Reducing the gap between the humanities and scientific aspects of cultural heritage can foster the engagement of cultural heritage and STEM scholarly communities within the digital realm, creating a more accessible and interoperable digital library of images and data.
Accordingly, we have been assessing how to best reuse existing data initiatives in each field, beginning with the CIDOC CRM extension, the Scientific Observation Model (CRMsci). A large part of the attraction was due to CIDOC CRM itself being adapted by the Linked Art’s streamlined LOD model for data sharing between cultural heritage institutions. Linked Art enjoys a large international community, where there is a high degree of overlap with IIIF-adopting institutions. The model attempts to retain the flexibility of the CIDOC CRM, and compatibility with it, while greatly reducing the burden of its complexity, and we had high hopes for performing an analogous transformation of the CRMsci. Compatibility issues between the CRM and CRMsci, and the latter being better suited for mapping the scientific process in logic than it is for defining and sharing interoperable datasets, led us to look at other scientific procedure data ontologies. We are currently evaluating using the Semanticscience Integrated Ontology (SIO) for procedures, measurements, and other scientific data, with the intention to use that alongside Linked Art for cultural heritage institutions’ other domains.
Other terminology and vocab links for heritage data and science include:
Getty Vocabularies: The Linked Art model strongly recommends using Getty vocabulary terms wherever possible for the sake of consistency and interoperability, and Getty’s vocabularies are a very good fit for the cultural heritage community. However, for scientific data the terms are not always adequate, or appropriate ones simply do not exist. We are attempting an inclusive approach – for instance, for the measurement units used in heritage science, these can be specified with both Getty vocabularies and the Units of Measurement Ontology (UO), an approach that Linked Art’s ‘bucket’ approach to classifications handles gracefully, and we think should cover the needs of most interested parties.
Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology Foundry (OBO): a collaborative collection of interoperable ontologies for BioMed applications, a number of which are well suited for the techniques and procedures, instruments, and data types used in heritage science labs, including the Chemical Entities of Biological Interest, Chemical Methods, Mass Spectrometry, and Units of Measurement ontologies (ChEBI, CHMO, MO, UO), and an OBO-friendly edition of the NCI Thesaurus (NCIT). In addition to supplying scientific terms, the NCIT has proven extremely useful for its qualitative terms within the cultural heritage humanities side as well. (i.e., most vocabularies, the Getty included, steer clear of qualifying terms like ‘temporary,’ ‘permanent,’ ‘partial,’ ‘acceptable,’ and ‘unacceptable,’ each of which have their place in this domain. For example, in Oddy Test results.)
IUPAC’s Gold Book: Recently updated, edging ever closer to becoming a LOD source.
Rare Books and Manuscripts Controlled Vocabularies (RBMS): Some cultural heritage projects have specialized needs that go beyond what the Getty can accommodate, and such is the case for the APCNC project where specific binding, paper, and printing terms are required. Using the RBMS controlled vocabularies represents an example of how a core model based on a context with reconciled LinkedArt/SIO/Getty ontologies might be expanded for domain-specific needs.
Along with SIO, we are using the partner Chemical Information Ontology (ChemInf), both of which, with OBO Foundry ontologies, interoperate well in our experience with NIH’s PubChem.
 CIDOC is ICOM’s International Committee for Documentation, http://network.icom.museum/cidoc/. The CIDOC CRM is CIDOC’s Conceptual Reference Model, which provides an event-driven formal structure for describing concepts and relationships used in cultural heritage documentation, http://www.cidoc-crm.org. CRMsci, http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/, uses and extends the CIDOC CRM, and is a formal ontology intended to be used as a global schema for integrating metadata about scientific observation, measurements and processed data in descriptive and empirical sciences such as biodiversity, geology, geography, archaeology, cultural heritage conservation and others in research IT environments and research data libraries.
 https://iiif.io/, see: https://iiif.io/community/#participating-institutions
 https://sio.semanticscience.org/, see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260608288
 http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/ and http://vocab.getty.edu/
 Including, for instance, historical units of measure, such as the pre-metric system French ‘ligne’: http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300435501
 https://github.com/bio-ontology-research-group/unit-ontology. Alternatives, such as Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Types (QUDT) also suggest themselves, http://www.qudt.org/2.1/catalog/qudt-catalog.html.
 Specifically, a record’s type/classification can be specified with an array of appropriate values, which is efficient, terse, and convenient for programmatic handling. e.g., a work of art can be classified as a ‘painting’ and ‘artwork’: https://linked.art/model/base/#types-and-classifications; the ‘part’ of a photograph describing its front can be classified as ‘front part’ and ‘artwork’: https://linked.art/model/object/physical/index.html#object_50