skip to main content
research-article

Documenting and sharing comparative analyses of 3D digital museum artifacts through semantic web annotations

Published:17 December 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Understanding the similarities, differences, and relationships between cultural heritage artifacts is critical for determining their significance and their provenance. It also provides valuable information for ensuring the long-term preservation of cultural heritage artifacts. Consequently, as more museums develop online three-dimensional (3D) collections, curators and scholars are demanding online tools that enable them to document and interpret variances and similarities between related 3D digital objects. This article describes a system that was developed to enable museum curators and/or scholars to document relationships between multiple 3D digital representations of museum objects using web-based annotation tools. The 3D Semantic Association (3DSA) system enables users to annotate relationships between multiple whole objects, parts of objects, or features on objects (surface features or volumetric segments). The annotations are stored on a server in an interoperable format that can be shared, discovered, browsed, and retrieved through a web browser interface. This approach not only improves scholars’ capabilities to undertake cultural heritage research but also enables researchers to document, share, discuss, and compare alternative hypotheses about the relationships between artifacts.

References

  1. 3DCoform. 2012. 3D-COFORM Project, http://www.3d-coform.eu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, D., Bale, K., Gowigati, R., Pritchard, D., and Chapman, P. 2011. Empire 3D: A collaborative semantic annotation tool for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2011 World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Applied Computing (WORLDCOMP’11). 47--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. AimAtShape. 2010. AIM@SHAPE Project. http://www.aimatshape.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Attene, M., Robbiano, F., Spagnuolo, M., and Falcidieno, B. 2009. Characterization of 3D shape parts for semantic annotation. Comput.-Aided Des. 41, 10, 756--763. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., and Harmelen, F. V. 2002. Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 54--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cheung, C. P. and Godil, A. 2010. A shape-based searching system for industrial components. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Web 3D Technology (Web3D’10). ACM, New York, 151--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ciccarese, P., Ocana, M., Das, S., and Clark, T. 2011. AO: An open annotation ontology for science on the web. J. Biomed. Semantics, 2, Suppl 2, S4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Cohn, D. 2011. AutoCAD 2012 review: Software provides a wealth of improvements. DE Desktop Engineering. http://www.deskeng.com/articles/aabbjs.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., and Stiff, M. 2011. Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model. ICOM: International Council of Museums, http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/cidoc_crm_version_5.0.4.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. De Floriani, L., Papaleo, L., and Carissimi, N. 2008. A java3D framework for inspecting and segmenting 3D models. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on 3D Web Technology (Web3D’08). ACM, New York, 67--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Doerr, M., Tzompanaki, K., Theodoridou, M., Georgis, C., Axaridou, A., and Havemann, S. 2010. A repository for 3D model production and interpretation in culture and beyond. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage. Eurographics Association. 97--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Fisher, M., Savva, M., and Hanrahan, P. 2011. Characterizing structural relationships in scenes using graph kernels. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Papers. ACM, New York, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. FocusK3D. 2010. Focus K3D Public Annual Report, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/content-knowledge/docs/focusk3d-annual-report-2010.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldfeder, C. and Allen, P. 2008. Autotagging to improve text search for 3D models. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’08). ACM, New York, 355--358. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Havemann, S., Settgast, V., Berndt, R., Eide, O., and Fellner, D. 2009. The Arrigo Showcase reloaded towards a sustainable link between 3D and semantics. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2, 4, 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Horikoshi, Y. 2004. Greek vases—shapes. Greek Art and Archeology, http://www2.ocn.ne.jp/∼greekart/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunter, J. and Gerber, A. 2010. Harvesting community annotations on 3D models of museum artifacts to enhance knowledge, discovery and re-use. J. Cult. Herit. 11, 1, 81--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hunter, J. and Schroeter, R. 2008. Co-Annotea: A system for tagging relationships between multiple mixed-media objects. MultiMedia, 15, 3, 42--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hunter, J., Henderson, M., and Khan, I. 2007. Collaborative annotation of 3D crystallographic models. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47, 6, 2475--2484Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Iconclass. 2012. RKD and Iconclass. http://www.iconclass.nl/about-iconclass/rkd-and-iconclass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Michaelis, N., Jung, Y., and Behr, J. 2012. Virtual heritage to go. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (Web3D’12). ACM, New York, 113--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Özgövde, A. and Grüninger, M. 2010. Foundational process relations in bio-ontologies. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’10). IOS Press. 243--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Pan, X., Schiffer, T., Schrottner, M., Havemann, S., Hecher, M., Berndt, R., and Fellner, D. W. 2012. A scalable repository infrastructure for CH digital object management. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM’12). 219--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Pena-Serna, S., Schmedt, H., Ritz, M., and Stork, A. 2012. Interactive semantic enrichment of 3D cultural heritage collections. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. Eurographics Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Pena-Serna, S., Scopigno, R., Doerr, M., Theodoridou, M., Georgis, C., Ponchio, F., and Stork, A. 2011. 3D-centred media linking and semantic enrichment through integrated searching, browsing, viewing and annotating. In Proceedings of the VAST11: The 12th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage. 89--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Philipp-Foliguet, S., Jordan, M., Najman, L., and Cousty, J. 2011. Artwork 3D model database indexing and classification. Pattern Recognition, 44, 588--597. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Pittarello, F. and Gatto, I. 2011. ToBoA-3D: An architecture for managing top-down and bottom-up annotated 3D objects and spaces on the web. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on 3D Web Technology. ACM, New York, 57--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rodriguez-Echavarria, K., Morris, D., and Arnold, D. 2009. Web based presentation of semantically tagged 3D content for public sculptures and monuments in the UK. In Proceeding of the 14th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (Web3D’09). ACM, New York, 119--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Rodriguez-Echavarria, K., Theodoridou, M., Georgis, C., Arnold, D., Doerr, M., Stork, A., and Pena-Serna, S. 2012. Semantically rich 3D documentation for the preservation of tangible heritage. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage. Eurographics Association, 41--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanderson, R. and Van de Sompel, H. 2010. Open Annotation: Alpha3 Data Model Guide, http://www.openannotation.org/spec/alpha3/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanderson, R., Ciccarese, P., and Van de Sompel, H. 2013. Open Annotation Data Model, http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Schroeter, R., Hunter, J., and Newman, A. 2007. Annotating relationships between multiple mixed-media digital objects by extending annotea. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on the Semantic Web: Research and Applications (ESWC’07). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 533--548. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Schwartz, C. and Klein, R. 2012. Acquisition and presentation of virtual surrogates for cultural heritage artefacts. In Proceedings of EVA 2012. 50--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Scopigno, R., Callieri, M., Cignoni, P., Corsini, M., Dellepiane, M., Ponchio, F., and Ranzuglia, G. 2011. 3D models for cultural heritage: Beyond plain visualization. Computer, 44, 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Shamir, A. 2008. A survey on mesh segmentation techniques. Comput. Graphics Forum, 27, 1539--1556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Sladoje, N., Nyström, I., and Saha, P. K. 2005. Measurements of digitized objects with fuzzy borders in 2D and 3D. Image Vision Comput. 23, 123--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Smith, B., Ceusters, W., Klagges, B., Köhler, J., Kumar, A., Lomax, J., Mungall, C., Neuhaus, F., Rector, A., and Rosse, C. 2005. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology, 6, 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Tomlinson, T. 2010. Beginning Drupal 7. Springer-Verlag, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Trzupek, M., Ogiela, M. R., and Tadeusiewicz, R. 2011. Intelligent image content semantic description for cardiac 3D visualisations. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 24, 1410--1418. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. VMusT. 2012. V-MusT Project, http://www.v-must.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. VRA CORE. 4.0. 2011. http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu, C. H., Groza, T., and Hunter, J. 2011. High speed capture, retrieval and rendering of segment-based annotations on 3D museum objects. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries (ICADL’11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 5--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Documenting and sharing comparative analyses of 3D digital museum artifacts through semantic web annotations

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
          Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage   Volume 6, Issue 4
          November 2013
          93 pages
          ISSN:1556-4673
          EISSN:1556-4711
          DOI:10.1145/2532630
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2013 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 December 2013
          • Revised: 1 July 2013
          • Accepted: 1 July 2013
          • Received: 1 January 2013
          Published in jocch Volume 6, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader