Conceptual model construction for the A Comprehensive Collection of Ancient Chinese Paintings based on metadata and ontology
Source abstract
Abstract
Chinese paintings, as treasures of traditional culture, embody the historical depth and artistic heritage of Chinese civilization. To support digital management of A Comprehensive Collection of Ancient Chinese Paintings (CCACP), this study constructs an ontological conceptual model integrating metadata and ontology. CCACP metadata were modeled to refine its structure and align with standards such as CIDOC CRM, CDWA, and China’s Metadata Standard for Painting Cultural Relics. Using Protégé and the Seven-Step Method, an ontology of 60 classes and properties was developed. A knowledge graph based on Wang Ximeng’s A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains tested its consistency and revealed embedded knowledge associations. The model demonstrates value for collection management, knowledge sharing, and academic research, providing a practical foundation for CCACP’s digital management and advancing digital humanities and cultural heritage research.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Semantic Web and Ontologies · Research Data Management Practices · Digital and Traditional Archives Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. Asundi, A. Y., Reddy, B. S. & Krishnamurthy, M. Digital humanities: concepts, tools and applications. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 43, 276–281 (2023).10.14429/djlit.43.04.19207 ↗
2. Melo, D., Rodrigues, I. P. & Varagnolo, D. A strategy for archives metadata representation on cidoc-crm and knowledge discovery. Semant. Web 14, 553–584 (2023).
3. Li, Z., He, L. & Gao, D. Ontology construction and evaluation for chinese traditional culture: Towards digital humanity. Knowl. Organ. 49, 22–39 (2022).10.5771/0943-7444-2022-1-22 ↗
4. Compilation of classics in the flourishing age: The exhibition of achievements in compiling a comprehensive collection of ancient chinese paintings. National Museum of China website. https://en.chnmuseum.cn/exhibition/exhibition_series/temporary_exhibitions/classical_art_exhibitions/202210/t20221009_257470.html (2022).
5. O’Neill, B. & Stapleton, L. Digital cultural heritage standards: from silo to semantic web. AI Soc. 37, 891–903 (2022).10.1007/s00146-021-01371-1 ↗
6. Moraitou, E., Christodoulou, Y. & Caridakis, G. Semantic models and services for conservation and restoration of cultural heritage: A comprehensive survey. Semant. Web 14, 261–291 (2022).10.3233/SW-223105 ↗
7. Wang, X., Song, N., Liu, X. & Xu, L. Data modeling and evaluation of deep semantic annotation for cultural heritage images. J. Doc. 77, 906–925 (2020).10.1108/JD-06-2020-0102 ↗
8. Barzaghi, S., Moretti, A., Heibi, I. & Peroni, S. CHAD-KG: a knowledge graph for representing cultural heritage objects and digitisation paradata. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.13276 (2025).10.48550/arXiv.2505.13276 ↗
9. Padfield, J., Kontiza, K., Bikakis, A. & Vlachidis, A. Semantic representation and location provenance of cultural heritage information: the National Gallery Collection in London. Heritage 2, 648–665 (2019).10.3390/heritage2010042 ↗
10. Langmead, A., Otis, J. M., Warren, C. N., Weingart, S. B. & Zilinksi, L. D. Towards interoperable network ontologies for the digital humanities. IJHAC 10, 22–35 (2016).10.3366/ijhac.2016.0157 ↗
11. Berry, D. Understanding Digital Humanities (Springer, 2012).10.1057/9780230371934 ↗
12. Rowley, J. The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. J. Inf. Sci. 33, 163–180 (2007).10.1177/0165551506070706 ↗
13. Shreeves, S. L. & Cragin, M. H. Introduction: Institutional repositories: current state and future. Libr. Trends 57, 89–97 (2008).10.1353/lib.0.0037 ↗
14. Dai, T. Research and application of digital image metadata for museum cultural relics. Museum Manag. 11–17 (2020).
15. Ranjgar, B., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Shakeri, M., Rahimi, F. & Choi, S.-M. Cultural heritage information retrieval: Past, present, and future trends. IEEE Access 12, 42992–43026 (2024).10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3374769 ↗
16. Deng, Z. H. & Tang, S. W. A review of ontology research. J. Peking Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 38, 730 (2002).
17. Hua, K. M., Chen, J. X. & Yang, H. S. Semantic retrieval based on ontology and metadata. Comput. Eng. 33, 220–221 (2007).
18. Zhang, J. & Ren, T. A conceptual model for ancient chinese ceramics based on metadata and ontology: a case study of collections in the nankai university museum. J. Cult. Herit. 66, 20–36 (2024).10.1016/j.culher.2023.10.012 ↗
19. Hogan, A. et al. Knowledge graphs. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 71:1–71:37 (2021).
20. Koho, M. et al. Warsampo knowledge graph: Finland in the second world war as linked open data. Semant. Web 12, 265–278 (2021).
21. Beijie, H. E., Yu, Z., Jie, H. E. & Zhaoyi, M. A. Ontology modelling of ancient map information through a cognition-practical model: a case study of the Yangshi Lei Archives. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ. 49, 546–561 (2024).
22. Yang, S. & Hou, M. Knowledge graph representation method for semantic 3d modeling of chinese grottoes. Herit. Sci. 11, 1–26 (2023).10.1186/s40494-023-01084-2 ↗
23. Ranjgar, B., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Shakeri, M. & Choi, S.-M. An ontological data model for points of interest (POI) in a cultural heritage site. Herit. Sci. 10, 1–22 (2022).10.1186/s40494-021-00635-9 ↗
24. Castelli, L., Felicetti, A. & Proietti, F. Heritage science and cultural heritage: standards and tools for establishing cross-domain data interoperability. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 22, 279–287 (2021).10.1007/s00799-019-00275-2 ↗
25. Hiebel, G., Goldenberg, G., Grutsch, C., Hanke, K. & Staudt, M. Fair data for prehistoric mining archaeology. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 22, 267–277 (2021).10.1007/s00799-020-00282-8 ↗
26. Gergatsoulis, M., Papaioannou, G., Kalogeros, E. & Carter, R. Representing archaeological excavations using CIDOC CRM–based conceptual models. In Metadata and Semantic Research (MTSR 2020) (eds Ovalle-Perandones, M. A. & Garoufallou, E.) 355–366 (Springer, 2021).10.1007/978-3-030-71903-6_33 ↗
27. Eichert, S. Digital mapping of medieval cemeteries: case studies from Austria and Czechia. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 14, 1–15 (2021).10.1145/3406535 ↗
28. Fafalios, P., Kritsotaki, A. & Doerr, M. The sealit ontology—an extension of CIDOC-CRM for the modeling and integration of maritime history information. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 16, 60:1–60:21 (2023).
29. Cheng, Y.-M., Kuo, C.-L. & Mou, C.-C. Ontology-based HBIM for historic buildings with traditional woodwork in Taiwan. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 27, 27–44 (2021).10.3846/jcem.2021.14115 ↗
30. Ronzino, P., Toth, A. & Falcidieno, B. Documenting the structure and adaptive reuse of Roman amphitheatres through the CIDOC CRMBa model. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 15, 1–23 (2022).10.1145/3485466 ↗
31. Dammag, B. Q. D. et al. Modeling ontology-based decay analysis and HBIM for the conservation of architectural heritage: the big gate and adjacent curtain walls in Ibb, Yemen. Buildings 15, 2795 (2025).10.3390/buildings15152795 ↗
32. Vrachliotou, M. & Papatheodorou, C. Interoperability of oral history metadata: an ontological model. Oral. Hist. Rev. 51, 446–474 (2024).10.1080/00940798.2024.2379367 ↗
33. Vrachliotou, M. & Papatheodorou, C. Ontology-based metadata integration for oral history interviews. In Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2022) Vol. 13541 (eds Silvello, G. et al.) 410–416 (Springer International Publishing AG, 2022).10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_40 ↗
34. Hiebel, G., Aspöck, E. & Kopetzky, K. Ontological modeling for excavation documentation and virtual reconstruction of an ancient Egyptian site. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 14, 32:1–32:14 (2021).10.1145/3439735 ↗
35. Semantic data model for knowledge representation and dissemination of cultural heritage site, poompuhar. Web of Science. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/full-record/WOS:001179453800015.
36. Fan, T., Wang, H. & Hodel, T. Multimodal knowledge graph construction of chinese traditional operas and sentiment and genre recognition. J. Cult. Herit. 62, 32–44 (2023).10.1016/j.culher.2023.05.003 ↗
37. Lu, T. T., Ou, S. Y., Li, X. W. & Shen, X. Y. Construction and application of a knowledge graph of ancient warfare: a case study of the Song and Yuan periods. Library Forum 1–12 (2024).
38. Cheng, X. F., Tian, Y., Shu, K. H. & Wang, Z. Knowledge organization of traditional architectural texts for craft inheritance: a case study of the timberwork system in yingzao fashi. Library Forum 1–12 (2024).
39. Liang, J., Wang, Q. & Zhao, Y. Metadata construction for the digitization of traditional clothing of indigenous ethnic groups in Guangxi. J. Guangxi Univ. Natl. (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 43, 112–116 (2021).
40. Rodríguez-Ortega, N. Contours of knowledge: epistemological implications of semantic models in the representation of the art exhibition domain through the lens of the ontoexhibit ontology. Život Umjet. 114, 122–147 (2024).10.31664/zu.2024.114.06 ↗
41. Khalid, H. & Zim, E. Repairing raw metadata for metadata management. Inf. Syst. 122, 102344 (2024).10.1016/j.is.2024.102344 ↗
42. Koch, I., Teixeira Lopes, C. & Ribeiro, C. Moving from ISAD(g) to a CIDOC CRM-based linked data model in the Portuguese archives. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 16, 71:1–71:21 (2023).10.1145/3605910 ↗
43. Bagley, P. R. Extension of Programming Language Concepts. Technical Report (University City Science Center, 1968).
44. Pomerantz, J. Metadata. The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series (MIT Press, 2015).
45. NISO. Understanding metadata: What is metadata, and what is it for? a primer. NISO website. https://www.niso.org/publications/understanding-metadata-2017 (2017).
46. National Cultural Heritage Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Metadata Standard for the Digitization and Preservation of Cultural Relics. Technical Report. Accessed 18 September 2025. https://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/portal/sites/default/files/news/cms/resupload/0000001494/52.pdf (National Cultural Heritage Administration, 2017).
47. National Cultural Heritage Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Application Specification for Descriptive Metadata of Cultural Relics. Technical Report. Accessed 18 September 2025. https://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/portal/sites/default/files/news/cms/resupload/0000001494/5.pdf (National Cultural Heritage Administration, 2017).
48. The Palace Museum. Cataloguing Rules and Metadata Specification for Painting-Type Cultural Relics. Technical Report. Accessed 18 September 2025. https://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/portal/sites/default/files/news/cms/resupload/0000001494/18.pdf (National Cultural Heritage Administration/The Palace Museum, 2017).
49. National Cultural Heritage Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Metadata Specification for Painting-Type Cultural Relics. Technical Report. Accessed 18 September 2025. https://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/portal/sites/default/files/news/cms/resupload/0000001494/17.pdf (National Cultural Heritage Administration, 2017).
50. The Palace Museum. Information Indicators for Painting Collections of the Palace Museum. Technical Report. Accessed 18 September 2025. https://www.dpm.org.cn/Uploads/File/2020/04/08/u5e8d77947896e.pdf (The Palace Museum, 2017).
51. Faraj, G. & Micsik, A. Representing and validating cultural heritage knowledge graphs in CIDOC-CRM ontology. Future Internet 13, 277 (2021).10.3390/fi13110277 ↗
52. Shi, X. M. A comparative study of CDWA and DC metadata standards and the Palace Museum painting collection information index system. Palace Mus. J. (2016).