About the FAIR Epigraphic Vocabularies

What is a controlled vocabulary?

Controlled vocabularies provide a consistent and objective way to describe data and define their exact meaning across projects and disciplines. They represent standardised and organised terms, often as an alphabetical list with a hierarchical structure of broader and narrower terms, their definitions and alternative labels in multiple languages. In the world of Linked Open Data, the controlled vocabulary represents a piece of authoritative information for researchers but also for project administrators, a unique and stable reference that describes a concept or a phenomenon that is being recorded.

Background

The creation of an updated controlled epigraphic vocabulary has been identified by the community as essential to moving forward towards the best practice of FAIR and Open Science in epigraphy (Tupman 2021; Heřmánková et al. 2022). The proposed FAIR epigraphic controlled vocabularies present a consolidation of work conducted by the EAGLE Europeana Project in 2013-2016 (Liuzzo et al. 2013; Liuzzo 2015; Liuzzo and Evangelisti 2021) and an alignment of current standards of partner projects of the FAIR Epigraphy Project (https://inscriptiones.org/).

Approach

The FAIR Epigraphic Vocabularies represent a ‘bottom-up’ application that employs a multifaceted hierarchic categorisation system allowing for multiple conceptual approaches while recognizing the complex and multilingual nature of inscriptions and the discipline's historiography. Furthermore, the vocabulary adheres to the principles of FAIR data, emphasizing Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability as their core principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). This means that researchers can easily locate and access relevant terms, ensuring that the vocabulary is user-friendly and widely applicable.

The controlled vocabulary is made available as a Linked Open Data (LOD) resource, accessible online with stable Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), hosted by the FAIR Epigraphy Project and the University of Oxford. This approach facilitates efficient collaboration, linking, and cross-referencing, enabling researchers to build upon each other's work and explore epigraphy in a structured and accessible manner across project boundaries. Overall, this initiative enhances the research landscape in epigraphy by fostering cooperation and providing a reliable and standardised resource for scholars in the field.

The state of the discipline in 2020

The vocabularies that are currently in use by the majority of digital projects were created in 2013-2016 as a result of the EAGLE Europeana Project (Liuzzo et al. 2013; Liuzzo 2015; Liuzzo and Evangelisti 2021). The project created a digital list of several hundreds of vocabularies as they were used in several partner projects. The vocabularies are divided into seven categories, with three of them being unique to epigraphy and four of them being shared with other disciplines:

• epigraphy specific
  • type of inscription/function
  • object type
  • execution technique

• shared with other disciplines
  • material
  • decoration
  • date
  • state of preservation
  • language - multilingualism [newly added concept, based on work of LatinNow]

Each vocabulary was published online with its own stable URI and short description. Some of them also have their equivalents in other languages and links to example inscriptions.

Why do we need a new vocabulary?

During the Epigraphy.info meetings, the community concluded that the EAGLE vocabularies in their current state are not satisfactory enough for the community to move towards LOD. During the online meeting in 2020, the working group tasked to improve the EAGLE vocabularies was revived. The working group decided to investigate first the ‘type of inscription’ category, assuming it would be the easiest one to start as it represents the core of the discipline. On the contrary, it proved to be one of the most difficult ones, as due to different traditions, there is no universal consensus and almost every project tends to approach types of inscriptions differently. Subsequently, the group identified the EAGLE vocabularies suffer from the following issues:

• the current vocabularies miss any hierarchic structure,
• they contain many duplicates across the various language versions as a result of a merge of vocabularies from multiple projects without aligning their terms,
• they do not contain explicit and clear explanations with multiple illustrative examples,
• the type of inscription vocabularies contains a mixture of two systems of categorisation: type of text, or rather its function, and type of inscribed monument, e.g. mosaic, graffiti, or the very problematic instrumentum domesticum,
• the current user interface is not easily searchable and accessible to people without an IT background, as there is no clear distinction between preferred terms and similar ones

The working group suggested conceptual outlines for the new system while maintaining the language diversity of vocabularies. Yet the mixing of text and object categories, duplication and missing hierarchy were identified as serious threats to the implementation of Linked Open Data principles. The discussions of the working group in 2020 and 2021 were then used as a starting point for the FAIR Epigraphy project to develop the conceptual outline into a FAIR Epigraphic vocabularies, a LOD online resource available to the entire community.

The scope and purpose of the new vocabulary

The creation of an updated controlled epigraphic vocabulary seeks to establish a standardized and comprehensive framework that draws from existing best practices, ensuring consistency and coherence in the field. This FAIR Epigraphic vocabulary is designed with a hierarchical structure, allowing for the organization of terms and concepts logically. Additionally, it employs a multimodal and multifaceted categorization system, allowing for multiple ways of categorization, and recognizing the complex nature of inscriptions and their historiography. The vocabulary accommodates not only the diversity of linguistic expressions in epigraphic material but also the multilingual nature of the epigraphic practice.

Furthermore, the vocabulary adheres to the principles of FAIR data, emphasizing Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability as their core principles. This means that researchers can easily locate and access relevant terms, ensuring that the vocabulary is user-friendly and widely applicable. Crucially, this controlled vocabulary is made available as a Linked Open Data (LOD) resource, accessible online with stable Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). This approach facilitates efficient collaboration, linking, and cross-referencing, enabling researchers to build upon each other's work and explore epigraphy in a structured and accessible manner. Overall, this initiative enhances the research landscape in epigraphy by fostering cooperation and providing a reliable and standardized resource for scholars in the field.

Use cases for the vocabulary and the audience

The application of computational and statistical methods benefits greatly from controlled vocabularies. They provide a foundation for creating structured and reliable datasets, which is crucial for rigorous analysis and large-scale comparative research.

The vocabulary intended audience:

• epigraphers - content creators
• IT personnel - curators of online resources
• scholars of epigraphy, archaeology, ancient history - users, research
• teachers and students of epigraphy, archaeology, and ancient history - users, teaching and learning
• GLAM sector/curators of museums - secondary content creators

Current status

We have reviewed existing lists of vocabularies from 12 digital projects (ISicily, EDR, RIB, LatinNow, SEG, IGCyr, EDH, EDB, EAGLE Europeana, IOSPE, MAMA XI, IAphrodisias). We have carefully analyzed their content, structure, format, quality, and coverage of the existing vocabularies, and compared them with the scope and purpose of the new proposed vocabulary. We have identified the gaps, overlaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities among the existing vocabularies, identified common terms and hierarchies and aligned them into a single and well-defined hierarchical structure.

Thesaurus enrichment

Missing concepts
To ensure the completeness and coherence of our controlled vocabulary for epigraphy, we addressed the issue of missing terms and concepts. When we identified relevant concepts that were absent from the source projects, we added them. This proactive approach aims to provide a more comprehensive and structured vocabulary.

Metadata and Definitions
In developing our controlled vocabulary for epigraphy, we made deliberate choices to ensure its usability and comprehensiveness. English was selected as the primary documentation language, which not only reflects your multilingual approach but also enhances accessibility for a broader academic audience. To enrich the vocabulary's utility, we provided detailed metadata for each term, including source information, creation date (where available), and relevant project references. This additional context allows users to trace the origin and historical development of terms, ensuring transparency and credibility.

Definitions of terms
In line with the commitment to clarity, we included clear and concise definitions for each term. Recognizing that many projects lack their definitions, we extensively consulted main reference books in various languages to compile authoritative and contextually accurate definitions. Surprisingly, none of the general reference books of Latin or Greek epigraphy provided us with helpful definitions of the epigraphic type. Thus we needed to create our own definitions to become a core part of the new FAIR vocabulary.

We have two controlled vocabularies

• Bilingualism Text Schema

  It is a controlled vocabulary that describes the text schema of bilingual inscriptions. The vocabulary is available in JSON format and can be viewed from the link below.

  View Vocabulary

• Type of Inscription

  It is a controlled vocabulary that describes the type of inscription. The vocabulary is available in RDF format and can be downloaded from the link below.

  View Vocabulary

List of the main reference publications:

• Cagnat, R. (1914) Cours d’épigraphie latine. 4e. éd., revue et augmentée. Paris: Fontemoing.
• Calabi Limentani, Ida. (1991) Epigrafia latina. 4. ed. Milano: Cisalpino, Istituto Editoriale Universitario (Manuali Cisalpino ; 3).
• Cooley, A.E. (2012) The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Di Stefano Manzella, Ivan. (1987) Mestiere di epigrafista: guida alla schedatura del materiale epigrafico lapideo. Roma: Quasar (Vetera ; 1).
• Guarducci, Margherita. (1967) Epigrafia greca. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato. https://biblio.inscriptiones.org/epig10000193
• Lassère, J.-Marie. (2005) Manuel d’épigraphie romaine. Paris: Picard (Antiquité/Synthèses ; 8.).
• McLean, B. (2003) An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexan, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexan. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
• Reinach, S., 1858-1932 (1885) Traité d’épigraphie grecque. France: E. Leroux, 1885.
• Woodhead, A.G. (1959) The study of Greek inscriptions. Cambridge.

The first stage, published online in April 2024, contains vocabulary describing the type of an inscription concerning its function. We welcome all comments and feedback!

References

Heřmánková, P., Horster, M., and Prag, J. (2022) “Digital Epigraphy in 2022: A Report from the Scoping Survey of the FAIR Epigraphy Project (v1.0.0)”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6610696.

Liuzzo, P.M., Fasolini, D. and Rocco, A. (2013) Content harmonisation guidelines, including GIS and terminologies - Second Release (D 2.2.2, version n 4.0). Deliverable: Europeana network of Ancient Greek and Latin Epigraphy. Available at: https://www.eagle-network.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/EAGLE_D2.2.2_Content-harmonisation-guidelines-including-GIS-and-terminologies-Second-Release.pdf.

Liuzzo, P.M. (2015) “EAGLE and EUROPEANA: Architecture Problems for Aggregation and Harmonization”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Cultural Heritage Markup. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, 16 (http://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol16.Liuzzo01).

Liuzzo, P.M. and Evangelisti, S. (2021) ‘Modeling execution techniques of inscriptions’, Semantic Web. Edited by A. Bikakis et al., 12(2), pp. 181–190. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-200395.

Tupman, C. (2021) ‘Where Can Our Inscriptions Take Us? Harnessing the Potential of Linked Open Data for Epigraphy’, in I. Velasquéz Soriano and D. Espinosa Espinosa (eds) Epigraphy in the Digital Age : Opportunities and Challenges in the Recording, Analysis and Dissemination of Inscriptions. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 115–128.

Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Mons, B., et al. (2016) “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship”, Scientific Data 3 (1), 1‑9.