• So most adhere to a
common schema

53. Fieldwork
Documentation
• Overwhelming majority of
excavations in Sweden
use a common digital
field recording system:
Intrasis
• So most adhere to a
common schema
• Intrasis is an OO
database
• Lends itself well to
expression as RDF
Object
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
…

54. Fieldwork
Documentation
• Overwhelming majority of
excavations in Sweden
use a common digital
field recording system:
Intrasis
• So most adhere to a
common schema
• Intrasis is an OO
database
• Lends itself well to
expression as RDF
Object
Subject
Predicate

55. Fieldwork
Documentation
• Overwhelming majority of
excavations in Sweden
use a common digital
field recording system:
Intrasis
• So most adhere to a
common schema
• Intrasis is an OO
database
• Lends itself well to
expression as RDF
• So the potential exists for
cross-searchable
excavation data on the
context level

56. Fieldwork
Documentation
• Overwhelming majority of
excavations in Sweden
use a common digital
field recording system:
Intrasis
• So most adhere to a
common schema
• Intrasis is an OO
database
• Lends itself well to
expression as RDF
• So the potential exists for
cross-searchable
excavation data on the
context level
• …with links to supporting
data elsewhere, e.g. GIS,
& field survey data;
sample & environmental
data with SEAD, etc.

57. What’s next?
• Internal review of our systems and
processes
• Internal and external modelling of
concepts and processes
• Draw up a common information model to
better manage digital archaeological data
• Plan a new system architecture
• Draw up ontologies/taxonomies for various
Swedish heritage concepts and create
linkable authorities

58. What’s next?
• Not intending to reinvent the wheel – aim
to apply existing standards and models
where possible – CIDOC-CRM, SWORD,
etc
• There is no ‘perfect’ solution, and we can’t
solve everything in one go
• But we aim to have the rudiments in place
during 2015

59. SOCH http://ksamsok.se/
http://kringla.nu/
DAP http://www.raa.se/kulturarvet/arkeologi-
fornlamningar-och-fynd/den-digitala-
arkeologiska-produktionskedjan/
http://goo.gl/4o6hm
http://www.raa.se/
marcus.smith@raa.se