Towards a Spatial Semantic Management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage

Abstract

The Semantic Web introduces new exigencies for Cultural Heritage (CH) data managing and sharing, and such requests have to be considered for structuring the databases and Geographical Information System applications purposed to CH preservation strategies. Data semantics should be explicit, and formally specified by standard ontologies, and some proposals regarding CH are available by now. However, Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is related to the community that produced it, so it’s more multifaceted and complex to be defined in a standardized way than material assets. This study is oriented to the integration of standardized or existing ontologies to define a convenient schema for managing ICH data; the general aim is to analyze the territorial distribution of ICH carried by some material artifacts to investigate their mutual relationships and values. We defined a conceptual model by integrating CIDOC-CRM ontology with some more specific and geometric entities derived from a spatial data standard, such as CityGML, for representing some ICH features in a GIS environment (Geographical Information System).

Full text

133
Towards a spatial
semantic management for
the Intangible Cultural
Heritage
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò
Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural
Heritage
(francesca.noardo, antonia.spano)@polito.it
volume 4 number 2 2015International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era

134
Towards a spatial semantic
management for the Intangible
Cultural Heritage
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò
Abstract:
The Semantic Web introduces new exigencies for Cultural Heritage
(CH) data managing and sharing, and such requests have to be
considered for structuring the databases and Geographical
Information System applications purposed to CH preservation
strategies. Data semantics should be explicit, and formally specified
by standard ontologies, and some proposals regarding CH are
available by now. However, Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is
related to the community that produced it, so it’s more multifaceted
and complex to be defined in a standardized way than material
assets. This study is oriented to the integration of standardized or
existing ontologies to define a convenient schema for managing ICH
data; the general aim is to analyze the territorial distribution of ICH
carried by some material artifacts to investigate their mutual
relationships and values. We defined a conceptual model by
integrating CIDOC-CRM ontology with some more specific and
geometric entities derived from a spatial data standard, such as
CityGML, for representing some ICH features in a GIS environment
(Geographical Information System).

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years the interest in Vernacular Heritage and in Intangible
Cultural Heritage (ICH) has arisen. A central problem is how to treat this
heritage and its interlaced values using digital tools given by the
semantic data management systems, both spatial and thematic. For
using these instruments, standardized languages and ontologies should
be used, which is a very problematic topic in light of the richness and
complexity of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In the present paper, the
data concerning a sample item of ICH carried by traditional artifacts
are analyzed and organized into formal standardized schemas for their
future expected representation in a GIS.
1.1 Intangible Cultural Heritage
The importance of the ICH has been internationally awarded in the
last decades. The globalization and the digital revolution made the
local cultures to be known, but at the same time, they run the risk to
be lost in a plain global culture. Therefore the need for the
safeguarding of the local traditions and cultures has increased, which
have most consistency in ICH [1].
As stated by the UNESCO “Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage” (2003), the ICH can be meaningful to
ensure mutual appreciation, to provide international cooperation and
assistance and to promote respect for cultural diversity and human
creativity. Therefore, it’s important to identify, to document and to
communicate specialised knowledge on this heritage in the most
effective and widespread way as possible [2]. Furthermore, since 1999
the built vernacular heritage has been stated as “the fundamental
expression of the culture of a community, of its relationship with its
territory and, at the same time, the expression of the world’s cultural
diversity”. Referring to this scenery, the vernacular heritage embrace
both the material features of buildings and the intangible associations
that connect them [3].
Consequently it is an essential need to use defined international
standards to manage the data by means of digital tools, which can
be effective instruments to document, collect, share information with
the aim to preserve this kind of Heritage.
According to the researches developed in this field [4], the ICH can
be defined with three quite dissimilar concepts. One first category
(listed in the UNESCO Convention) includes items with no material
support, that can be preserved only by their repetition through the
time by the community or can be documented using special media
(performing arts, traditional feast, spoken dialects, oral legends etc.).
The second kind are human intellectual products (film, a Shakespeare
play, romances, etc.) or digital products (such as a digital image),
135Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage

which need for a supporting data collection that can change
according to its material deterioration or the evolution of technologies.
In the end, there are the intangible cultural values intrinsic in material
objects, which also may represent the value of civilization that
identifies a Cultural Heritage instance.
2. ONTOLOGIES AND SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION
The World Wide Web has been extended for enabling people to share
the meaningful content beyond the boundaries of applications. The
Semantic Web aims to the realization of a common framework that
allows data to be shared and easily reused, also by automatic
processings. Documents are associated to metadata able to specify
the semantic context, for permitting evolved queries and an effective
semantic interoperability and automated reasoning. This is realized
through shared domain ontologies, the main conceptual models that
provide completely solution – independent schemas in order to
support the modelers in producing suitable representation structures
[5]. A set of standard languages are available for defining
interoperable ontologies [6]: Linked Data are a series of web
technologies among which the Extensible Markup Language (XML)
and the Resource Description Framework (RDF) are critical for the
representation of knowledge by means of Information Technologies
(IT). These languages are intended to establish a common logical
grammar for resources structuring querying and linking.
Unlike XML1, RDF provides powerful tools for data structuring and
linking in a logical way. This means the possibility to make assertions
regarding the semantic content of a RDF database similarly to a
relational database consistency check, but with a more extended set
of rules extracting the semantic value from data objects. Evolutions of
these core languages has been developed by W3C and OGC for
better expressing logic structures and correct semantics of data (OWL
2, DAML+OIL, OWL1 DL). OWL is built on the RDF and RDF Schema
(RDFS) semantics is based on the concept of graph and triple
structure. The triple structure <s,p,o> (subject, predicate, object) allows
the formulation of statements which are logically equated to math
graph. The graph theory provides to RDF semantics the math operators
by which a logical correspondence can be established between
statements and the resources, treated as nodes of the graph and
connected by arcs representing properties. The RDF syntax makes use
136
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò
1Van Harmelen in [7] makes a parallel between RDF and declarative languages in
opposition to XML and procedural languages. As procedural languages have a bottom-up
approach, evaluating expressions only by means of a procedure, XML Schemas
mechanisms cannot be used to map RDF properties such as the ClassOf (class inheritance)
in a logical way.

of some concepts from the object-oriented approach to data
management. One of the most well-known concept of object-
oriented approach is the class and inheritance, used to model
hierarchies of taxonomies. Also in RDF they are used, but with some
rules changes, such as the data and metadata distinction, no
restriction on cardinality, self-containing classes (allowing memberships
loops) and multiple inheritance handling (more than one parent for
each class). UML cannot be considered as a language for complex
reasoning. The importance of RDF is mostly in its level of interoperability
between different semantics. These differences could be source of
some difficulties in integrating schemas and data among different
environment. At the same time, OGC defined languages for
semantically spatial data managing. The most evolved one, used by
available domain ontologies, is Geography Markup Language 3
(GML3). It is a XML schema for the description of application, the
transport and storage of geographic information. Its key concepts are
drawn by the ISO 19100 series of International Standards and the
OpenGIS Abstract Specification. It’s an extendible international
standard for spatial data exchange and encoding issued by the Open
Geospatial Consortium (OGC) and the ISO TC211.
2.1 Existing Ontologies and Standard
The main Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) for the information
about Cultural Heritage has been defined since 1996 by the CRM
Special Interest Group [8] of CIDOC (
International Committee for
Documentation
) of the ICOM (
International Council of Museums
). It
became an International Standard ISO21127:2006 in September 2006
[9] and it is now the well-accepted reference for CH representation
and data management by the CH Community. Many examples of its
application are available, some of them are the CH inventories which
are being realized from International organisations (e.g. The ARCHES
project by Getty Conservation Institute) [10]. This leads to the choice of
the CIDOC-CRM as a first reference, so that the produced information
could be inserted in a wider framework, as it is the aim of domain
ontologies. In particular, the aim of this formal ontology was to enable
the exchanging and integrating information among heterogeneous
sources of CH data. It’s particularly intended to the representation of
the knowledge of the museum objects, therefore, if used for different
aims (architectures, archaeological heritage, etc.), it has to be
adapted or expanded [11]. CIDOC-CRM can be regarded as a core
ontology, as it models space-time concepts, events and material and
immaterial things coming up from several fields of study self-
intersecting in the Cultural Heritage domain. Intangible Cultural
Heritage is contemplated, with the entities E28 “Conceptual Objects”.
137Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage

These are Man-Made Things like non-material products of human mind
and similar, which are objects of a discourse about their identity,
circumstances of creation or historical implication. Such information
could be supported by material devices, and characteristically,
instances of this class are created, invented or thought by someone
and then they can be documented or communicated among
persons. Instances of this kind of heritage can exist on more than one
particular carrier at the same time, (paper, electronic signals, human
memories, etc.); they cannot be destroyed but they exist as long as
they can be found on at least one of these carriers.The spatial
information is only expressed in CIDOC-CRM by alphanumeric entities
defining the global location or some mereological information, without
spatial features. Moreover, the provided entities regarding spatial data
are limited to 2D information, not always sufficient when working on
buildings is requested. For this reason, it could be useful to integrate
this ontology with other kinds of standards, such as CityGML, as some
researches already pursued [12]. CityGML is the common semantic
information model for the representation of 3D urban objects to be
shared over different applications. It has been designed as an open
data model and XML-based format for the storage and exchange of
virtual 3D city models. It is an application of GML3.
Both ontologies are codified machine-readable languages: RDF-
OWL format for the CIDOC CRM and GML format for CityGML. Both
can be translated to XML language and can be read from software. In
this research we try to use part of them to represent some spatially
located information about ICH in an effective way.
A work of integration of the CIDOC-CRM with spatiotemporal
features was made in the CRMgeo project, in which OGC geoSPARQL
language was used for managing the spatial content of the CH data
[13]. This extension of the model provides a set of formal tools for a
logical formalization of spatio-temporal relationships among Cultural
Heritage items. Here we prefer CityGML in the perspective to consider,
in a next step of the study, the integration of the management system
with whole 3D city models.
Anyway, some limits are still present: CityGML is specific for urban
space, while on one hand we need some more specific description of
Architectural Heritage items at a detailed scale; on the other hand,
some smaller scale is needed when dealing with objects having a
landscape value. In this last case, for example, it’s essential to consider
the spatial distribution of the items on the land, for analysing the
settlement dynamics in a regional perspective. Therefore, two more
models have been considered. The first one is an official law: it’s given
by the European Directive INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information
in Europe) [14]. INSPIRE aim is to build a spatial data infrastructure
across Europe, which could be the base for environmental common
138
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò

policies for European States. In the model (built by GML) medium scale
entities are present: we use the generic entity “AdministrativeUnit” for
our aims in order to manage the municipalities in which ICH items are
present.
Furthermore, a some more detailed taxonomy for architectural
objects is given in the MONDIS ontology (Monument Damage
Information System), which is a still unofficial extension of the CIDOC-
CRM born to represent and manage the data about monument
damages, pathologies and intervention for preservation [15]. From
here we extract the entity “Decoration”, which is still undefined in the
MONDIS ontology, but it is essential for our representation aims and
can be easily related to the entities in the model.
3. THE CASE STUDY: THE PIEDMONT GYPSUM CEILINGS
The gypsum decorated ceilings of Piedmont assume a particular
interest in the present study concerning and deepening the ICH. The
scheme pointed out below has the role to identify the most important
features about the ceilings related to intangible values and the ability
to represent their geographical widespread together with semantic
values.
The gypsum ceilings are a handmade artefact that has grown in
Piedmont for several centuries starting from the 16th century AD and
until the end of the 19th century. Despite they represent a very
interesting building system that replaces the wooden planking,2the
ceilings are not a recognized CH for which preservation is guaranteed
by public administration. During last decades many ceilings have been
methodically replaced, in fact many fragments of gypsum panels,
belonging to current exhibits in regional museums, have been
retrieved from buildings materials landfill.
Why therefore such curious building elements affect the ICH?
The Piedmont ceilings have static features which have astonished
experts in structure and building technologies. Experts are used to
observe, analyze or restore gypsum artifact such as plaster decoration
that are very frequent in the past architectural planned spaces and
buildings. The gypsum is correctly considered fragile since it’s
vulnerable to moisture. However, these unusual gypsum panels bear
themselves and other weights on them. The ceilings are a peculiar and
intelligent constructive solution that requires a very specialized
expertise and high skills to be built, also because the panels are fulfilled
contemporary with the ceiling construction. Here follow some more
reasons for which the ceilings deserved some experts attention. [16]
139Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage
2In this sense they could be properly named wooden-ribbed slab floor; they are mostly
known as ceilings because of they are decorated in the intradox.

a. The gypsum ceilings anticipate the reinforced concrete. The
laying was realized upon a wooden grid of oak beams and
joists, spaced in such a way as to be able to position a carved
wooden mould, measuring about 45 x 180 cm. At the moment
of the cast of the gypsum mixture, small chestnut, or hazel
branches or reeds were thrown in, serving the same function
as the iron bars drowned in concrete.
b. Another interesting feature that has been highlighted, consists
in the serial production of panels, coming from wooden
moulds which could be used several times, in different houses
and sometimes in different villages. Considering the age of the
older proof, they are very early for serial production.
c. The panels’ decoration derives from the use of carved moulds:
the first cast in fact was made of superfine gypsum because it
had to reproduce the ornamental drawing in the negative
carved mould; the subsequent castings were coarser. The
woodcarving was made by a carpenter with a high artistic
level or by very skilled woodworker; the literature mentions
them as wood artists, not simply carpenters
3.1 Intangible values connected to ceilings
On the basis of the previous observations we can consider that the
gypsum decorated ceilings are the artefacts deriving from two ancient
professions, the wood artists and the highly expertise construction
workers. In particular, the ceilings are testimony of a traditional
craftsmanship (which is an explicit domains listed in the Unesco
Convention).
Moreover the decorated ceilings, which hearken back to the richer
carved and painted coffers, typically used in higher quality buildings,
show a very high variety of drawings and ornamental elements.
Geometrical motifs, floral pattern, blazon symbols and many other
kinds of graphic arts, frequently derived from architectural
decorations, represent a meaningful artistic expression of rural culture
(figure 1).
In conclusion we can say that the ceilings, that belong
unequivocally to tangible heritage, are strictly related to three
intangible assets: two ancient professions, the wooden artists and the
fully skills construction workers, and the ornamental archetypes
impressed on them. They are in summary the material evidence of
intangible heritage.
140
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò

4. A SEMANTIC MODEL FOR THE SPATIAL REPRESENTATION
OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
Some preliminary issues are to be considered about semantic
representation of geospatial data objects within the framework of
existing ontologies. One of the open issues in the CIDOC-CRM model is
the lack of support for geometric information management both for
data and metadata. In this case, for defining the position of each
building, and eventually the precise position of the represented item,
some geometrical feature are extracted from the standard CityGML,
in order to manage the spatial location. In the studied case, the
representation of spatial entities is realized in a simpler way,
considering the small territorial scale, but it can be extended for a
multiscale approach. Useful entities and properties (relations among
entities) are extracted mainly from the CIDOC-CRM domain ontology,
and integrated with CityGML, INSPIRE and MONDIS entities, obtaining
the schema in figure 2.
Figure 1. a. An example of one very
popular and well preserved ceiling
panels type (coded A1), with a
magnificent ornamental drawing;
below, one of the very few
preserved carved mould, very similar
to the above panel decoration. b.
an example of decorative elements
extracted from a well widespread
repertoire; the faces of little angels
with wings have been highly used in
plaster o marble decorations of
churches. c. a short set of the
recurring use of eight corners stars in
the ceilings’ decoration, with a
blazon symbol, with baroque frames,
and France lilium. Very similar stars
have been carved in wooden doors.
The last ceiling panel (coded G5)
represents blazon symbols identifying
known noble families. (the fronting
doves hold an 8 corners star)
141Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage

The most important entities in the model are: E24 “Physical_Man-
Made_Thing”: the material object to which ICH instances are
connected. E24 has subclasses E22 “Man-Made_Object” and E25 “Man-
Made_Feature”. The main difference between “object” and “feature”
lies in the existence of natural boundaries for the first and a more fuzzy
identification of the second. This difference could be considered for the
classification of parts of buildings where one could find some objects
carrying intangible cultural heritage instances (such as decorations,
frames, openings and so on). The same classification should be
transported in CityGML schemas, since sometimes it’s necessary to
define some fuzzy-boundary entities for which this could be effective.
As we read on the CIDOC CRM metadata, E36 “Visual item”
“comprises the intellectual or conceptual aspects of recognisable marks
and images. This class does not intend to describe the idiosyncratic
characteristics of an individual physical embodiment of a visual item,
but the underlying prototype”. They are independent of their physical
support. In our system its subclass E37 “Mark” is represented (this class
comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of
E24 Physical Man-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques).
A second crucial part of the schema is about the relation of
Physical_Man-Made_Thing with E29 “Design_or_Procedure”. Both
“Visual_Item” and “Design_or_Procedure” are subclasses of E73
“Information_Object”. It comprises identifiable immaterial items, such
as a poems, jokes, data sets, images, texts, multimedia objects,
procedural prescriptions, computer program codes, algorithm or
mathematical formulas, that have an objectively recognisable
structure and that are documented as single units. An E73 Information
Object does not depend on a specific physical carrier.
Figure 2 – UML schema of
extracted entities from
CIDOC-CRM enhanced
with some more specific
entities.
142
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò

Adding to this core made by CIDOC-CRM, some more entities have
been introduced to adapt the schema to our goals aiming at the
spatial representation and management of Architectonic Heritage
data. “AdministrativeUnit”, extracted from INSPIRE is inserted as a
synonym of CIDOC-CRM E53_Place, with the extra property of spatial
dimension. From CityGML are then inserted “AbstractBuilding”, which is
a CIDOC-CRM E22_Man-Made_Object. Finally, the MONDIS
“Decoration” is added as a specification of CIDOC E25_Man-
Made_Feature and as a part of CityGML “AbstractBuildfing”. The
geometric attribute is given to AbstractBuilding and Administrative unit
considering the chosen representation scale (points for buildings and
polygons for municipalities). The entity “Photo” has also been included,
as a subclass of both E31_Document and E38_Image; for the definition
of the attributes we adopted the specific standard SKOPEO [17].
4.1 Results
This defined schema can be applied to analyse the local emergence
of some intangible cultural items related to the vernacular Heritage,
including the gypsum ceilings, in a territorial point of view. This enables
to investigate the spatial distribution of certain values and to make
hypothesis on how humans and crafts moved on the land [18]. When
this formalization and its automatic integration in a GIS environment
will be complete, a Cultural Heritage specialist will be able to realize
such maps for studying the main phenomena distribution. Furthermore,
the isolated occurrencies can be investigated in order to potentially
reading the territory in an original way.
In the figures 3 and 4 some examples of location maps achieved
by simple GIS tools are shown.
Moreover the implemented GIS application can be consulted as a
database, allowing transversal reading, as figure 5 shows in a very
simplified version.
143Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage

Figure 3. GIS mapping in which blue and green areas enlighten the distribution of celings with decoration similar to carved doors (this
means that wood workers and artists were employed in both artifacts accomplishment). Blue and green points represent the
localization of corresponding carved door. The entity E29_Design_or_Procedure is related to all the entities describing the presence of
ceilings, because they all are evidence of those intangible cultural items. Then, the archetypic symbols common in the ceilings’
decorations are mapped as instances of the entity E37_Mark. The same mapping is done on the same symbols carved in doors or
similar arifacts, permitting to manage all them in a unique environment, in order to query and analyse them in a lanscape perspective
144
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò
Figure 4 . The map represents the
distribution of ceilings reporting stars
(light blue), and including the
instance of E37_Mark “8 corners
stars” (dark blue). Such geometrical
motif is quite recurring in carved
doors. From this kind of
representation of such instance, one
can notice that the star carved on
the door of an ex Carmelites’
convent (named “of Colletto”, in
Turin district) is completely out of the
area of main spreading of the
ceilings. Once established this
similiarity, it is possible to discover
that the origin of the Colletto
convent was related to the Asti main
Carmelite convent, fully inside the
ceilings location area.

5. PERSPECTIVES
A fixed point of the current study is the effectiveness to represent ICH
using affirmed standardised structures which make the stored
information interoperable and exchangeable enabling the easy
enhancing of datasets. As a consequence, more powerful analyses
are achievable. Moreover, this use enables to implement concrete
applications aimed to fulfill queries, operations and inferences, so as
similar uses in other application fields. Even if not fully expected, we
can say that many aspects of Intangible Cultural Heritage can be
described through CIDOC-CRM, but the same model needs to be
increased and extended for the representation of spatial objects to
which Cultural Heritage have to be related to. This is particularly true
for Intangible Cultural Heritage, which is strictly related to the people
living and setting up a territory.
The spatial domain ontologies are essential to increase the model
potentiality, such as the management in a GIS, in order to run
meaningful spatial analyses. One of the main purposes of this effective
data archiving is the chance to share, manage and analyse by means
of automatic tools. A first step can consider the CIDOC-CRM standard
as a basic reference, since it is an already affirmed and tested
international standard. Then, if some bridge among domain ontologies
is built, the integration can be effective in order to manage many kind
of CH information, which is traditionally rich and multifaceted.
In perspective, a wider database involving different types of ICH
and their relations with real objects is expected to be implemented
Figure 5 – Querying interface using
QGIS software, aimed to manage
attributes including images, for a
multi-level queries ability.
145Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage

and filled, for testing more results and enabling further analyses across
the landscape. For this aim it would be useful to implicate other
stakeholders engaged in the CH preservation plans, so an interactive
platform would be crucial for sharing the available information and for
increasing the data archives.
REFERENCES
[1] P. K. Yu,
Cultural Relics, Intellectual Property, and Intangible Heritage
.
Temple Law Review, 81, 2008.
[2] UNESCO,
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage
,
2003.
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention Accessed 30/06/2014.
[3]
Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage,
Ratified by the ICOMOS, October
1999.
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/vernacular_e.pdf Accessed
09/07/2014.
[4] Bartolini,
L’immaterialità dei beni culturali. I beni immateriali tra regole
privatistiche e pubblicistiche
, Atti Convegno Assisi (25-27 ottobre 2012),
Aedon 1/2014, 2014.
[5] G. Guizzardi,
Theoretical Foundations and Engineering Tools for Building
Ontologies as Reference Conceptual Models
, Semantic Web Journal, IOS
Press, Amsterdam, 2010
[6] World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),. http://www.w3.org/ Accessed
09/07/2014.
[7] S. Decker, S. Melnik, F. van Harmelen, D. Fensel, M. Klein, J. Broekstra, M.
Erdmann, I. Horrocks,
The Semantic Web: the Roles of XML and RDF
, IEEE
Internet Computing, 15, 3, 2000, 63-74.
[8] P. LeBoeuf, M. Doerr, Ch-E. Ore, S. Stead,
Definition of the CIDOC
Conceptual Reference Model
, ICOM/CIDOC, 5.1.2, 2013.
[9] M. Doerr, Ch.E. Ore, and S. Stead,
The CIDOC Conceptual Reference
Model - A New Standard for Knowledge Sharing (Tutorial)
.26th
International Conference on Conceptual Modeling - ER 2007; CRPIT.
Auckland, New Zealand: ACS, 83, 2007, 51-56.
[10] Myers D., Avramides Y., Dalgity A..
Changing the Heritage inventory
paradigm, The ARCHES Open Source System, in Conservation
Perspectives
, The GCI newsletter, 2013, vol. 28, n.2.
[11] B. De Roo, J. Bourgeois, and P. De Maeyer,
Conservation of Past Times:
Data Models for Ensuring the Future of our Heritage,
Online proceedings of
the conference Built Heritage 2013 Monitoring Conservation and
Management, 2013, 982-988.
[12] Ø. Eide, A. Felicetti, Ch-E. Ore, A. D’Andrea and J. Holmen
, Encoding
Cultural Heritage Information for the SemanticWeb. Procedures for Data
Integration through CIDOC-CRM Mapping
, In EPOCH Conference on
Open Digital Cultural Heritage System, 2008, 1-7.
[13] M. Doerr, G. Hiebel, CRMgeo:
Linking the CIDOC CRM to GeoSPARQL
through a Spatiotemporal Refinement
, Technical Report: ICS-FORTH/TR-435,
April 2013.
[14] Raskin, R., Pan M., Mattmann C., 2004.
Enabling semantic interoperability
for earth science data
. In: 4th NASA
Earth Science Technology
Conference
. http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/datamodel/approved/r4618-
ir/html/
146
Francesca Noardo, Antonia Spanò

[15] Cacciotti, R., Valach, J., Kunes˘, P., C
˘ern˘ansky, M., Blas˘ko, M., Kr˘emen, P.,
2013.
Monument Damage Information System (Mondis): an ontological
approach to Cultural Heritage documentation
. In: ISPRS Annals, II-5/W1.
[16] A. Spanò
, Solai di gesso piemontesi
.
Catalogo dei motivi decorativi e loro
distribuzione territoriale
. CIRAAS, pp. 607, 2013, ISSN: 2037-9285, ISBN:
9788890624315
[17] Data-Dictionary SKOPEO-BMS. Information about the image. RLG Working
Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata,
http://www.rlg.org/preserv/presmeta.html
[18] A. Spanò, M. Pellegrino,
Craft data mapping and spatial analysis for
historical landscape modelling
. Journal of Cultural Heritage vol. 14 n. 2,
Sup, S6-S13. 2013 - ISSN 1296-2074 DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2012.11.024
147Towards a spatial semantic management for the Intangible Cultural Heritage