The Vocabularies - Finding the Right Words for My Data

Posted on
concept vocabularies

So, I’ve got my infrastructure sorted and my ontologies in place. But ontologies alone aren’t enough—I also needed controlled vocabularies to fill them with meaningful, consistent data. And since my research isn’t limited to the Mediterranean or the Near East, I needed vocabularies that could handle global coverage while still letting me add my own terms when needed.

Pleiades: For Sites and Places

For archaeological sites, Pleiades was the obvious choice. It’s a community-driven gazetteer with a strong foundation in Classical studies, but it’s actively expanding to cover the whole ancient world. The best part? I can add new sites myself—critical for my work outside the traditional Mediterranean focus.

It’s not the most formal option out there, but it’s open, linked, and practical. And since it’s already widely used in digital humanities, it integrates well with CIDOC CRM.

PeriodO: For Cultures and Periods

When it comes to cultures and chronological periods, I went with PeriodO. Why? Because it’s designed specifically for defining and linking time periods, and it supports scholarly assertions—meaning I can add my own period definitions when the existing ones don’t fit.

It’s not the most comprehensive vocabulary out there, but it’s flexible, global, and RDF-native. And unlike some other options, it doesn’t lock me into a specific region or timeframe.

Getty AAT: For Feature and Object Types

For feature and object types, I chose the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT). It’s the international standard, with over 30,000 terms covering everything from amphorae to weapons to architectural features. It’s comprehensive, multilingual, and—most importantly—widely adopted.

The trade-off? It’s not the easiest to extend. But for a global project like mine, the interoperability it offers far outweighs the occasional need to propose a new term or create a local extension.

Allotrope Framework: For Scientific Analytics

For the scientific side of things, I needed a vocabulary that could handle chemical compositions, dating methods, and material analyses. The Allotrope Framework Ontology (AFO) fit the bill perfectly. It’s purpose-built for analytical chemistry and materials science, and it’s already used by major organizations in the field.

It’s not specifically designed for archaeology, but that’s okay—it’s RDF-based, open-source, and it works. And since I’m using it alongside CIDOC CRM, I can link my archaeological objects directly to their scientific results.

FABIO: For Literature

Here’s where I made a slight pivot. In my last post, I mentioned FRBRoo for literature as an ontology. But after some more thought, I realized FRBRoo is overkill for my needs. I don’t plan to model literature entities in extreme depth—I just need something simple, like a Zenodo entry.

That’s why I switched to FABIO (FRBR Aligned Bibliographic Ontology). It’s lightweight, FRBR-aligned, and perfect for tracking publications with basic metadata like titles, authors, dates, and DOIs. It’s not as comprehensive as FRBRoo, but it’s a lot simpler—and that’s exactly what I need, including controlled vocabularies for the those entries.

The Big Picture

So here’s my vocabulary stack:

  • Pleiades for sites
  • PeriodO for cultures and periods
  • Getty AAT for feature and object types
  • Allotrope Framework for scientific analytics
  • FABIO for literature

Together, they give me a balance of global standards and flexibility. Where comprehensive vocabularies exist (like Getty AAT and Allotrope), I use them. Where I need the ability to add custom entries (like Pleiades and PeriodO), I’ve chosen vocabularies that let me do just that.

Curious for the itty-bitty details?

LOD-AM/vocabularies

View LOD-AM/vocabularies on GitHub →

As always, if you have thoughts, suggestions, or just want to talk vocabularies, you know where to find me: info@lod-am.net or (if you have a GitHub-Account) in a comment below.