Download - IDEs DH2016
Integrating Digital Epigraphies
http://ides.io Hugh Cayless, Duke Collaboratory for Classics
Computing@hcayless
IG I³ 40• Inscriptiones Graecae
• Volume One (inscriptions of Attica before Euclid)
• Third Edition
• Number 40
IG I³ 40
• IG I-3 40 (SEG)
• IG I[3] 40 (Claros)
• IG I3 40 (OCR-ed form of IG I³ 40)
• and, of course, there’s IG I² 39…
<ides:phi:40> a <http://lawd.info/ontology/Edition> ; <http://lawd.info/ontology/where> <http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/579888> , <http://www.trismegistos.org/place/373> ; <http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier> "IG I³ 40" ; <http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf> <ides:phi:IG-I³> ; <http://purl.org/dc/terms/source> <ides:t000003n> ; <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs> <ides:claros:IG-1%5B3%5D-40> , <ides:seg:ig-i.3-40> ; <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/page> <http://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/40> ; <ides:collection> <ides:phi> .
<ides:phi:40> a <http://lawd.info/ontology/Edition> ; <http://lawd.info/ontology/where> <http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/579888> , <http://www.trismegistos.org/place/373> ; <http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier> "IG I³ 40" ; <http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf> <ides:phi:IG-I³> ; <http://purl.org/dc/terms/source> <ides:t000003n> ; <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs> <ides:claros:IG-1%5B3%5D-40> , <ides:seg:ig-i.3-40> ; <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/page> <http://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/40> ; <ides:collection> <ides:phi> .
IDEs’ name for the inscription
associated places
IDEs’ name for PHI 40
Where it is on the Web
IDEs’ name for the same Editionfrom Claros and SEG
<ides:phi:40> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/source> <ides:t000003n> .
• How do we say anything about this “fact”?
• How would we know how we know that PHI40 is a publication of the inscription we’ve named ides:t000003n?
• What do we do if our facts change?
Data reconciliation• We get data from multiple sources
• Every Edition must derive from an Inscription.
• If we don’t immediately know two Editions from two sources derive from the same Inscription, we’ll make up two Inscription ids on ingest. These will have to be merged later.
IG I³ 40 (PHI)
IG I[3] 40(Claros)
A B
Before Merge
IG I³ 40 (PHI)
IG I[3] 40(Claros)
A B
After Merge
Now what?
IG I³ 40 (PHI)
IG I[3] 40(Claros)
A B
Who made this connection? When and why?
When did this become invalid?
What replaced it?
<ides:phi:40> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/source> <ides:t000003n> .
predicate objectides:phi:40 dc:source ides:t000003n
• A property graph (Neo4J) rather than a triple store
• Preserves RDF semantics and can ingest and export RDF
Edition relationship Inscription
Pros• We can say anything we like about
relationships, in-place, without needing workarounds.
• While still maintaining the Linked Data/RDF semantics we want.
• Powerful query language (Cypher)
Cons• No SPARQL (though potential for adding it
later)
• If we use lots of extra capabilities, we’ll need to think about how (or whether) to express them in RDF.
• There’s not a great variety of property graph databases.
Questions• Is RDF really suitable for the highly-
contingent facts we have in the Humanities?
• There are various ways to solve this problem using RDF tools (reification, named graphs, etc.). Should we standardize on one of those instead?
• What sorts of information should we capture about interventions?