mapping use case: Sub-Task Force MoU Ontology Development (NFDI4Culture, NFDI4Memory, NFDI4Objects und Text+)

[anja-gerber]

This issue is associated with the charter epic #6.

What mapping use case aspect(s) does this issue address?

As part of the memorandum group (NFDI4Culture, NFDI4Memory, NFDI4Objects and Text+), we are working together on the development of our consortia's ontologies of our consortia to ensure connectivity. This is due to the very close proximity of the content of our data, but also because of the need to link data from our consortia due to the very large overlaps. For example, the object data from NFDI4Objects can be linked with sources in NFDI4Memory, inscriptions on objects can be merged with the digital editions in digital editions in Text+, cultural heritage data can be linked between NFDI4Culture and NFDI4Objects can be linked and edited together, etc. As it is about the concrete (further) development of standards and also the issuing of recommendations for harmonized ontology ontology development on concrete problems and technical coordination of the MoU group, we would very much like to formalize this and set up a working group on ontology development MoU within the framework of the metadata section.

We will work on the use case Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi: https://corpusvitrearum.de/. CVMA already delivers data to the Culture Knowledge Graph and will be a use case for NFDI4Objects onject biography. The data can be connected with NFDI4Memory and Tet+ aswell, as there are publications about the stained glass, inscripts on the images and sources about the stained glass that can be connected with the data.

What further steps are needed to be taken or discussed by/in our WG regarding this issue?

1. We will represent the use case and our work in progress in the regular meetings (starting after September 2024).

[StroemPhi]

@anja-gerber could you maybe improve the issue description to also include:

• more details about the actual mappings that are expected to be produced (e.g. which terminologies need to be mapped),
• links to the tools that will be used so we might be able to spawn off issues around the tool recommendation,
• more details on what has to happen so that this issue can be closed?

That would be very helpful IMO.

[anja-gerber]

We are still within in the process of figuring out what and how we will do it. I will update as soon as I have more informations.