References
- 1Archaeologist’s Portal. n.d. Available at
https://arqueologia.patrimoniocultural.pt/ [Last accessed 4 March 2024]. - 2Bekiari, C, Bruseker, G, Doerr, M, Ore, CE, Stead, S and Velios, A. 2021. Volume A: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Available at
https://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.pdf [Last accessed 8 March 2024]. - 3Calado, M, Rocha, L and Alvim, P. 2012. O Tempo das Pedras. Carta Arqueológica de Mora. Mora: Câmara Municipal de Mora.
- 4Câmara, A, Almeida, A de, Oliveira, J. 2023. Versioning: Representing Cultural Heritage Evidences on CIDOC-CRM. In: Anwar, S, Ullah, A, Rocha, Á and Sousa, MJ (eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technology and Applications: ICITA 2022. Singapore:
Springer , pp. 363–371. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-9331-2_31 - 5Câmara, A and Batista, T. 2017. Photo interpretation and geographic information systems for dolmen identification in Portugal: The case study of Mora and Arraiolos. In: 2017 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI),
21–24 June 2017 .IEEE , pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.23919/CISTI41068.2017 - 6Carlisle, PK, Avramides, I, Dalgity, A and Myers, D. 2014. The Arches Heritage Inventory and Management System: a standards-based approach to the management of cultural heritage information. In: Proceedings of Access and Understanding-Networking in the Digital Era, Dresden, Germany, 2014, pp. 6–11.
- 7Costa, L, Freitas, N and Silva, JR da. 2022. An Evaluation of Graph Databases and Object-Graph Mappers in CIDOC CRM-Compliant Digital Archives. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 15(3): 1–18. DOI: 10.1145/3485847
- 8FISH – The Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. n.d. Available at
https://www.heritagedata.org/blog/about-heritage-data/fish/ [Last accessed 4 March 2024]. - 9Garozzo, R, Murabito, F, Santagati, C, Pino, C and Spampinato, C. 2017. CULTO: An Ontology-Based Annotation Tool for Data Curation in Cultural Heritage. In: The 26th International CIPA Symposium, Ottawa, Canada,
28 August–01 September 2017 , pp. 267–274. DOI: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-267-2017 - 10Garozzo, R, Santagati, C, Spampinato, C and Vecchio, G. 2021. Knowledge-based generative adversarial networks for scene understanding in Cultural Heritage. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102736
- 11Gergatsoulis, M, Papaioannou, G, Kalogeros, E, Mpismpikopoulos, I, Tsiouprou, K and Carter, R. 2021. Modelling Archaeological Buildings Using CIDOC-CRM and Its Extensions: The Case of Fuwairit, Qatar. In: Ke, H-R, Lee, CS and Sugiyama, K (eds.), Towards Open and Trustworthy Digital Societies: 23rd International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries, ICADL, Virtual Event,
1–3 December 2021 , Proceedings. Cham:Springer , pp. 357–372. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-91669-5_28 - 12GETTY (AAT). n.d. Available at
https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/about.html [Last accessed 4 March 2024]. - 13Gruber, TR. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2): 199–220. DOI: 10.1006/knac.1993.1008
- 14Hansen, HJ and Fernie, K. 2010. CARARE: Connecting archaeology and architecture in Europeana. In: Ioannides, M, Fellner, D, Georgopoulos, A and Hadjimitsis, DG (eds.), Digital Heritage. Third International Euro-Mediterranean Conference, EuroMed 2010, Lemessos, Cyprus,
November 8–13, 2010 . Proceedings. Heidelberg:Springer , pp. 450–462. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-16873-4_36 - 15Hernández, D, Hogan, A, Riveros, C, Rojas, C and Zerega, E. 2016. Querying Wikidata: Comparing SPARQL, relational and graph databases. In: Groth, P, Simperl, E, Gray, A, Sabou, M, Krötzsch, M, Lecue, F, Flöck, F and Gil, Y (eds.), The semantic web – ISWC 2016: 15th International Semantic Web Conference, Kobe, Japan,
October 17-21, 2016 , Proceedings. Cham:Springer , pp. 88–103. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-46547-0_10 - 16ISO 21127:2006. n.d. Available at
https://www.iso.org/standard/34424.html [Last accessed 4 March 2024]. - 17Jouili, S and Vansteenberghe, V. 2013. An empirical comparison of graph databases. In: 2013 International Conference on Social Computing,
8–14 Sept. 2013 .IEEE , pp. 708–715. DOI: 10.1109/SocialCom.2013.106 - 18Koch, I, Freitas, N, Ribeiro, C, Lopes, CT and Silva, JR da. 2019. Knowledge Graph Implementation of Archival Descriptions Through CIDOC-CRM. In: Doucet, A, Isaac, A, Golub, K, Aalberg, T and Jatowt, A (eds.), Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge. 23rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, TPDL 2019, Oslo, Norway,
September 9–12, 2019 , Proceedings. Cham:Springer , pp. 99–106. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-30760-8_8 - 19McColl, RC, Ediger, D, Poovey, J, Campbell, D and Bader, DA. 2014. A performance evaluation of open source graph databases. In: PPAA ‘14: Proceedings of the first workshop on Parallel programming for analytics applications. New York:
Association for Computing Machinery , pp. 11–18. DOI: 10.1145/2567634.2567638 - 20Miller, JJ. 2013. Graph database applications and concepts with Neo4j. In: 2013 SAIS Proceedings, 24. Atlanta:
Southern Association for Information Systems . - 21Monteiro-Rodrigues, S. 2011. Estudos Pré-Históricos. Pensar o Neolítico Antigo. Viseu: Centro de Estudos Pré-Históricos da Beira Alta.
- 22Republic Diary No. 39/2022, Series 2 of 2022-02-25. n.d. Available at
https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/doc/39-2022-179670988 [Last accessed 4 March 2024]. - 23Robinson, I, Webber, J and Eifrem, E. 2015. Graph Databases. New Opportunities for Connected Data. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
- 24Rocha, L. 1999. Aspectos do Megalitismo da área de Pavia, Mora (Portugal). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 2(1): 71–94.
- 25Rocha, L. 2022. Megalitismo, destruições e classificações: perspetivas e problemáticas sobre o estado da questão no Alentejo. Scientia Antiquitatis, 2022(1): 9–44.
- 26Ronzino, P, Niccolucci, F, Felicetti, A and Doerr, M. 2016. CRMba a CRM extension for the documentation of standing buildings. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 17(1): 71–78. DOI: 10.1007/s00799-015-0160-4
- 27ROSSIO. n.d. Available at
https://rossio.pt/front/home [Last accessed 4 March 2024]. - 28Santos, I, Vieira, R, Trojahn, C, Rocha, L and Cuenca, EC. 2022. Megalithism Representation in CIDOC-CRM. In: Chiusano, S, Cerquitelli, T, Wrembel, R, Nørvåg, K, Catania, B, Vargas-Solar, G and Zumpano, E (eds.), New Trends in Database and Information Systems. ADBIS 2022 Short Papers, Doctoral Consortium and Workshops: DOING, K-GALS, MADEISD, MegaData, SWODCH, Turin, Italy,
September 5–8, 2022 , Proceedings. Cham:Springer , pp. 550–558. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-15743-1_50 - 29Silva, GM da, Glória, AC, Salgueiro, ÂS, Almeida, B, Monteiro, D, Freitas, MR de and Freire, N. 2022. ROSSIO Infrastructure: A Digital Humanities Platform to Explore the Portuguese Cultural Heritage. Information, 13(2): 50. DOI: 10.3390/info13020050
- 30Stanescu, L. 2021. A Comparison between a Relational and a Graph Database in the Context of a Recommendation System. In: 2021 16th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS),
2–5 Sept. 2021 .IEEE , pp. 133–139. DOI: 10.15439/2021F33 - 31Zaniewicz, N and Salamończyk, A. 2022. Comparison of MongoDB, Neo4j and ArangoDB databases using the developed data generator for NoSQL databases. Studia Informatica. System and information technology, 26(1): 61–72. DOI: 10.34739/si.2022.26.04