Comparative insights into semantic archival modelling: evaluating RiC-O and ArchOnto representation capabilities

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to comparatively evaluate two semantic models, ArchOnto (CIDOC CRM based) and Records in Contexts Ontology (RiC-O), for archival representation within the Linked Open Data framework. The research seeks to critically analyse their ability to represent archival documents, events, activities, and provenance through the application on a case study of historical baptism records. Design/methodology/approach The study adopted a comparative approach, utilising the two models to represent a dataset of baptism records from a Portuguese parish spanning several centuries. This involved information extraction and conversion processes, transforming XML EAD finding aids into RDF to facilitate more explicit semantic representation and analysis. Findings The analysis revealed distinctive strengths and limitations of each semantic model, providing nuanced insights into their respective capacities for archival description. The findings guide cultural heritage institutions in selecting and implementing the most suitable semantic model for their needs and pave the way for semantic alignment between the two models. Research limitations/implications Although the case study explored the representation of a wide range of features, potential limitations include the specific contextual constraints of parish records and the need for broader comparative studies across diverse archival contexts. Originality/value This paper offers original insights into semantic modelling for archival representations by providing a detailed comparative analysis of two ontological approaches. It offers valuable perspectives for archivists, digital humanities researchers, and cultural heritage professionals seeking to enhance the semantic richness of archival descriptions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.