FAIR Epigraphic Vocabularies: Advancing FAIR and Open Science in Epigraphy

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/). 

This ‘bottom-up’ application employs a multifaceted hierarchic categorization system allowing for multiple conceptual approaches while recognizing the complex and multilingual nature of inscriptions and the historiography of the discipline. 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. Crucially, 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 standardized resource for scholars in the field. 

We present the first stage of the creation of the FAIR Epigraphic vocabularies: the type of inscription aligned across multiple projects, with a simple hierarchic order, multiple examples from partner projects and a detailed description of individual types. We are opening an invitation to discuss our proposed structure, its viability and robustness for long-term use within the digital epigraphic community. 

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.