Ontology and Domain Knowledge Base Construction for Contra Dance as an
Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Case Study in Knowledge Organization of American Folk Dance
A thesis submitted to the College of Communication and Information of Kent State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Library and Information Science
by
L.P. Coladangelo
May, 2020
Thesis written by
L.P. Coladangelo
B.A., Sarah Lawrence College, 2004
M.L.I.S., Kent State University, 2020
Approved by
______
Marcia Lei Zeng, Ph.D., Advisor
______
Kendra S. Albright, Ph.D., Director, School of Information
______
Amy L. Reynolds, Ph.D., Dean, College of Communication and Information
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... iii
List of Figures ...... viii
Acknowledgments ...... x
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background Summary ...... 1 1.2 Thesis Structure Overview ...... 2 1.3 Context and Definitions ...... 2 1.3.1 Heritage, cultural heritage, and intangible cultural heritage (ICH)...... 2 1.3.2 Safeguarding ICH and digital cultural heritage...... 3 1.3.3 ICH domain knowledge organization and representation...... 5 1.3.4 Country dance, contra dance, and contra dance vocabulary...... 6 1.4 Research Questions ...... 10 1.4.1 Exploratory/theoretical question cluster 1...... 10 1.4.2 Exploratory/theoretical question cluster 2...... 10 1.4.3 Exploratory/practical question cluster 3...... 10 1.5 Objectives ...... 10 Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature...... 12 2.1 Selection Criteria ...... 12 2.2 Landscape of Recent Developments in ICH Research ...... 13 2.3 Preservation and Documentation ...... 14 2.3.1 Roles of memory institutions...... 14 2.3.2 Digitization and digital resources...... 17 2.3.3 Motion capture...... 18 2.4 Interaction and Dissemination ...... 19 2.4.1 Social robots...... 20 2.4.2 Augmented / virtual reality...... 20 2.4.2.1 Augmented reality (AR)...... 20 2.4.2.2 Virtual reality (VR)...... 20 2.4.3 Educational interfaces and gamification...... 21
iii
2.4.3.1 Terpsichore project...... 22 2.4.3.2 i-Treasures...... 23 2.5 KOS, Semantic Technologies, and Metadata Research ...... 24 2.5.1 Conceptual models and metadata standards...... 25 2.5.1.1 CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM)...... 26 2.5.1.2 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model...... 26 2.5.1.2.1 “Superworks” model extending FRBR...... 27 2.5.1.3 FRBR-object oriented (FRBRoo) model...... 28 2.5.1.4 IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM)...... 28 2.5.1.5 Europeana Data Model (EDM)...... 29 2.5.1.6 Dublin Core (DC)...... 30 2.5.1.7 Sampo model and process-centric cataloging...... 31 2.5.1.8 Cultural Heritage in Digital Environments (CHDE) model...... 32 2.5.1.9 DOing REusable MUSical (DOREMUS) data model...... 33 2.5.1.10 Linked Irish Traditional Music (LITMUS) ontology...... 34 2.5.1.11 Knowledge repository model for intangible cultural heritage...... 34 2.5.2 Knowledge structures, taxonomies, and thesauri...... 35 2.5.3 Domain ontologies, linked data approaches, and semantic technologies...... 36 2.5.3.1 Examples of ontologically-modeled ICH...... 36 2.5.3.2 Examples of semantic, linked data, and interoperability approaches for ICH information...... 38 2.6 Representation of ICH and the Paradigm of Indigenous Knowledge and Culture-specific Domains ...... 39 2.7 Movement Notation, Modeling, and Analysis ...... 40 2.7.1 Labanotation and Laban movement analysis (LMA)...... 40 2.7.2 Benesh Movement Notation (BMN)...... 42 2.7.3 Multimodal analysis...... 43 2.8 Contra Dance Research ...... 43 Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 45 3.1 Research Stages and Methods ...... 45 3.1.1 Survey and selection...... 45 3.1.1.1 Selection of sample dances from the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend Collection, 1988-2017...... 46 3.1.1.2. Selection of sample dances from other sources...... 50
iv
3.1.2 Content and domain analysis...... 51 3.1.3 Ontology building methodology...... 53 3.2 Anticipated Results ...... 55 3.3 Work Plan ...... 56 Chapter 4: Development of a Knowledge Organization Structure for Contra Dance ...... 57 4.1 Research Questions Addressed and Chapter Overview ...... 57 4.2 Concerns and Considerations in ICH Knowledge Organization ...... 57 4.3 Content and Domain Analysis of Contra Dance Choreography ...... 59 4.3.1 The structure of contra dance choreography: figures, their terms/concepts, and their modifications...... 60 4.3.1.1 Functional requirements and definition of contra dance choreography syntax and concepts...... 61 4.3.1.2 Development of contra dance choreography classes and properties to describe instances of StructuredCall...... 65 4.3.2 Toward contra dance choreography in an ontological model...... 67 4.3.2.1 Further Figure definition through objectProperties: the example of the Swing. ....68 4.3.2.2 Limitations of single-axis classification demonstrating the need for ontological modeling...... 70 4.4 Content and Domain Analysis of Contra Dance as an ICH Domain ...... 73 4.4.1 Identification of functional requirements for contra dance domain classes, properties, and relationships...... 74 4.4.1.1 Properties of Dance as an ontological class...... 74 4.4.1.2 Other contra dance domain classes and their properties...... 78 Chapter 5: Adaptation and Reuse of Existing Cultural Heritage Models ...... 86 5.1 Research Questions Addressed and Chapter Overview ...... 86 5.2 Identifying the Applicability of Existing Cultural Heritage Data and Conceptual Models ...86 5.3 Determination of Modeling Requirements and Criteria for Suitability of Adaptation and Reuse: What is “Best” ...... 87 5.3.1 Ease of use and conceptual flexibility...... 88 5.3.2 Class definitions and semantic interoperability...... 89 5.3.3 Novel approaches with up-to-date models and standards...... 94 5.3.3.1 Leveraging the innovation of the LRM Res class to model and trace the lineage of tradition and thematic content...... 95 Chapter 6: Contra Ontology Development, Implementation, and Finalization ...... 99 6.1 Research Questions Addressed and Chapter Overview ...... 99
v
6.2 Ontology Development as an Iterative Process ...... 99 6.2.1 Revision of the conceptual model for choreography through development of a structured data core linked to and enhancing semi-structured and unstructured data...... 100 6.2.2 Revision of classes and properties to model additional complex relationships in the domain...... 105 6.2.2.1 Further subdivision of objectProperties for NotatedDance calls...... 105 6.2.2.2 Classes and properties for components and groupings related to Performances...... 106 6.2.2.3 Classes and properties revised to model the Agent class and its relationships. 107 6.2.2.4 Further delineating properties of the calling tradition...... 108 6.2.2.5 Revision of inverse properties...... 109 6.3 Ontology Implementation ...... 109 6.3.1 Contra Ontology classes...... 110 6.3.2 Contra Ontology objectProperties, inverse properties, domains, and ranges...... 112 6.3.3 Contra Ontology dataProperties, domains, and ranges...... 115 6.3.4 Visualization of specific use case with domain entities and relationships modeled as classes, properties, and instances...... 116 6.4 Ontology Testing and Finalization ...... 117 6.4.1 Ontological inferences by built-in reasoner...... 117 6.4.2 Examples of SPARQL queries and results...... 120 6.4.3 Finalization of the specification...... 122 6.5 Contra Ontology and Its Potential for Interoperability ...... 122 6.5.1 Interoperability through domain overlap and linked data approaches...... 122 6.5.2 Conceptual interoperability with other ICH domains...... 124 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions ...... 126 7.1 Thesis Summary ...... 126 7.2 Discussion ...... 127 7.2.1 Structural and semantic approaches to enhancing domain data...... 128 7.2.2 Immediate opportunities for expansion and integration of the Contra Ontology with other adjacent domains and KOS...... 129 7.2.3 A set of aspirational draft principles for organizing and representing other ICH domains...... 130 7.3 Challenges and Limitations ...... 134 7.4 Future Research ...... 136 7.5 Conclusion ...... 138
vi
Appendix A: List of Contra Dance Choreography Resources Consulted ...... 140
References ...... 142
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Basic characteristics of a prospective instance Swing presented as properties with examples of ranges, data values, and encoding standards...... 70
Figure 2. Comparison of properties and eligible values for three Figure instances: Swing, Allemande, and Gypsy...... 72
Figure 3. Basic property-value pairs in describing and modeling conceptual components of a Dance, using “Delphiniums and Daisies” as an example...... 78
Figure 4. Contra Ontology classes mapped to their semantic and structural equivalent classes from LRM, FRBRoo, DOREMUS, and LITMUS...... 94
Figure 5. Classes/levels of choreographic data structuring supported by the Contra Ontology, with examples of instances, their properties, and data values...... 102
Figure 6. Protégé software screenshot showing an asserted equivalence of an UnstructuredCall with a matching StructuredCall...... 104
Figure 7. Protégé software screenshot showing asserted and inferred instances of StructuredCall...... 105
Figure 8. Classes of the Contra Ontology, including their names and hierarchical structure. ... 112
Figure 9. Contra Ontology objectProperties, including names, domains, ranges, and inverse properties...... 115
Figure 10. Contra Ontology dataProperties, including names, domains, and ranges...... 116
Figure 11. Visualization of a resulting semantic network of ICH information from the use case modeling of an instance of Performance...... 117
Figure 12. Protégé software screenshot showing inferred duple improper dances...... 119
Figure 13. Protégé software screenshot showing inferred figures performed by two dancers. . 119
Figure 14. Protégé software screenshot showing inferred sets of tunes...... 120
Figure 15. Protégé software screenshot showing a SPARQL query and results for dances with both duple and improper formations...... 121
Figure 16. Protégé software screenshot showing a SPARQL query and results for a dance which is set to a tune with the alternate title “The Glen Road to Carrick.” ...... 121
viii
Figure 17. Protégé software screenshot showing a SPARQL query and results for choreographers based in Ohio...... 122
ix
Acknowledgments
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Marcia Zeng for her ongoing encouragement, guidance, leadership, understanding, and support in bringing this project from a group of disparate ideas to a full, final product. I am infinitely grateful to her for igniting the spark of knowledge organization and the study of intangible cultural heritage within me, and for helping me to tend to that growing flame. The completion of this thesis would have been impossible without Dr. Zeng’s mentorship, wisdom, expertise, graciousness, and good spirits.
I would also like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Karen Gracy and Dr.
Lala Hajibayova for agreeing to be part of the thesis committee. I would especially like to thank
Dr. Gracy for her insights early on regarding dance notation methods, and her valuable thoughts and feedback on the study’s research questions, limitations, and opportunities for future research. I am very deeply indebted to Dr. Hajibayova for her instruction on domain analysis, for sharing her work on Indigenous knowledge representation with me, and her suggestions on other relevant domain models and representations that helped to bring this work into focus and fruition.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Shawn Belt, who has so lovingly sustained me through my time in the MLIS program and especially through the work on this thesis. Thank you for being an extra set of eyes, a pair of listening ears, a shoulder to lean on, a warm, broad smile, and a comforting embrace. Thank you for being my champion and my partner. I would never have been able to do this without you.
“This work was conducted using the Protégé resource, which is supported by grant
GM10331601 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the United States
National Institutes of Health.”
x 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background Summary
Country dancing is an intangible cultural heritage (ICH) of traditional social dance that spans European and North American history from (at least) the 17th century to the present day;
American / New England contra dance represents a vibrant and currently active form of country dance performed mostly in the United States, but also worldwide. Information about contra dance is available in many unstructured or semi-structured formats (print books, digital documents, websites, YouTube videos, sound recordings, etc.), but there are no standardized vocabularies or formal domain models which make information about contra dance and its history, tradition, and culture available as a knowledge base.
Furthermore, researchers and experts from many other countries and cultures have proposed and formulated ontologies, metadata standards, and domain models for their ICH, but the United States has lacked momentum in this area, in part because no ICH of the United
States is registered on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (the
U.S. is not a signatory to the 2003 Convention).
This study sought to help safeguard this tradition by applying ontological modeling to contra dance as an ICH domain. It proposed using a novel approach in applying or adapting the
IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM) as a general framework, along with aspects of the CIDOC
Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), the object-oriented Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBRoo) model, the Cultural Heritage in Digital Environments (CHDE),
DOing REusable MUSic (DOREMUS) data models, and Linked Irish Traditional Music (LITMUS)
Ontology. It intended to provide one of the few (if any) ontologies and conceptual data models of an ICH of the United States and/or (North) American folk dance tradition.
2
1.2 Thesis Structure Overview
The introduction to this thesis (Chapter 1) provides contextual information for the domain and scope of the subject area of this project as well as specific research questions and objectives. The literature review (Chapter 2) identifies pertinent areas of previous research into
ICH, its preservation and transmission through digital tools and technologies, and conceptual and data modeling of ICH domains, including ontologies. Methodology (Chapter 3) defines and describes the research methods used in this study: survey and selection, content analysis, and ontology construction. The results of the study are explicated in three parts (Chapters 4-6) covering the process of content analysis and the determination of aspects to be modeled through functional requirements (Chapter 4), adaptation and reuse of existing models (Chapter
5), and the process of ontology development and revision (Chapter 6). The final portion of the thesis (Chapter 7) provides a discussion of research findings, insights learned, limitations, and avenues for future research.
1.3 Context and Definitions
1.3.1 Heritage, cultural heritage, and intangible cultural heritage (ICH). Heritage has been defined as “our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2008, p. 5). In seeking to preserve this legacy, UNESCO adopted an international treaty, the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (commonly known as the World Heritage Convention) in
1972. At the time, the World Heritage Convention made a distinction between cultural heritage as “monuments, groups of buildings and sites with historical, aesthetic, archaeological, scientific, ethnological or anthropological value” and natural heritage, which constituted
“outstanding physical, biological and geological formations, habitats of threatened species of animals and plants and areas with scientific, conservation or aesthetic value” (UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, 2008, p. 3). The significant distinction between natural heritage and cultural heritage is that the latter encompasses the legacy of human thought and action, that is, the
3
“physical artefacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations”
(UNESCO, 2017b).
With the adoption of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage, UNESCO acknowledged officially that cultural heritage was composed not only of the physical evidence of cultural production (or tangible cultural heritage), but also intangible cultural heritage (ICH), or “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage”
(UNESCO, 2014). Tangible cultural heritage has been further subdivided into categories such as moveable cultural heritage (e.g., paintings, sculptures, instruments, coins, manuscripts), fixed or immovable cultural heritage (e.g., buildings, architecture, monuments, wall paintings, archeological sites), and even underwater cultural heritage (e.g., shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities) (Chowdhury & Ruthven, 2015; UNESCO, 2010; UNESCO, 2017c). ICH is that which
“cannot be touched but which can be felt through other sensory organs” (Chowdhury & Ruthven,
2015, p. 1), and has been subdivided into the following domains: oral traditions and expressions, including language; performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and traditional craftsmanship
(UNESCO, 2014; UNESCO, 2017a).
1.3.2 Safeguarding ICH and digital cultural heritage. The paradigm of safeguarding introduced in the 2003 UNESCO Convention has led to the identification and preservation of
ICH by many of its signatory countries, recognizing the value in building “greater awareness, especially among the younger generations, of the importance of the intangible cultural heritage”
(UNESCO, 2014). The 2003 Convention defined safeguarding as “measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through
4 formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage” (UNESCO, 2014). Lombardo, Pizzo, & Damiano (2016) note that the ICH safeguarding paradigm also recognizes that the nature of ICH is interconnected with tangible cultural heritage: “it is impossible to define something intangible without referring to something tangible” (p. 2). With that in mind, in the case of drama and dramatic storytelling as the object of their research, they posit that documentation alone does not suffice in safeguarding drama as an ICH. Citing that although drama is documented in many ways—such as in the form of a digital recording of a drama performance—they argue that an instance of digital documentation is a “discrete manifestation” which has value as “the direct object of study...or as the video documentation of some theater performance” but “does not contribute to the safeguarding of the drama as an ICH item” (Lombardo, Pizzo, & Damiano, 2016, p. 3). In other words, mere documentation is insufficient in safeguarding drama as a complex, living heritage, which also needs to be accompanied by the “creation/sharing/dissemination of the metadata that express(es) knowledge” (Lombardo, Pizzo, & Damiano, 2016, p. 3) about the domain.
This sense of recognizing that safeguarding must exist beyond the limits of mere digitization of cultural heritage is evinced best in the numerous projects and initiatives that utilize digital tools and technologies by providing “access to...knowledge, activities, and practices”
(Hahm, 2015, p. 3), and to “support people who have a practice they value, so that they can continue this practice” (Erlien & Bakka, 2017, p. 136). Many of these projects are described and explored in section 2.4 on technologies for the dissemination of ICH. These digital projects move beyond the static capture of ICH digital data and toward the development of dynamic, active safeguarding tools and processes, such as virtual reality settings and instructional interfaces, understanding that “safeguarding and transmission of ICH...goes beyond the mere digitization of ICH content” (Dimitropoulos et al., 2018, p. 3). Moreover, ontological modeling and semantic portals supported by ontologies (Doerr, 2009; Hyvönen, 2009) have been recognized as valid means of ICH safeguarding, acting as “platforms that, via indexing and
5 categorization along with efficient searching and content presentation tools, manage to aggregate content of various CH domains in a large-scale database and provide convenient access to that data” (Chantas, Karavarsamis, Nikolopoulos, & Kompatsiaris, 2018, p. 3). That access provided by ontological modeling—through search and retrieval, presentation, visualization, and other tools for knowledge building—meets the safeguarding paradigm to assist in preserving, enhancing, and transmitting ICH information to future generations.
1.3.3 ICH domain knowledge organization and representation. Out of the call to safeguard ICH, one of the measures taken by many cultural heritage experts, researchers, and practitioners is the organization and representation ICH information so that it can be effectively passed on to others. Among those methods are the development of domain ontologies to formally define, describe, and structure basic concepts and their relationships in a particular field or discipline so that they can be shared and reused among both people and machines. An ontology, particularly in the context of cultural heritage, has been defined as “a special kind of data model dealing with formalized conceptualizations” (Eide & Ore, 2018, p. 182), that helps
“identify what is essential about a domain of knowledge and to distinguish among those essential elements...to represent such knowledge in physical form” (Doty, 2013, p. 1). This process of formalizing and representing ICH knowledge makes it tangible insofar as it can be explored, shared, reused, and analyzed outside of the minds and practices of direct practitioners and knowledge-bearers.
In their guide outlining a methodology for ontology building, Noy and McGuinness (2001) also cite several reasons why ontology development is useful:
● “To share common understanding of the structure of information among people
or software agents;
● To enable reuse of domain knowledge;
● To make domain assumptions explicit;
● To separate domain knowledge from the operational knowledge;
6
● To analyze domain knowledge” (p. 1).
This list emphasizes that ontologies themselves are not, and not intended to be, siloed data structures; in fact, their main purpose or goal is to disseminate or transmit knowledge, a key goal in the safeguarding paradigm. As a result, many other ICH domains have been ontologically modeled (see section 2.5.3.1) to represent an area of ICH knowledge, to promote interoperability between systems, and to share a common understanding of a particular domain
(Chansanam, Tuamsuk, Kwiecien, Ruangrajitpakorn, & Supnithi, 2015). In order to support that common understanding and interoperability, certain assumptions or assurances must be made about the process of proper ontological domain modeling. For instance, the process of ontology development should be well documented, demonstrating a proper understanding from the domain itself of the identification of unique concepts, instances, and properties, and their various equivalent, hierarchical, and associative relationships within the context of the domain, as well as those classes and properties reused from other ontologies in order to have clear and accurate semantic interoperability. Additionally, “ontological commitments and simplifications involved should be made explicit” (Eide & Ore, 2018, p. 188-189), and understood to be limited only to the specific needs of modeling the domain in question. From a systems and data interchange perspective, the ontology should also adhere to W3C (World Wide Web
Consortium) Semantic Web standards, in its use of knowledge representation languages like
RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema), SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization
System), OWL (Web Ontology Language), to ensure the domain model shares “the same underlying semantics made up of open standards and a common data structure” (Pattuelli,
Provo, & Thorsen, 2015, p. 268) with other web-based ontologies in a linked data environment.
1.3.4 Country dance, contra dance, and contra dance vocabulary. Contra dance is a currently active folk tradition of American community social dancing that can trace its direct roots to the rural towns of the New England region, and is part of a much longer timeline of country dance traditions formed and popularized in England beginning in the 17th century.
7
Contra dancing is practiced throughout the United States and worldwide in such places as the
United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Denmark, Israel, Mexico, and
Japan (Dart, 1995; Seelig, 2019). Country dancing is a general term for a style of folk dancing originating in England characterized by dances composed in geometric shapes and patterns that include round, square, and longways groupings of dancers executing patterned movements or figures within the dance space (Holden, Kaltman, & Kulbitsky, 1956; Pittman, Waller, & Dark,
2009). The first collection of these English country dances was made by musician and bookseller John Playford, who first published The English Dancing Master in 1651. This volume collected and described 105 popular country dances and their accompanying tunes; the last edition published by Playford’s son in 1728 collected over 900 dances (Dart, 1995; Pittman,
Waller, & Dark, 2009). Country dancing also became popular in the courts of continental
Europe, and with some influence from the French dancing masters, this form longways dancing migrated back to England to be known as “contra dance” (Dart, 1995; Pittman, Waller, & Dark,
2009). These longways dances—also mixed with Scottish, Irish, and French Canadian traditions—were brought to North American by English colonists; at one time, contra dance was danced in all thirteen colonies (Dart, 1995). Although political sentiment against the English was strong during and after the American Revolution and the War of 1812, Anglo-American cultural traditions like contra dancing were still kept alive, especially in the rural communities of
New England (Dart 1995). Over time, contra dancing spread throughout the United States, particularly in communities in the Midwest and South, and even into the West and Southwest.
Its popularity ebbed and flowed throughout the 19th century as new dance crazes dominated the American life, and contra dance experienced various revivals in the early to mid-20th century through the efforts of such figures as Henry Ford, Benjamin Lovett, Beth Tolman, Ralph
Page, Lloyd Shaw, Dudley Laufman, Tony Parkes, Ted Sannella, and Bob Dalsemer, among many other dancer callers, choreographers, musicians, and organizers (Brucher, 2016; Dart,
1995; Nielsen, 2011; Pittman, Waller, & Dark, 2009). Today, contra dance and its traditions are
8 largely supported by the Country Dance and Song Society (CDSS), a national organization and a network of affiliated local organizations committed to preserving and continuing the traditions of American folk dance and music.
Although debate exists about the exact origins of the word contra1, the word today generally describes the tradition of dancing in long lines of dancers organized into groups of four people / two couples. The full long line is called a major set, and the groups of couples or foursomes are called minor sets (also known as a “hands four”). Interactions generally take place between a dancer and their partner (a couple) and the members of the other couple in the minor set (or one’s “neighbors”). A caller teaches and prompts the figures or movements that compose the choreography of a particular dance, which follows a 64-beat structure to match the accompanying folk tunes that will be played. These folk tunes (primarily jigs, reels, marches, and hornpipes) follow an AABB structure to which dances are matched; figures are performed in various combinations to match the formal and metrical structure of the music. As dancers execute the dance each time through, they will move up or down the long line to “progress” to a new couple with which to interact in a new minor set. This series of progressions keeps the dancers moving up and down the line as they repeat the same patterns following the series of figures within the AABB structure. The satisfying performance of a contra dance, therefore, is when dancers execute figures perfectly in time with the music, and when figures seamlessly flow into one another as dancers move and progress.
The system of contra dance choreography, and the notation of words and phrases that are used to identify various movements in contra dance strike at the heart of this particular research project, as the “figures” or “calls,” as they are known, are themselves an intangible cultural heritage: a rich, historic, and semi-standardized vocabulary or language that is
1 Theories include the Latin word “contra” meaning “against,” since dancers dance in two lines facing opposite to one another, and a translation/corruption of the French “contre-danse” after the tradition moved back to England (Dart, 1995; Holden, Kaltman, & Kulbitsky, 1956).
9 simultaneously ubiquitous and local, communal and personal, canonical and contested.
Although the metrical structure of the dances is highly fixed, the names for the figures that fit within that music are sometimes subject to variation among callers and dancers. Therefore, no standard vocabulary for figures exists, although recent formal attempts have been made
(Coladangelo, 2019). At present, the tradition of uncodified terminology continues, with Katy
German, executive director of CDSS, recently weighing in that it is not “CDSS’s job to dictate what language is used in local communities” (Murphy & Murphy, 2019, p. 10). Moreover, new contra dances and tunes are constantly being written, adding to a catalog of hundreds of older dances, along with new figures and formations. Contra dance information itself is also highly unstructured, consisting of dance instructions and notations published in various collections and volumes, in pamphlets and syllabi, in newsletters, on notecards kept by dance callers, and on personal websites and online crowdsourced databases. Recordings of tunes and contra dance music are on both analog storage devices and in digital and digitized formats; videos of contra dances exist on YouTube and elsewhere on the Web, and, no doubt, on VHS tapes or still stored on hard drives or digital cameras in private collections. The nature of this heterogeneous information environment and its complications present a challenge, if not an opportunity, to model contra dance as an ICH in a way that assists in safeguarding this tradition by creating an infrastructure for that information to be structured and linked, and thereby make it accessible and available to knowledge building activities, while respecting the decentralized and evolving nature of contra dance linguistic and structural traditions. As a result, by organizing knowledge regarding the formal aspects of contra dance from its sources of unstructured information, and by implementing mechanisms to reduce or mitigate the ambiguity of contra dance vocabulary, a domain ontology would make this ICH information extremely accessible and valuable, especially once a well-structured data model exists to house and preserve intake from various data sources.
10
1.4 Research Questions
This study sought to examine the creation of an ontological model of contra dance as a means of safeguarding and preserving it as an ICH, as domain modeling has itself become an increasingly well-known and well-regarded ICH safeguarding practice. In order to investigate that proposition, the following theoretical and practical research questions guided this particular exploratory case study:
1.4.1 Exploratory/theoretical question cluster 1.
1a. Is it possible to create a knowledge organization structure for contra dance?
1b. If so, what parameters or functional requirements would such a system have?
1.4.2 Exploratory/theoretical question cluster 2.
2a. What is/are the “best” model(s) for adaptation or reuse—if existing models
used for ICH are appropriate—for informing and constructing a knowledge
organization structure for contra dance?
2b. What are the criteria for determining an appropriate match?
2c. Where is it possible to investigate a novel approach?
1.4.3 Exploratory/practical question cluster 3.
3a. How will the domain ontology for contra dance function?
3b. How would it be interoperable with other ontologies, other systems of dance
notation, other dance forms/genres, other performing arts, ritual practices and
traditions with basis in human movement, and related folk music traditions?
1.5 Objectives
Structured with the above research questions in mind, the project sought to address the following objectives:
● Analysis and development of a domain model / ontology of contra dance as an ICH;
11
● Identification and utilization (where possible) of existing conceptual frameworks and data
model structures to inform the ontology building process and to support future
interoperability, including
○ exploring novel research approaches for ICH in terms of applicable models
(where possible);
● Building and populating the model with sample data and real-world examples to support
semantic queries as a means of testing the ontology;
● Discussing and supporting future opportunities beyond this study to
○ research semantic interoperability between the domain model and other cultural
heritage ontologies, knowledge organization systems (KOS), and notation
systems;
○ provide the underlying structure for semantic technologies and information
systems built for contra dance;
○ provide avenues for further development of other domain ontologies for related
traditions; and
○ extend existing ICH KOS through semantic interoperability.
12
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature
2.1 Selection Criteria
Articles, papers, and academic and professional publications researched for this preliminary study were sorted, examined, and included as follows. First priority was given to any article from the past three years (2016-2018) which included research on ICH (including specific performing arts like dance, drama, and music) and at least one of the following subjects: knowledge organization and KOS (e.g., taxonomies, ontologies), knowledge representation, cataloging, indexing, metadata, museums, digital libraries, digital archives, and digitization or digital preservation of ICH. A second round of review identified articles encompassing the above criteria that were older than 2016, as well as some articles regarding tangible cultural heritage, especially with intangible aspects. In addition to the above subjects, further related topics were included, such as digital humanities (DH), cultural heritage informatics (CHI), semantic technologies and the Semantic Web, linked data, dance notation, faceted analysis, and classification. Preferences for sources were given to peer-reviewed and -edited publications like academic and professional journals (both in print and born-digital formats), textbooks and manuals, official specifications for conceptual models and metadata standards, and especially conference proceedings, where much of the recent and developing KOS and digital technology research on ICH had been presented. Other sources such as white papers and working papers, master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, and digital ICH project documentation—particularly with regard to KOS implementation and metadata practices—were also included. Books and articles on the history, culture, and structure of contra dance were included for domain background and analysis. Searches were conducted through databases bundled within EBSCOhost (including such databases as Academic Search Complete, ERIC, and Library Literature & Information Science Full Text), the digital repository JSTOR, and the search engine Google Scholar.
13
2.2 Landscape of Recent Developments in ICH Research
Very roughly speaking, current research in ICH can be classified first by subject domain and then by research questions and approaches. First, research in ICH questions can be largely divided between traditional modes of humanities- and social- or legal-based inquiry (e.g., anthropology, history, art history, cultural studies, sociology, political science, international law) and informatics-based approaches (including those which overlap with some of first mode in the form of digital humanities). While studies and articles that identify questions regarding the application of critical theories, legal frameworks, and sociological research are deeply crucial to a full understanding of the role of ICH in both local and global communities, questions exclusively within the domains in which these “traditional” modes of inquiry are practiced are not directly germane to the examination undertaken here. For the sake of brevity and to maintain a deeper focus on issues related principally to library and information science, data models, and semantic technologies, the solely “anthropological” mode of inquiry into ICH will be set aside for the moment.
To that end, it is possible to further subdivide the research preoccupations of informatics-based inquiry of ICH questions into several areas (acknowledging that significant overlap exists among research in both questions and approaches). This review divides performing and folk arts ICH research into the following areas: 1) preservation, documentation, and digitization through digital instantiations or digital surrogates (herein known as “preservation and documentation”); 2) facilitation of technology-mediated human interaction with ICH as a strategy for cultural heritage transmission (and thus preservation) (herein known as “interaction and dissemination”), often in the form of augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), educational interfaces, or video games (as entertainment and instructional tools); and broadly, concerns related to 3) knowledge organization and representation, data models, conceptual models, cataloging and classification standards and practices, linked data and the Semantic Web, and metadata application profiles (herein known as “KOS, semantic technologies, and metadata
14 research”). While there is logically a combination of these three kinds of inquiries in most of the research, and many of the projects discussed require considerations of, for instance, digitization technologies and standards, this portion will venture to separate the studies (or elements of the studies) by their main research questions, outcomes, cultural heritage domains, and key approaches, in an effort to further delineate themes and tracks for ICH research.
Furthermore, after a brief examination of research on 4) representation of Indigenous knowledge and culture-specific ICH, and 5) movement notation and modeling, the review will close with an overview of 6) contra dance as a subject in a research and publication context.
2.3 Preservation and Documentation
At this juncture, the question of the importance of preservation of ICH is chiefly a settled matter; both the weight of the 2003 UNESCO Convention and significant efforts at the national level in many countries with self-identified rich histories of cultural heritage have made projects regarding preservation of ICH a source of particular pride and research attention. Nations are further spurred by considerations ranging from recognition of the uniqueness of ethnic identity afforded by expressions of ICH and the fragility of ICH in an increasingly homogenized, global world, to a desire to monetize ICH for the purposes of international exposure, tourism industries, and further cultural production. As a result, research attention has shifted beyond debating or advocating the mere necessity of documentation itself, to examining the efficacy of or value found in particular preservation methodologies and policies, like those traditions and practices surrounding documentation of Korean mask dance drama (Ha, 2017), or processes like cultural mapping (Cabeça, 2018) which ties ICH simultaneously to the context of their communities of practice and their place-based identities.
2.3.1 Roles of memory institutions. Libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs), as memory and cultural institutions, have been placed at the nexus of conversations about the future of cultural heritage preservation strategies. Bonn, Kendall, and McDonough (2017) penned a white paper as a result of a meeting of researchers and specialists in library and
15 archival studies as well as intangible cultural heritage at New York University in January 2016.
The group was particularly interested in charting the course for future research and collaboration in North America, especially the United States and Canada, which are not signatories to UNESCO’s 2003 Convention. The paper cited the relative success of historic initiatives like the folk music recordings of the Lomax Family Collections at the American Folklife
Center at the Library of Congress and The Foxfire Project, which documents and preserves
Appalachian heritage, particularly in Georgia. More recently, initiatives from the Smithsonian
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage—in its shift to focus increasingly on intangible heritage—have produced projects like that of Sharing Knowledge and Recovering Voices, concerning American Indian heritage; this is in addition to the work of local heritage preservation centers like the Alaska Native Heritage Center, Sealaska Heritage Institute, and the Alaska
Native Knowledge Network, and other organizations funded by state and federal agencies. As a result, the white paper urged that heritage communities and communities of practice need to play a central and crucial role in the documentation and dissemination of their own cultural heritage, and discussed how libraries and archives can best support the preservation of intangible cultural heritage. Among its recommendations, the researchers and specialists suggested exploration of the following issues: 1) the relationship between the tangible and intangible heritage; 2) mechanisms and metrics for successful transmission of intangible heritage as an education practice; 3) risk assessment related to how intangible heritage becomes endangered, including environmental, social, and geographic factors; 4) inventorying the existence of intangible cultural heritages, their status, and current preservation efforts; 5) organization of information about intangible heritage, like classification systems, vocabularies, and metadata practices; and 6) further considerations of policy and process, such as ownership and intellectual property rights, resource allocation in preservation efforts, and greater interdisciplinarity and collaboration among libraries, archives, and other cultural memory organizations and academic institutions.
16
Museums in particular have been touted as well-situated to help safeguard ICH, as both physical spaces to hold performances and demonstrations of ICH, and as organizations able to provide expertise and support to ICH practitioners in the preservation and dissemination of their own heritage. Blake (2018) examined the duality and dichotomy of global and local heritage and the role of museums in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage under both the 2003
UNESCO Convention and the 2015 Recommendation concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society. The author discussed the important and expanding impact museums can have in providing spaces, expertise, and organizational infrastructures for intangible cultural heritage while emphasizing the crucial and direct function of local cultural communities and practitioners in the safeguarding and transmission of their own heritage. Using UNESCO definitions and recommendations as a framework, Blake concluded that museums are uniquely and centrally situated in the paradigm shift toward greater democratization and local community participation in the preservation and dissemination of intangible cultural heritage. Erlien and Bakka (2017) engaged in a dialogue regarding intangible cultural heritage and the paradigms of preservation and safeguarding, and how museums can utilize strategies within both paradigms to encourage safeguarding practices in their institutions. Using an “interactive dance dissemination” project as a case study, Erlien demonstrated how traditional museum methods like exhibitions and performances can be adapted by centering the skills and knowledge of intangible cultural heritage practitioners to better align museums with their desire to participate more effectively in safeguarding practices.
By holding a series of folk and social dance events under the museum aegis, heritage practitioners were principally responsible for the safeguarding and dissemination of their own heritage practices while museums played a vital role in providing organizational support and exhibition/demonstration space for the project. Bakka interrogated this model for adherence to appropriate safeguarding practices through the lens of the 2003 UNESCO Convention. Finally, both authors debated how and to what degree museum staff would be willing to move from
17 curatorial roles to roles of facilitation in favor of allowing heritage experts, specialists, and practitioners to take the lead in safeguarding, including whether or not practitioners themselves were up to the safeguarding task.
2.3.2 Digitization and digital resources. Although many governments, organizations, and cultural groups have worked toward, developed, and established heritage institutions and preservation practices, some ICH were cited in current research publications as still in need of digitization policies and strategies, such as the proposed digitization of the ICH of Malaysia (Isa,
Zin, Rosdi, & Sarim, 2018), including Mak Yong theater (Khan, Aziz, & Daud, 2018), and the digital protection of ICH in China’s Southern Liaoning Province (Qing & Shilin, 2018).
Information technology-based solutions and systems and digital efforts have also been proposed to preserve and safeguard specific types of ICH, including interrogation of the roles and efficacy of those systems and solutions in that safeguarding process. Kim (2011) designed and created a prototype for an open-source software system called ChoreoSave for short-term preservation of choreography (not performance) information. Web-based tools and services have been developed for safeguarding various national and regional ICH, such as ICHpedia
(Hahm, 2015; Park, 2014; Rossi, 2018), an online collaborative/wiki-based encyclopedia and archive of the ICH of Korea, and E.CH.I. (Artese & Gagliardi, 2012; Valentin, 2013), a searchable, multilingual web catalog/inventory of ICH from areas along the Italy-Switzerland border. Sousa (2017) constructed a map of “e-inventories” of ICH to identify, gather, and analyze the number and geographic location of ICH information on digital platforms on the Web, citing 158 available projects. Moreover, the role of YouTube has been examined in the social or informal archiving of the Mevlevi Sema (or whirling dervish) ceremony of Turkey, and whether videos uploaded to the social media platform can act as a counterbalance to official gendered narratives of that heritage (Pietrobruno, 2013). Schmitz (2015) penned a white paper for the
Dance Heritage Coalition after their 2013 Technology Summit to outline the future of their
Dance Preservation and Digitization Project (DPDP). The DPDP had developed a “digihub
18 model” which sought to establish regional digitization labs at multiple sites to which analog video recordings of dance performances could be brought for digitization, while the resulting digital video files and associated metadata would be centrally ingested and managed for preservation and access. Of particular note in this digitization project and the summit discussions were issues related to metadata guidelines, metadata quality, and discoverability. The DPDP made the decision to map descriptive metadata to PBCore, a metadata and cataloging standard for audiovisual material used by the public broadcasting community, which was chosen due to “the absence of a metadata standard specifically for performing arts materials” and “because it offers the capacity to link multiple instantiations of the same work including the streaming video file and backup file, a thumbnail still image, and the physical instantiation of the recording”
(Schmitz, 2015, p. 5). Furthermore, PBCore offered the ability to link metadata to descriptions of related materials, including performance ephemera and reviews, and to allow digitization staff to map to and add attributes for entities like costume designers, composers, and other collaborators. However, an area of major concern was that metadata provided by contributors of videos was often in MARC 21 records, or generated by non-LAM staff or those without cataloging training, limiting quality control and interoperability.
2.3.3 Motion capture. Motion capture (or mocap) is a technology that samples and records the motion of humans, animals, or inanimate objects as 3D data, which is then used in analysis, playback, and remapping (Berezina-Blackburn, 2016). This technology turns “the observations of a moving subject into 3D position and orientation information about that subject
(Aristidou, Stavrakis, & Chrysanthou, 2014a, p. 44). “Motion capture devices allow the recording of live motions by tracking a number of key points in space over time, which are translated into a
3D digital representation” (Aristidou, Stavrakis, & Chrysanthou, 2014a, p. 44). Many of the studies reviewed utilized some form of motion capture data or the digital recording of live action as a method of ICH preservation (Alivizatou-Barakou et al., 2017; Aristidou & Chrysanthou,
2013; Aristidou, Stavrakis, Charalambous, Chrysanthou, & Himona, 2015; Aristidou, Stavrakis,
19
& Chrysanthou, 2014a; Aristidou, Stavrakis, & Chrysanthou, 2014b; Aristidou, Stavrakis, &
Chrysanthou, 2014c; Chan, Leung, Tang, & Komura, 2011; Chao, Delbridge, Kenderdine,
Nicholson, & Shaw, 2018; Cozzani, Pozzi, Dagnino, Katos, & Katsouli, 2017; Dimitropoulos et al., 2014; Dimitropoulοs et al., 2018; Doulamis, Doulamis, Ioannidis, Klein, & Ioannides, 2017;
Doulamis, Voulodimos, Doulamis, Soile, & Lampropoulos, 2017; Drémeau & Essid, 2013;
Hachimura, 2017; Karavarsamis, Ververidis, Chantas, Nikolopoulos, & Kompatsiaris, 2016;
Kitsikidis, Dimitropoulos, Douka, & Grammalidis, 2014; Kojima, Furukawa, Maruyama, &
Hachimura, 2017; Kovavisaruch et al., 2011; Manitsaris, Glushkova, Bevilacqua, & Moutarde,
2014; Nakazawa, Nakaoka, Kudoh, & Ikeuchi, 2002; Zhao & Mudur, 2006). Among those efforts, motion capture played a role in preserving and digitizing ICH like dance movement, theatrical performances, martial arts, and pottery making, including motion capture for subsequent analysis, annotation, indexing, and reuse, such as integration into computer- generated characters and digital environments, live-streaming technologies, and educational and training systems.
2.4 Interaction and Dissemination
While valuable, preservation efforts are increasingly undertaken not simply as an end in themselves, as “digitization alone is not sufficient to pass [ICH on to] newer generations”
(Aristidou, et al., 2015, p. 2). Preservation of ICH, unlike tangible heritage, is not independent of human-to-human transmission strategies; that is, to safeguard and preserve ICH, it must be communicated from one person to another and learned by subsequent generations. In order to support sustainability, it must be actively understood, performed, or practiced by knowledge bearers, practitioners, and communities. As a result, digitization of ICH has been marshaled in a number of efforts resulting in the creation of interactive environments, educational tools, and digital resources promoting learning about various ICH traditions. Among these technologies are the use of multimodal robots, augmented and virtual reality, and projects and interfaces that allow exploration, education, and evaluation of ICH knowledge.
20
2.4.1 Social robots. Montalvo, Calle-Ortiz, and Chica (2017) explored a model for the use of social robots in the conservation and transmission of intangible cultural heritage. The model proposed a multimodal approach that incorporated symbol-based, multimedia-based, and social-robot-based layers. Social robots would be used to harness “all elements of human communication such as language, gestures, expressions, and gaze...as well as external elements such as sounds, music, clothing, and colors” (Montalvo et al., 2017, p. 213). Text, audio, and visual data inputs would output as music, video, and gestures, so that social robots offer a potential platform for diverse forms of cultural interaction.
2.4.2 Augmented / virtual reality.
2.4.2.1 Augmented reality (AR). Augmented reality is “an enhanced version of reality created by the use of technology to overlay digital information on an image of something being viewed through a device” (augmented reality, 2019). Use of AR technology and the design of
AR systems has been suggested as a means of safeguarding and transmitting ICH information
(Zhao, 2017), especially delivered through mobile devices with cameras (Xu, 2018). ICH domains used in the development of AR applications have included Chinese cultural heritage
(Wang, Deng, Zhang, & Lang, 2018; Wen & Chen, 2016) and contextual information about
Korean cultural heritage sites (Kim, Matuszka, Kim, Kim, & Woo, 2016).
2.4.2.2 Virtual reality (VR). Virtual reality is “an artificial environment which is experienced through sensory stimuli...provided by a computer and in which one's actions partially determine what happens in the environment” (“Virtual reality,” n.d.). The crucial distinction between AR and VR technology is the level of immersion, as AR simply adds or superimposes digital elements onto a live view of real world—usually through a camera on a smartphone or other mobile device— whereas VR offers an interactive experience in an entirely computer-generated environment that “shuts out the physical world” (The Franklin Institute,
2018). VR technology has been used to present virtual experiences of historical and cultural heritage, with an emphasis on creating complex scenarios and the inclusion of storytelling
21 elements and immersive experiences as strategies in the dissemination and transmission of
ICH. These have included presentation of the Yamahoko Parade of the Kyoto Gion Festival in
Japan, which integrated 3D CG modeling, motion capture, sound recording, and vibrations to offer an immersive virtual environment with real-time interaction (Hachimura, 2017; Li, Choi,
Hachimura, Nishiura, & Yano, 2013); creation and evaluation of a VR environment to preserve the Old Bridge bridge-jumping tradition in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina through recorded storytelling and a simulated bridge dive (Selmanović et al., 2018); and an interactive, game-like recreation of the ancient agora of Athens, Greece, taking participants through completion of a series of ritual tasks in a multi-agent virtual world (Vosinakis, Avradinis, & Koutsabasis, 2018).
2.4.3 Educational interfaces and gamification. Motion capture of ICH data, the construction of databases and digital libraries of movement-based ICH, and the development of
AR applications and VR environments to present ICH information interactively, all lend themselves to be utilized in learning modules and video games which promote the transmission of ICH to users. Collection of motion capture data, and its dissemination through the Nintendo
Wii video game system, have been suggested as a potential means for teaching and promoting
Thai sword dancing traditions (Kovavisaruch et al., 2011). The integration of game design, learning principles and educational theories, methods of historical and cultural interpretation, and ICH have led to the development of “serious games,” (or “applied games”), that is, games designed not just for entertainment, but for some “serious” primary purpose or intention, such as training or improving education about a topic, allowing a player to investigate some area of knowledge, often through a simulation, or facilitating awareness of a product or cause (Allbeck,
2010; Djaouti, Alvarez, & Jessel, 2011; University of Michigan Library, 2019). Serious games for ICH domains have included the culture of Taiwan’s Indigenous people (Huang & Huang,
2013) and ICURA, a system for learning Japanese culture and etiquette (Froschauer, Seidel,
Gärtner, Berger, & Merkl, 2010).
22
Instructional interfaces powered by VR technology have been applied to a number of different ICH areas, including a generic, self-guided dance education system in which a virtual teacher demonstrated movements, and the system captured and analyzed a learner’s motions
(Chan et al., 2011). A similar instructional system powered by a digital library of Cypriot folk dances implemented a VR simulator in which 3D virtual avatars presented dance movements for users to repeat, with the system providing feedback and evaluation of the user’s performance (Aristidou et al., 2015; Aristidou et al., 2014a).
2.4.3.1 Terpsichore project. Doulamis, Voulodimos, Doulamis, Soile, and
Lampropoulos (2017) and Doulamis, Doulamis, Ioannidis, Klein, and Ioannides (2017) outlined their approaches for a four-dimensional process used to capture and model 3D cultural heritage over time, as well as intangible cultural heritage like dance. This methodology, called the
Terpsichore approach, created 4D models and reconstructions of cultural heritage that would support VR and other interactive interfaces. Citing limitations with 3D digital models that simply digitize surfaces without accounting for the complexity of 3D geometry and texture, or time instances of digitized objects, the researchers discussed available technologies that digitize 3D objects, including moving objects. The 4D model for tangible cultural heritage included 3D digitization of objects and the creation of history change maps to process consecutive 3D surfaces into 4D digital models. In terms of intangible cultural heritage, the 4D model accounted for aspects of choreography, 3D capture and modeling of both static and moving objects, Laban
Movement Analysis (LMA), and semantic or symbolic representation. Data from cameras, sensors, and other capture devices would be integrated with metadata structures and semantic and symbolic annotations to describe and analyze the intangible heritage. The authors suggested defining an interoperable description framework they called the Intangible Cultural
Metadata Interface (ICMI), emphasizing that it should be aligned with existing standards and specifications like those of Europeana and UNESCO’s Memory of the World to facilitate use and reuse with content from other cultural digital repositories. Furthermore, semantic analysis and
23 enrichment, and symbolic representation through choreographic notation and coding approaches like LMA, were proposed to further enhance the 3D reconstructions. The authors also presented a 4D viewer model to offer a virtual reality experience that could be used for viewing a historical timeline of changes to objects like buildings or monuments.
2.4.3.2 i-Treasures. Generating a great deal of innovation in the field of ICH education and preservation was the European-based project i-Treasures, a platform for transmitting ICH information through various technological and instructional approaches (Alivizatou-Barakou et al., 2017; Chantas et al., 2018; Chantas et al., 2015; Chantas, Nikolopoulos, & Kompatsiaris,
2014; Cozzani et al., 2017; Dimitropoulos et al., 2014; Dimitropoulοs et al., 2018; Jaumard-
Hakoun et al., 2013; Karavarsamis et al., 2016; Kitsikidis, Dimitropoulos, Douka, & Grammalidis,
2014). The project focused on different kinds of ICH (rare traditional singing, rare dancing interactions, traditional craftsmanship, and contemporary music composition) as well as identifying, classifying, and developing ways to meet the educational and information needs of different user groups (the general public, scholars and researchers, learners seeking knowledge or a cognitive understanding of the cultural heritage, and learners seeking to acquire performance-based, practical, or motor skills of a specific cultural heritage). These anticipated user experiences were arranged in three “steps” or levels: 1) cultivating a basic appreciation or understanding of the intangible cultural heritage; 2) exploration of expert performances for more detailed, in-depth learning; and 3) immersion through the chance to perform the intangible cultural heritage, with the opportunity for feedback to correct mistakes and improve performance. The project utilized tools like motion capture, semantic analysis, 3D modeling, and the deployment of educational strategies to capture, process, and present information at different levels on the i-Treasures platform for different types of users. Multimodal cameras and sensors gathered data for elements like full-body (skeletal) movements, singing voices, and internal and muscle movements and gestures (e.g., vocal vibrations, breathing patterns, finger movements, etc.). “Medium-level” features were then extracted in the form of identifying dance
24 steps, gestures, vocal inflections, and emotions which then informed extraction of “high-level” metadata. Ontologies and knowledge representation models were developed, and semantic analysis and inference algorithms were employed to analyze and compare, for instance, different dance styles for “relational features” like specific movements, “effort features” like weight, and “ergonomics” like poses, postures, and balance. In addition, a metadata schema was developed for the multimodal data, to support interoperability between the medium-level features and high-level concepts. Encoded in XML, this metadata described basic information and medium-level features; after semantic analysis, high-level concepts were also encoded in
XML. The web platform allowed searching of intangible cultural heritage metadata and structured educational courses and gamified applications to support teaching and learning.
Researchers also evaluated the system through user satisfaction and usability testing, as well as assessing technical performance. After demonstrations of different learning paths and applications, the researchers gathered quantitative data from Likert-scale questionnaires and qualitative data from interviews and discussions to evaluate their web platform and operational model; this data was then used to further evaluate areas of the platforms dedicated to meeting different users’ needs. Evaluation of the educational components of the platform were given the most attention for determining which factors were most responsible for positive performance outcomes. It was found that multi-sensing technologies and gamification of education tools helped create a deeper and more engaging experience. Technical performance was evaluated through questionnaires of experts in both information technologies and intangible cultural heritage, to assess the system’s overall functioning and adherence to functional requirements.
2.5 KOS, Semantic Technologies, and Metadata Research
Occupying a broad swath of ICH research, the following standards, methods, and approaches provide a sense of the range of solutions being suggested and implemented regarding domain modeling and semantic enhancement of cultural heritage. These efforts support a great number of the projects described above regarding both preservation and
25 transmission of ICH by offering an underlying, conceptual framework that supports the systems and technologies used in ICH data capture, information organization, and knowledge building.
2.5.1 Conceptual models and metadata standards. The use and adaptation of conceptual data models, metadata schemas, and element sets have been proposed or extended for specific areas of ICH often because existing structures—even those developed for cultural heritage objects and institutions—are insufficient for capturing the necessary levels of detail to describe and facilitate access to ICH and cultural heritage with significant intangible aspects. In some cases, an ICH domain is modeled by, mapped to, or integrated with an existing ontological framework or metadata schema; in others, a model provides guidance in the development of an original schema, or in the extension or adaptation of a set of required or suggested metadata elements for a specific domain. It should also be noted that while methods of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the development and implementation of data and conceptual models varied from study to study—depending on the nature of the subject domains, the models, and their anticipated used—Hug & Gonzalez-Perez (2012) conducted a qualitative evaluation of modeling methods themselves, by examining three specific techniques
(UML class diagrams, conceptual graphs, and the value cluster approach) used for describing cultural heritage information.
Among the existing cultural heritage models explored and evaluated, research centered around use and extension of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), the IFLA
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Description (FRBR), and FRBRoo, the object- oriented model harmonizing CIDOC CRM and FRBR. Some studies addressed the use of the
Europeana Data Model and Dublin Core as mediating schemas. Other research detailed the creation of new frameworks or unique adaptations of existing models in order to address specific challenges and issues (e.g., dataset reusability, interoperability, domain-specific concepts) which led to the development of individual data models in their own right.
26
2.5.1.1 CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). CIDOC CRM was first developed by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group in 1999 and became an ISO standard in
2006 (ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, n.d.). The current version (6.2.3) was released in May 2018 (ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, 2018). It is a “formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information” (Doerr, 2009, p. 468) and “intended to promote a shared understanding of cultural heritage information by providing a common and extensible semantic framework that any cultural heritage information can be mapped to” (ICOM/CIDOC
Documentation Standards Group, n.d.). CIDOC CRM has been proffered and used extensively in modeling various ICH domains, as well as cultural heritage with significant intangible aspects
(Carboni & de Luca, 2016; Carboni & de Luca, 2017; Dou, Qin, Jin, & Li, 2018; Goienetxea et al., 2012; Hu, Lv, & Zhang, 2014; Kakali et al., 2007; Marolt, Vratanar, & Strle, 2009; Martini,
Araújo, Almeida, & Henriques, 2016; Tan, Hao, & Zhong, 2009; Tan, Sun, & Zhong, 2009; Yang et al., 2018). CIDOC CRM also influenced the development of local ontologies, such as the drama ontology Drammar (Lombardo, Pizzo, & Damiano, 2016) and the Korean Cultural
Heritage Data Model (KCHDM) (Kim, Ahn, Suh, Kim, & Kim, 2015). In contrast, some projects and studies have criticized CIDOC CRM for being too “museum-centric,” citing the limited use and relevance of its expansive number of entities, and for lacking concepts that would be important in modeling particular ICH domains (Brownlow et al., 2015, p. 5; Pramartha & Davis,
2016, p. 498).
2.5.1.2 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. The
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) issued its first “final” report on FRBR in 1998, with the most current version amended and corrected as of 2009 (IFLA
Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 2009). As a conceptual model, FRBR is “a framework that identifies and clearly defines the entities of interest to users of bibliographic records, the attributes of each entity, and the types of
27 relationships that operate between entities...as the basis for relating specific attributes and relationships...to the various tasks that users perform when consulting bibliographic records”
(IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 2009, p. 3). It is perhaps best known for the conceptual structure of its four Group 1 entities Work, Expression,
Manifestation, Item (or collectively, WEMI) that represent a hierarchy of “products of intellectual or artistic endeavour that are named or described in bibliographic records” (IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 2009, p. 13). In terms of ICH research, FRBR and its framework have been applied and adapted extensively to projects and cataloging standards related mostly to music (Holden, 2013; Kim, 2015; Kishimoto & Snyder,
2016; Le Boeuf, 2005; Raimond, Abdallah, Sandler, & Giasson, 2007; Riley, 2008; Riley,
Hunter, Colvard, & Berry, 2007; Riley, Mullin, Colvard, & Berry, 2008) but have also included other performing arts (e.g., theater and dance) (Miller & Le Boeuf, 2005; Monika, Wijesundara,
& Sugimoto, 2017) and folklore and oral traditions (Nicolas, 2005). Most notably, FRBR provided the logical and conceptual framework for a metadata schema developed for folk dance—using a specific Greek folk dance as an example of implementation—which included elements for description of both dance traditions and digital recordings and instantiations of performances taken from Dublin Core, MusicXML, MovementXML, and VRA (Giannoulakis,
Tsapatsoulis, & Grammalidis, 2018).
Criticism of FRBR has been advanced by Renear and Dubin (2007) citing the example of the difficulty of conceptualizing XML documents in the WEMI framework, and the “rigidity” of types in ontology evaluation, to posit that Expressions, Manifestations, and Items within the
Group 1 entities are “roles” and not types, especially in considering whether FRBR is being viewed from an ontological perspective or as a purely conceptual model.
2.5.1.2.1 “Superworks” model extending FRBR. For cultural franchises exemplified in anime/manga “multiverses,” researchers adapted FRBR WEMI to present a three-layer model composed of Superwork, Work, and Volume entities (Kiryakos et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018;
28
Sugimoto et al., 2018). This better reflected the real-world relationships being modeled in manga/anime and other popular culture domains where individual Works with subsidiary
Volumes (especially works in different formats, like comic books, television shows, video games, music, and film) all belong to a larger conceptual Superwork (the franchise, interrelated settings, or “universe/multiverse” of the story). It also allowed improved aggregation and reuse of existing metadata from both structured data sources (e.g., information from the Media Arts
Database (MADB) hosted by Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs) and semi- and unstructured data sources (e.g., Wikipedia and fan websites).
2.5.1.3 FRBR-object oriented (FRBRoo) model. FRBRoo is a “formal ontology intended to capture and represent the underlying semantics of bibliographic information and to facilitate the integration, mediation, and interchange of bibliographic and museum information”
(Working Group on FRBR/CRM Dialogue, 2016, p. 12). First drafted in 2006, the most current official version (2.4) was released in November 2015 and endorsed by IFLA in 2016. (An open working version (3.0) has been in development since September 2017.) Development of
FRBRoo arose from an effort to “harmonize” CIDOC CRM and FRBR (Doerr, Bekiari, & Le
Boeuf, 2008). It has been utilized as a conceptual model by the EthnoMuse project, a multimedia digital library of Slovenian folk music and dance culture (Marolt et al., 2009), for concepts in modeling abstractions for digital libraries of dance information (El Raheb &
Ioannidis, 2014), extended in the enrichment and reuse of music datasets (Achichi, Lisena,
Todorov, Troncy, & Delhousse, 2018; Chouffé & Leresche, 2016; Lisena et al., 2018), and suggested for use in linked data applications for performing arts (Le Boeuf, 2012) and in heterogeneous cultural heritage information environments (Chen & Hao-Ren, 2013).
2.5.1.4 IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). IFLA LRM “aims to be a high-level conceptual reference model developed within an enhanced entity-relationship modelling framework” that is used in the “analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources” (Riva, Le Boeuf, & Žumer, 2017). Reviewed and endorsed by IFLA in 2017, the
29 model retains the core structural relationships between WEMI entities—with degrees of flexibility in defining requirements and attributes—in addition to consolidating the three previous models in the FR family: FRBR, Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and Functional
Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) (Riva, Le Boeuf, & Žumer, 2017; Žumer &
Riva, 2017, Žumer, 2018). ILFA LRM has been examined as a high-level conceptual model alongside the analysis and evaluation of two bibliographic ontologies, the Bibliographic Ontology
(Bibo) and FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology (FaBiO), in part through mapping some classes of FaBiO to FRBR and IFLA LRM (Biagetti, 2018). Although there has not yet been a direct use of IFLA LRM in modeling an ICH domain (its intended community is library-centric), its user tasks provided guidance in the development of a metadata schema for Asian palm leaf manuscripts (Chamnongsri, 2019). The creators of the DOREMUS model for music description also noted that their notions of the Work and Expression entities (in their model that extended
FRBRoo) were actually closer in alignment to those same entities as presented in IFLA LRM
(Lisena et al., 2018).
2.5.1.5 Europeana Data Model (EDM). Because of the heterogeneous nature of metadata for digitized cultural heritage throughout Europe, EDM is a data model and metadata standard that seeks to provide a cross-cultural, multilingual context to facilitate reuse and interoperability of that data (Europeana Foundation, n.d.). It is “aimed at being an integration medium for collecting, connecting and enriching the descriptions provided by Europeana’s content providers” (Europeana Foundation, 2016). EDM was first implemented in 2010, with the most recent definition for the data model (v5.2.7) launched in 2016. The European Collected
Library of Artistic Performance (ECLAP) semantic model, which aggregates and enriches performing arts content as Linked Open Data (LOD) from different providers, is mapped to EDM
(Bellini & Nesi, 2014). EDM also provided the aggregation framework for a linked data model for serialized manga bibliographic data (structured data from Monash University’s JSC Manga
Library and the Media Arts Database from the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs, and semi-
30 and unstructured data from Web resources) (Kiryakos & Sugimoto, 2015). Finally, the Korean
Cultural Heritage Data Model (KCHDM) included emulation of EDM as one of its goals, in that developers wished KCHDM to act not just as a digital cultural heritage portal, but also as a service platform for heterogeneous cultural heritage data (Kim et al., 2015). KCHDM was used in the development and implementation of an ontology-based AR mobile application relating contextual information about Korean cultural sites (Kim et al., 2016). In contrast, developers of the Cultural Heritage in Digital Environments (CHDE) model found EDM to be too “item oriented” for metadata aggregation, especially for use with ICH and the “scattered and disorganized” cultural heritage information found in memory institutions in South and Southeast
Asia (Wijesundara, Monika, & Sugimoto, 2017, pp. 91-92).
2.5.1.6 Dublin Core (DC). The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set “is a vocabulary of fifteen properties for use in resource description” (DCMI Usage Board, 2012a) first developed in
Dublin, Ohio, in 1995, and now maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). This original element set is part of the “full set of vocabularies, DCMI Metadata Terms [DCMI-
TERMS]” that “also includes sets of resource classes (including the DCMI Type Vocabulary
[DCMI-TYPE]), vocabulary encoding schemes, and syntax encoding schemes” (DCMI Usage
Board, 2012a). The most recent versions of DCMI Metadata Terms and DCMI Type Vocabulary were issued in 2012 (DCMI Usage Board, 2012b; DCMI Usage Board, 2012c). Lourdi,
Papatheodorou, & Nikolaidou (2007) offered a metadata schema and application profile largely based on and extending DC for digital folklore collections, which considered heterogeneous formats (e.g., notebooks, photographs, objects). DCMI Type Vocabulary has also been mapped to CIDOC CRM as a mediating schema in the context of an ontology-based integration of cultural heritage metadata (Kakali et al., 2007). In 2012, DCMI created a Cultural Heritage
Metadata Task Group “to identify the challenges of metadata for cultural heritage and to provide a simple cross-community metadata model for Cultural Heritage Objects and give a recommendation for the development of DCMI Application Profiles” (DCMI Cultural Heritage
31
Metadata Task Group, 2012). In terms of United States cultural heritage, the American Folklife
Center at the Library of Congress uses Dublin Core elements in their metadata and standards specifications (American Folklife Center, 2014). Despite the ubiquity of the use of DC, a study of the representation of traditional Chinese music cited its limitations (as well as those of other metadata schemas) in representing elements of non-Western music (Tian, Fazekas, Black, &
Sandler, 2013).
2.5.1.7 Sampo model and process-centric cataloging. Spearheaded by Finnish research teams led by Eero Hyvönen—and begun through their work in publishing heterogeneous museum collections through the semantic portal MuseumFinland (Hyvönen et al., 2005)—the Sampo model (Hyvönen, 2009; Hyvönen, 2016; Hyvönen et al., 2009; Mäkelä,
Hyvönen, & Ruotsalo, 2012) was developed and tested in various projects as a data publication system utilizing large-scale metadata aggregation implementing a linked data, shared ontology infrastructure. One such project, CultureSampo, used semantic approaches and technologies to aggregate cultural heritage contents from heterogeneous data sources into a homogeneous semantic portal. Hyvönen et al. (2009) proposed that such a semantic portal for cultural heritage should be built on a cross-domain infrastructure of ontologies, metadata standards, and related services; that the process for producing ontologically harmonized metadata should be collaborative; and the contents should be made available to both human and machine end- users. Implementation of the model was predicated on three important semantic agreements to support interoperability: 1) a domain-neutral semantic model (using W3C Semantic Web standards such as RDF, SKOS, and OWL); 2) a metadata alignment model harmonizing different models from different constituent partners; and 3) shared domain ontologies whose concepts are used for populating the metadata models (Hyvönen, 2016). The result was a multilingual end-user application that facilitated exploration, visualization, and discovery through thematic perspectives like map views, collection views of participating organizations, views representing events in Finnish history, and even a semantically annotated version of the Finnish
32 national epic The Kalevala (Hyvönen et al., 2009). One such view from CultureSampo documenting and modeling traditional skills and processes like shoemaking also illustrated the process-centric cataloging of ICH proposed by Kettula and Hyvönen (2012). Citing the lack of a model for describing the documentation of processes of ICH (like crafts and skills), Kettula and
Hyvönen examined the gap between object-centric models typically used in cataloging recordings as documents, and event-centric models which described related events, but still emphasized tangible heritage. In contrast, a process-centric model would allow cataloging of not only the documentation objects (recordings) and related events, but of the actual cultural processes themselves. In developing this paradigm, process-centric cataloging offered a metadata model for representing cultural processes which could be applied to video documentation, along with visualizations and semantic annotations, and linked to both tangible and intangible objects in collections and repositories, as evinced through CultureSampo.
2.5.1.8 Cultural Heritage in Digital Environments (CHDE) model. Monika et al.
(2017), Wijesundara and Sugimoto (2018), and Wijesundara et al. (2017) defined a modeling framework to support metadata for digital archives of tangible and intangible cultural heritage in heterogeneous information environments “to identify entities to be described in metadata about cultural heritage objects and their digital surrogates” (Sugimoto et al., 2018, p. 102), especially for metadata aggregation. The model is based on the One-to-One (or 1:1) Principle, “whereby related but conceptually different entities, for example a painting and a digital image of the painting, are described by separate metadata records” (Woodley, Clement, & Winn, 2005, “1:1 principle,” para. 1). This led to a separation and differentiation of physical and digital spaces in the model, in which metadata for an intangible cultural heritage, its real-world instances and performances, and associated recording objects (still/motion images, text, sound/speech) and agents in the physical world are distinctly described from any resulting or related digital objects
(that is digital instantiations, conversions, resources, or representations), which may also be aggregated as a curated digital instance. This model has been applied and evaluated using the
33 domains of Indonesian Kecak dance (Monika et al., 2017) and the cultural heritage of South and
Southeast Asia (Wijesundara et al., 2017). It has been mapped to FRBR using the WEMI
(Group 1 entity) framework, and mapped to FRBRoo and CIDOC CRM (Monika et al., 2017;
Sugimoto et al., 2018; Wijesundara et al., 2017). Furthermore, in the modeling of cultural heritage archives, Sugimoto (2019) delineated two “worlds” inhabited by cultural heritage, the
“knowledge world” of conceptual and abstract entities and the “embodied world” of physical and digital entities. He argues ICH straddles both sides of that divide between worlds, as ICH is composed of conceptual entities that are physically embodied or recorded as performances or actions, even though a single performance does not in itself constitute a particular ICH entity
(Wijesundara & Sugimoto, 2018). As a result, conceptual entities and the “objects” or records of
ICH must both be incorporated to constitute a fully organized, contextual model.
2.5.1.9 DOing REusable MUSical (DOREMUS) data model. Beginning as a LOD project for the enrichment of music cultural heritage information, the DOREMUS project (Achichi et al., 2015; Achichi, Lisena, Todorov, Troncy, & Delhousse, 2018; Chouffé & Leresche, 2016;
Lisena et al., 2018) led to the creation of an ontology extending FRBRoo (and, necessarily,
CIDOC CRM) in order to model and describe the complex relationships present in musical works, their performances, and the recordings of those performances. Researchers identified the crucial need to describe future events (i.e., performances) that themselves create new
Expressions, which is the case with improvisational music forms like jazz or Indian raga. In such a model, any changes and relationships between an original Expression (CIDOC CRM class F22 Self-Contained Expression) and a Performed Expression (as this class was named in the Doremus model, classified M43) would need to be part of the resource description. For example, researchers demonstrated the complexity necessary in modeling data from a bibliographic record of a CD recording of John Coltrane performing an interpretation of the
Rodgers and Hammerstein song “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music at Birdland on
34
June 2, 1962 (Lisena et al., 2018, p. 6). A summary of classes and properties is available at http://data.doremus.org/ontology.
2.5.1.10 Linked Irish Traditional Music (LITMUS) ontology. In an effort to improve findability and accessibility of web-based resources of traditional Irish music, the LITMUS ontology (Weissenberger, 2017; Weissenberger, 2018a; Weissenberger, 2018b;
Weissenberger, 2019) applied a linked data approach to model the complex relationships inherent in the Irish music tradition to support the work of the Irish Traditional Music Archive in
Dublin, Ireland. Some of the complexities that needed to be represented in the model included the relationships among and between musicians (including not just musicians who played in a band together, but also whether musicians were influenced by other musicians); the relationships between musical forms and types of Irish dances; the subtle differences in representing versions, variations, and distinct compositions of tunes, as well as their derivations; and the need to make any access bilingual (in English and Irish) (Weissenberger, 2017). A survey of albums and album notes from 1962-2012 in the Irish Traditional Music Archive collection was undertaken, yielding properties that would need to be part of the ontological model (Weissenberger, 2018b). The resulting LITMUS ontology extended FRBRoo to support a detailed, granular model that differentiated between specific types of traditional Irish music, including multiple versions and recordings. In addition to music, the ontology also included classes for Dance (classified T14), Dance Type (T15), Dance Performance (T16), and Dance
Component (T17) (Weissenberger, 2019). This latter class modeled elements or portions of dance choreography as a subclass of the FRBRoo Expression Fragment class. A summary of the specification can be found at https://www.itma.ie/litmus/ontology.
2.5.1.11 Knowledge repository model for intangible cultural heritage. Amin, Baker,
Deraman, and Yatim (2012) developed a “meta model” for a knowledge repository of the intangible cultural of Malaysia. Providing guidelines for archiving ICH based on contributing factors—classified as external (human, governance, legal/policy, geographical, and “champion”
35 or non-governmental) and internal (belief and culture)—the model proposed two types of archiving processes for ICH, namely, those that transform intangible heritage into a tangible form “in a field format, without losing its original essence” and those that “keep the intangible alive in its original context and transmit it to...future generations through oral traditions” (Amin et al., 2012, p. 235).
2.5.2 Knowledge structures, taxonomies, and thesauri. Various knowledge organization structures and classification schemes have been proposed and used for organizing
ICH information. Dai, Sun, & Wang (2014) applied a theory of knowledge classification to ICH with knowledge of ICH being characterized as “systematic, complex, implicit and gradual” (Dai, et al., 2014, p. 156). They noted that with the “gradual refinement of granularity, the reusability and abstraction of knowledge becomes higher and higher” (Dai, et al., 2014, p. 157). Their classification system uses a faceted structure more popularly recognized as the Five Ws, which they defined in the following way: 1) When (corresponding time); 2) Where (corresponding region); 3) What (expression / form) 4) Why (signification and reasons); and 5) How (technique of expression) (Dai, et al., 2014, p. 156) with increasing abstraction and reusability from “When” down through to “How,” as the semantic relationship between contexts also increases. Faceted classification has been studied in taxonomies for the European Collected Library of Artistic
Performance (ECLAP) (Scaturro, 2013) and for ontological representation of a music domain
(Madalli, Balaji, & Sarangi, 2015). Taxonomies have been used in the classification of aspects of Taiwanese Indigenous cultural heritage to create an instructional game (Huang & Huang,
2013), and classification schemes have been proposed for Taiwanese Indigenous folk dances
(Hu, Tseng, Lin, Ming, & Ikeuchi, 2014) and salsa dance steps (Karavarsamis et al., 2016).
Knowledge organization structures (Chansanam & Tuamsuk, 2015; Kaewboonma & Tuamsuk,
2016), taxonomies (Tuamsuk, Kaewboonma, Wirapong, & Leopenwong, 2016) and thesauri
(Chansanam et al., 2015) have also been developed as precursors or intermediate stages toward the construction of ICH domain ontologies. Moreover, existing cultural heritage
36 thesauri—like the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT)—have been cited for their relevance in the indexing of cultural heritage objects with intangible aspects (Alakus, 2017). The AAT in particular was also employed in a metadata model utilizing a crosswalk approach to map museum vocabularies of Sri Lankan cultural heritage information to the AAT in order to aggregate and enrich cultural heritage information (Wijesundara, Sugimoto, Narayan, &
Tuamsuk, 2016) and provided the basis for ontology construction in its own right (Wielinga,
Schreiber, Wielemaker, & Sandberg, 2001).
2.5.3 Domain ontologies, linked data approaches, and semantic technologies.
2.5.3.1 Examples of ontologically-modeled ICH. Domain ontologies and ontological models—supported by linked data and semantic approaches—have been proposed, developed, and implemented to power a number of tools, applications, and knowledge bases for the following subject areas and examples of ICH, or tangible heritage with significant intangible aspects/components:
● Andean weaving knowledge and practices (Brownlow et al., 2015);
● Byzantine iconography in Cyprus (Carboni & de Luca, 2016; Carboni & de Luca, 2017);
● imaginary beings (Chansanam & Tuamsuk, 2016);
● the cultural heritage of the Greater Mekong Subregion, including:
○ belief culture (Chansanam et al., 2015);
○ folk songs (Kaewboonma & Tuamsuk, 2018); and
○ folktales (Tuamsuk, Wirapong, & Kaewboonma, 2018);
● Salsa dance (Chantas et al., 2018);
● Greek folk dance (Chantas et al., 2018; El Raheb & Ioannidis, 2011);
● the cultural heritage of Taiwan, including:
○ Nanguan music as performed during the Langjun Festival in Taiwan (Chen,
2018); and
37
○ interpretation and preservation of information about monuments on Kinmen
Island (Yang et al.,, 2018);
● the cultural heritage of China, including:
○ the 24 solar terms (Dou et al., 2018);
○ the Pang Wang Festival of the Yao people (Hu, Lv, et al., 2014);
○ Manchu costume culture (Huang, 2018);
○ the Dragon Boat Festival (Tan, Hao, et al.,, 2009);
○ the Funeral Dance of the Tujia people (Tan, Sun, et al., 2009); and
○ traditional Chinese music (Tian et al., 2013);
● Basque folk songs (Goienetxea et al., 2012);
● the cultural heritage of Finland (Hyvönen, 2016; Hyvönen et al., 2009; Hyvönen et al.,
2005; Mäkelä, Hyvönen, & Ruotsalo, 2012), including:
○ the paradigm of “process-centric cataloging” with regarding to traditional Finnish
shoemaking (Kettula & Hyvönen, 2012);
● the cultural heritage of Korea, including:
○ a data model that incorporates ICH (Kim et al., 2015); and
○ contextual information for Korean cultural heritage sites (Kim et al., 2016);
● drama and dramatic storytelling (Lombardo, Battaglino, Pizzo, Damiano, & Lieto, 2015;
Lombardo & Damiano, 2012; Lombardo, Damiano, & Pizzo, 2018; Lombardo & Pizzo,
2013; Lombardo & Pizzo, 2014; Lombardo & Pizzo, 2015; Lombardo, et al., 2016);
● Indian classical dance (Mallik & Chaudhury, 2012; Mallik, Chaudhury, & Ghosh, 2011);
● Slovenian folk music and dance culture (EthnoMuse) (Marolt et al., 2009);
● a virtual museum of personal narratives (The Museum of the Person) (Martini et al.,
2016);
● Bulgarian folk songs (Nisheva-Pavlova & Pavlov, 2011);
38
● kulkuls, artifacts of a traditional Balinese communication system found in Indonesia
(Pramartha & Davis, 2016; Pramartha, Davis, & Kuan, 2017);
● music-related information (The Music Ontology [Raimond et al., 2007] and DOREMUS
[Achichi, Lisena, Todorov, Troncy, & Delhousse, 2018; Chouffé & Leresche, 2016;
Lisena et al., 2018]), as well as the faceted classification of music (Madalli et al., 2015);
● Benesh notation of video of human movement (Saad, De Beul, Mahmoudi, &
Manneback, 2012);
● traditional songs in the Yami language (Tai, Rau, & Yang, 2008); and
● Irish traditional music (Weissenberger, 2017; Weissenberger, 2018; Weissenberger,
2019).
2.5.3.2 Examples of semantic, linked data, and interoperability approaches for ICH information. Furthermore, ontology-based and linked data approaches have also been used to structure and semantically enrich cultural heritage information (especially in heterogeneous information environments) and to support cultural heritage metadata interoperability through such projects as:
● mapping the ECLAP semantic model to EDM (Bellini & Nesi, 2015);
● mapping the CHDE metadata model to FRBR, FRBRoo, and CIDOC CRM (Monika et
al., 2017; Sugimoto et al., 2018; Wijesundara et al., 2017);
● mapping DC Type vocabulary to CIDOC CRM (Kakali et al., 2007);
● extension/adaptation of FRBR to support manga/anime metadata aggregation and
popular culture domain modeling (Kiryakos et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Sugimoto et al.,
2018), as well as aggregation of bibliographic data for manga, using the Europeana Data
Model as the basis, with DC and BIBFRAME vocabularies for bibliographic description,
to create a conceptual model for manga bibliographic data (Kiryakos & Sugimoto, 2015);
39
● proposal of FRBRoo as a linked data approach to performing arts information (Le Boeuf,
2012), which has been extended to support integration of heterogeneous museum and
library metadata for cultural heritage information (Chen & Hao-Ren, 2013);
● aggregation of heterogeneous cultural heritage information through a linked data, shared
ontology infrastructure accessed through semantic portals (Hyvönen, 2009) known as
the Sampo model (Hyvönen, 2016), which integrates metadata coded from different
schemas; and
● application of Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks (MEBNs) for semantic analysis and
ontological modeling of ICH (Chantas et al., 2018; Chantas et al., 2015; Chantas et al.,
2014).
2.6 Representation of ICH and the Paradigm of Indigenous Knowledge and Culture- specific Domains
Although this particular study does not address an Indigenous knowledge domain, it is instructive to note that paradigmatically, issues and concerns in the representation (Hajibayova
& Buente, 2017) and management (Maasz, Winschiers-Theophilus, Stanley, Rodil, & Mbinge,
2018) of Indigenous intangible cultural heritage have presented important questions regarding the decentering of Western methods of documentation, knowledge organization, and domain modeling. Additionally, Tian et al. (2013) also argued that commonly-used metadata schemas
(like DC, MODS, and EAD) lacked expressiveness for the representation of traditional Chinese folk music, further highlighting potential inadequacies in current methods used in the organization of certain kinds of ICH. Specifically, the emphasis on context and relational modes of thinking, the process-oriented nature of knowledge generation and transmission, the recognition of unique concepts endemic to culture-specific performing arts, and epistemologies of Indigenous beliefs and practices are all relevant to an informed understanding that intangible practices and folk traditions are complex, socially constructed heritages; as a result, their individual complexities must be taken into account when modeling those cultural heritage
40 domains and in the representation and organization of that knowledge. To that end, this research will pay particular attention in its domain and subject analysis to the evolution of tradition and practice—especially vocabularies and domain discourse—within the contra dance community, a process begun in the development of the American Contra Dance and English
Country Dance Thesaurus (Coladangelo, 2019).
2.7 Movement Notation, Modeling, and Analysis
Preservation and transmission of dance choreography, performances, and styles, as well as other movement-based ICH, require not just recording and digitization efforts, but also the ability to meaningfully (or semantically) encode the nature of the movements and gestures involved into instructions that can be communicated and (re)interpreted. This need is greatly in evidence in the recreation of dance performances, like that of Robert Joffrey’s historical recreation of Vaslav Nikinsky’s lost choreography for The Rite of Spring, in a case study examined by Weiss-Randall (2016) in the use of LAM collections to support such recreations.
The ability to create dance scores through a movement notation system is one of the crucial methods that choreography can be preserved and disseminated (along with video recordings and other historical materials), much in the same way that music scores facilitate future musical performances. Weiss-Randall (2016) cites the use of three major dance notation systems in the past century: Labanotation, Benesh Notation, and Eshkol-Wachman Notation (along with the lesser used Sutton Dance Writing). Labanotation and Benesh Movement Notation have been examined below, as they have served as research examples of movement notation systems used in semantic annotation, ontological modeling, and analysis of ICH.
2.7.1 Labanotation and Laban movement analysis (LMA). Labanotation (known as
Kinetography Laban in Europe) is a structured graphical system of movement notation introduced by Rudolf Laban in 1928 to symbolically analyze and record human movement
(Dance Notation Bureau, 2019; Griesbeck, 1996; Knust, 1959; Sankhla, et al., 2018; The Ohio
State University, 2019a). Its development was notably independent of any specific dance or
41 dance style, allowing it to be used as a general body motion notation system (Griesbeck, 1996;
Nakamura & Hachimura, 2006), as well as being studied, utilized, and expanded for use in many different types of dance choreography (Dance Notation Bureau, 2019; Guest, 2015;
Knust, 1959). Similarly to music notation, Labanotation uses a staff, but it is composed of three lines, oriented vertically, and read from bottom to top. The center of the staff represents the center of the body, and columns to the left and right represent movement on the left and right sides of the body, respectively. Each symbol provides information about four aspects of movement through particular symbolic elements: direction (shape of symbol), level (shading of symbol), duration (length of symbol), and which part of the body is involved (placement on the staff).
LMA “is a method and language for describing, visualizing, interpreting and documenting all varieties of human movement” (Laban/Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies, 2019;
Somerset Theatre Factory, 2015). The method is multidisciplinary, incorporating Labanotation with contributions from anatomy, kinesiology, psychology, and other fields. It is made up of four components or categories: body, effort (or dynamics), shape, and space. It is one of the most widely employed systems of human movement analysis, used by dancers, musicians, actors, athletes, physical therapists, and others.
Kojima, Hachimura, and Nakamura (2002) created LabanEditor, a graphical editor for writing and editing Labanotation scores which includes 3D animation of human movement.
Nakamura and Hachimura (2006) extended this work through LabanEditor2, which implemented an XML representation of Labanotation. Called LabanXML, it was proposed as an interchange format for dance notation in similar fashion to the development of MusicXML for music notation
(including making LabanXML compatible with MusicXML). Hatol (2006) furthered work on previous graphical editors and XML dance notation to design MovementXML, which sought to represent the more complex semantic aspects of Labanotation perceived as lacking in
LabanXML. Moreover, Nakamura and Hachimura (2006) suggested further research using
42
LabanXML for dance analysis and dance archiving and Hatol (2006) echoed this notion, proposing a dance ontology which would support classification and semantic querying of dance scores to aid in dance analysis and the creation of dance repositories. Other Labanotation software applications and digital tools have been developed to facilitate dance writing analysis and 3D animation projects, including LabanWriter (The Ohio State University, 2019b),
LabanDancer (Wilke, Calvert, Ryman, & Fox, 2005), and LabanChoreographer (Zhang et al.,
2006). Processes have also been designed for automated Labanotation from human motion capture data (Guo et al., 2014; Sankhla et al., 2018) and LMA has been used in databases to support motion retrieval (Kapadia, Chiang, Thomas, Badler, & Kider, 2013).
In terms of knowledge organization and representation and toward the development of applications for specific ICH, Labanotation has been utilized for ontological modeling of dance movements (El Raheb & Ioannidis, 2011), in data modeling for digital libraries of dance (El
Raheb & Ioannidis, 2014), for describing and creating computer-generated animation of Noh drama choreography (Choensawat et al., 2010; Choensawat et al., 2011; Choensawat et al.,
2012; Hachimura, 2017), and for analysis of Taiwanese Indigenous folk dance (Hu, Tseng, et al., 2014). LMA has been employed for evaluation, indexing, and search and retrieval systems of folk dance, including emotional expression (Aristidou & Chrysanthou, 2013; Aristidou et al.,
2015; Aristidou et al., 2014b; Aristidou et al., 2014c).
2.7.2 Benesh Movement Notation (BMN). Launched by Rudolf and Joan Benesh in
1955, and officially published a year later, BMN is a written system for recording human movement (Royal Academy of Dance, 2019; Watts, 2015). Although originating in classical ballet, BMN was intended for use beyond the ballet world, and today serves as a common language for recording, restaging, and teaching works in other dance and movement genres
(Royal Academy of Dance, 2019; Saad et al., 2012; Watts, 2015). A BMN score resembles a music score, as notations are written on a five-lined staff that is read from left to right and from the top of the page to the bottom. Staff lines coincide with the height of the parts of the body
43 from the head to the floor level, and symbols denote positions of parts of the body. BMN has been used in semantic annotation in an ontology for videos of human movement representation
(Saad et al., 2012).
2.7.3 Multimodal analysis. Other studies characterized by multimodal methods have been conducted in the analysis of particular dance styles. Drémeau and Essid (2013) presented a probabilistic framework for the multimodal alignment of dance gestures using recordings of salsa dancers at different levels of expertise. Neveda and Leman (2008) explored the use of multimodal analysis as a methodology for dance analysis in their exploration of samba dance gesture representation by studying the relationship of dance movements to musical structures and metrical patterns.
2.8 Contra Dance Research
Studies of contra dance are currently situated within two disparate places in research literature: 1) the applicability of its unique properties as a dance form to such mathematical concepts as permutations (Copes, 2010; Bush & Roodman, 2013), group theory (Wheeler,
2016), matrix theory (Menninga, 2011; Peterson, 2003), and graph theory (Mui, 2010; Thomas
& Peebles, 2016), and 2) as a historic, folkloric practice and a source of personal, communal, social, regional, and national identity within and from the cultural traditions of the United States
(Bealle, 2005; Brucher, 2016; Byrd, 2017; Cope, 2014; Dart, 1987; Dart, 1995; Gunzenhauser,
1996; Hast, 1993; Hast, 1994; Herman, 1995; Holden, Kaltman, & Kulbitsky, 1956; Horton,
2001; Horton & Jordan-Smith, 2004; Hume, 2016; Jordan-Smith, 2000; Jordan-Smith, 2001;
Kaufman, 2006; Kiddier, 2013; Kruskal, 2015; Morganstern, 2010; Nielsen, 2011; Norris, 2001;
Ormond, 2014; Pittman, Waller, & Dark, 2009; Siddons & Allen, 2016; Walkowitz, 2013; Young,
2011). Only Young (2011) directly frames and defines contra dance as an ICH for the purposes of examining it as a subject for ethnographic and museological research.
Dovetailing with Young—although not using the same anthropological methodology— this thesis also contributes to a nascent body of literature identifying and classifying contra
44 dance as an ICH, with this project being the first to identify contra dance as a CHI and DH research subject.
45
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Stages and Methods
The following methodologies and research tools informed the identification of data sources, the collection of data, the analysis of collected data, the development of a data model and ontology, and population and testing of the ontology, culminating in recommendations to encourage future use and population of the ontology.
3.1.1 Survey and selection. Survey research has been defined by Connaway and
Radford (2017) as “a group of research methods commonly used to determine the present status of a given phenomenon” in order to “make inferences about a large group of elements by studying a relatively small number selected from the larger group” (p. 97). A subset of survey methods, the exploratory survey, was described as a survey conducted to “clarify concepts, establish priorities for future research, identify new problems, and gather information with practical applications” (p. 99), including survey of a particular body of literature or the intensive study of examples in order to generate insights for future analysis. Surveys of available resources in a given cultural or subject domain for the purposes of developing knowledge organization systems and ontological domain models have been used in such cases as representing drama and dramatic narrative (Lombardo, Damiano, & Pizzo, 2018), folk songs
(Kaewboonma & Tuamsuk, 2016) and folk tales (Tuamsuk, Kaewboonma, Wirapong, &
Leopenwong, 2016) of the Greater Mekong Subregion, and the traditional performing arts of
Taiwan (Chen, 2018). For the purposes of this project, an exploratory survey was conducted of available materials and resources on contra dance and its traditions, including historical information about country dance; contra dance notations/instructions; names and biographical information about dance callers, choreographers, organizers, musicians, and other relevant figures; information about dance halls and performance locations; information about dance tunes and folk music; and recordings of dance tunes and dance performances. For instance, contra dance vocabulary was surveyed from printed texts, online texts, online databases, and
46 performances were surveyed from digital recordings. (Appendix A presents a list of web resources used for lists of figures, dances, choreographers, descriptive information, and contextual details.) In many cases, contra dance information was scattered or incomplete, which can be anticipated with an intangible tradition. However, sample data to guide potential use cases and to aid development and population of the ontology gathered dance instructions, information, and materials from reliable, well-documented sources in order to provide additional information that was used to conduct subsequent stages of the project.
3.1.1.1 Selection of sample dances from the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend
Collection, 1988-2017. In a special archival collection housed within the University of New
Hampshire Library, a singular example of concentrated contra dance history and tradition exists in the form of collected syllabi from the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend, a dance series founded in 1988 celebrating “the man who was perhaps the single most important figure in the preservation of traditional dance in New England” (University of New Hampshire Library, 2019).
The dance weekend occurs at the University of New Hampshire each January, and is sponsored by the Ralph Page Memorial Committee of the New England Folk Festival
Association (NEFFA), “a non-profit educational and cultural organization, incorporated...to encourage, sponsor, and preserve high standards of performance of the folk arts and traditions in New England and elsewhere” (New England Folk Festival Association, 2019). The syllabi contained detailed dance programs and schedules, including the names, writers of dances, suggested tunes, and instructions for hundreds of dances presented and performed in sessions that surveyed selections of both traditional and contemporary dance works. The sessions were planned and implemented by well-known, nationally touring callers and established figures within the dance community.
A master index (Smukler, 2014) of all dances performed or discussed during the weekends from 1988-2014 yielded a record of 2,477 distinct dance performances or presentations of some 1,298 unique dances. Dances included in the weekend are contras in
47 many different formations, but also a large number of traditional square dances and singing squares (square dances in which the calls are sung rather than spoken) and couples dances
(dances meant for two people in a non-contra, ballroom-style setting or formation, such as the gavotte, two-step, polka, or waltz). Although the entire collection of contra dances present was studied as part of the survey, a quota sample was taken from the dances in the syllabi to provide potential examples for instances and use cases. Quota sampling has been defined as a type of “nonprobability sampling...in which the researcher takes steps to ensure that the significant, diverse elements of the population are included...in the proportions in which they occur in the population” (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 135). A representative sample of dances to assist in ontology building and populating the ontology was chosen from the master index using the following criteria to ensure variety, popularity, and longevity among the contra dances as data sample.
● Only contra dances and dances in contra-type formations were sampled. Traditional
square dances, singing squares, dances in waltz time, and couples dances were not
selected (as they are outside the scope of this domain).
● Dances chosen had to have been called by a live human being (as is the custom in
contra dancing) during one of the dance sessions or performances, not from recorded
calls. (As the weekend celebrates the legacy of Ralph Page, recordings of his calling
that were presented at the Weekends would have skewed the sample.)
● Dances had to have been performed by dancers (not just discussed or analyzed in
workshops) no fewer than three times between 1988-2014. To accurately count the
number of occurrences,
○ dances must have had the same name and choreographer listed in the index
(allowing for minor variants such as the inclusion of definite articles, slight
differences in spelling and punctuation, and misspellings);
48
○ dances with known alternate names (as is especially the case with traditional
dances) were counted in eligible performances if their overall choreography
matched with the original named dance; and
○ only very minor variations in dances instructions were permitted2 for the purposes
of counting repeated performances, as long as the dances were credited to the
same choreographer and assigned the same name3. Explicitly marked or named
variations were counted as separate dances.
● Out of those minimum three performances, sampled dances had to have been called by
no fewer than two different callers (to eliminate “pet projects” or personal influences).
This process yielded a sample of 113 uniquely named and identified contra dances. A single performance of each of these 113 dances made up 4.56% of the total number of dance performances (contras, squares, and couples dances) at the annual weekends between 1988-
2014, and 6.92% of the total number of contra dance performances. Other aspects of the sampled contra dances were analyzed against dance performances from the annual weekends to ensure that the sample did not overwhelmingly favor a particular kind of dance. For instance,
23.21% of sampled contra dances were designated “traditional” (passed down with no known writer), compared with 21.4% of all total dance performances (contras, squares, and couples dances) marked as being traditional. Contra dance formations occurred as follows from among the unique contra dances sampled and the total number of contra dance performances and demonstrations (see also Tables 1 and 2):
2 A minor variation would have constituted some small substitution of a different figure in just one portion of a dance that did not fundamentally change the execution of the dance, like the common folk process substitution of a balance and swing for just the instruction of a swing. This would have been predicated on a preference for dancers to add a balance to orient themselves, and callers would have incorporated the observed minor change to make the dance more satisfying for future dancers. 3 If any minor variations existed, for the purposes of populating the ontology, the first chronological mention of a dance within the syllabi that included a full description of dance instructions in a reported live calling of the dance was the version of the dance sampled.
49
● duple improper (two-couple minor sets with the number one couples crossed over4, the
most common formation in contra dance): 46.43% of the sample were in this formation
compared to 39.32% of all contra performances and demonstrations;
● triple proper (three-couple minor sets with gents on one side and ladies on the other, or
not crossed over): 9.82% of the sample to 8.03% of all contra performances and
demonstrations;
● Becket (two-couple minor sets with partners starting on the same side of the set, across
from their neighbors): 7.14% of the sample to 8.03% of all contra performances and
demonstrations;
● duple proper (two-couple minor sets with no one crossed over): 16.96% of the sample
13.79% to of all contra performances and demonstrations; and
● Tempest5: 0.89% of the sample to 0.98% of all contra performances and
demonstrations.
The only potential area of oversampled dances may be duple improper dances; however, because dances in this formation are ubiquitous in contra dance, especially in modern contra dance choreography, the effect of this sampling could be considered negligible in examining the
4 Dances in the English country dance tradition were mostly in proper formation, meaning that each dance began—from the vantage point of the bottom of the hall—with a line of gentlemen (or gents) on the left and a line of ladies on the right. Improper formation, in contrast, results in lines of alternating gender roles. At the start of the dance, each number one couple or the “ones” (that is, the couple above or closer to the top of the hall than their neighbor couple, or the “twos”) “cross over,” so that each lady in each couple is to the right of their gent partner. Both proper and improper dances occur in duple (two-couple or four-person sets) and triple (three-couple or six-person sets) minor formations. In a rarely occurring formation, indecent dances have the number two couples crossed over. 5 A very uncommon and unusual formation adapted from an English country dance of the same name, this formation features four couples configured in the following way: two couples are beside each other with four dancers in a line facing down the hall (progressing down) and the other two couples (with one couple or two people on either side of the above line of four) are facing across from each other (and progressing up). The result is a wide u-shaped formation.
50 domain overall, especially as the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend in part emphasizes examples of traditional and historical dances.6
Table 1
Percentage of Selected Contra Formations Occurring in Sampled Dances from the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend Collection, 1988-2014
Formation Number of Dances % of Sampled Dances Duple Improper 52 46.43 Triple Proper 11 9.82 Becket 8 7.14 Duple Proper 18 16.96 Tempest 1 0.89
Table 2
Percentage of Selected Contra Formations Occurring in Total Number of Contra Performances and Demonstrations from the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend Collection, 1988-2014
Formation Number of Dances % of Sampled Dances Duple Improper 637 39.32 Triple Proper 131 8.03 Becket 131 8.03 Duple Proper 225 13.79 Tempest 16 0.98
3.1.1.2. Selection of sample dances from other sources. Books of collected dances are usually monographs written by one or two choreographers with instructions for their dances, many of which are either out of print or are in limited supply. Most of the dance tradition trades dances between callers by word of mouth, by recorded observation of a dance performance as it is happening, or through copying another caller’s dance cards to collect the dance for calling at a later date. In the absence of dance cards and a wide collection of readily available monographs, this analysis examined additional dances from three other authoritative sources: the dances collected by Mary McNab Dart (1995) in her book Contra Dance Choreography: A
6 Older dances based on English country dances tend to occur in proper and non-duple formations more frequently than contemporary contra dances.
51
Reflection of Social Change, the contra dances from the Dance a While: A Handbook for Folk,
Square, Contra, and Social Dance (Pittman, Waller, & Dark, 2009)7, and contra8 dances published in various issues of CDSS News from 2010-2019. These sources reflected the viewpoints of both the contra dance community itself (Dart and CDSS) and those wishing to disseminate contra dance traditions to a larger, public audience (Pittman, Waller, & Dark, 2009).
In the case of the contra dance from CDSS News, their inclusion fills a gap in contemporary contra dances that may exist due to the historical, retrospective nature of the other sources.
Again, only dances typical of the contra tradition were sampled.
3.1.2 Content and domain analysis. After surveying and assessing relevant contra dance resources and materials, this study was guided by other studies in knowledge organization in the use of content analysis toward ontology development (Chansanam &
Tuamsuk, 2016; Kaewboonma & Tuamsuk, 2016) and the paradigm outlined by Hjørland and
Albrechtsen (1995) and Hjørland (2002) in the use of domain analysis. Content analysis has been defined variously defined as “a research method which allows the qualitative data collected in research to be analysed systematically and reliably so that generalizations can be made from them in relation to the categories of interest” (Haggarty, 1996, p. 99); “compressing many words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding” (Stemler,
2001, p. 1); and “a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data (i.e. text)” (Columbia University Mailman School of
Public Health, n.d.). Mayring (2000) designated the “object of (qualitative) content analysis” as
7 It should be noted that a number of the dances collected by Dart (1995) and Pittman, Waller, and Dark (2009) are also featured in the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend Collection, further bolstering the case for their inclusion. 8 For the purposes of this data collection, contra dances were differentiated from English country dances in CDSS News (if not specified by the publication) by two methods: 1) labeling of the dances themselves by the dance author within the dance instructions, and 2) by figures common to each genre (e.g., figures like a swing or an allemande indicate contra dance vocabulary, and thus a contra dance, whereas a set or a turn single are ECD terms, and would only be found in ECD examples).
52 any kind of “recorded communication (transcripts of interviews, discourses, protocols of observations, video tapes, documents ...)” (p. 2) in which content analysis “analyzes not only the manifest content of the material” but also themes and main ideas, contextual information, and formal aspects of the material. Content analysis has been used in the study of many different forms of communication, in which the communicative content is broken down into component parts, coded, and categorized for further analysis. Content analysis can vary in use, from basic or quantitative methods such as identifying the occurrence and frequencies of terms (word counts), to more qualitative analyses to better understand words and concepts in the context of their use or to interpret thematic content from descriptive narratives (Drisko & Maschi, 2016, pp.
2-6). Domain analysis was seminally defined for the field of information science by Hjørland and Albrechtsen (1995) as the study of “knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities” in which “knowledge organization, structure, cooperation patterns, language and communication forms, information systems, and relevance criteria are reflections of the objects of the work of these communities and of their role in society” (p. 400). Domain analysis toward ontology building for an ICH domain could be considered to meet the following criteria of
Hjørland’s (2002) definitions of domain analysis approaches by:
● providing access to information sources as a gateway to an ICH subject;
● constructing a special classification system to logically organize an ICH domain in order
to understand semantic concepts;
● supporting information retrieval of ICH information;
● contributing to the historical study of ICH through organization of their traditions, forms of
expression, and mutual influences;
● developing information architecture that represents the organization inherent in an ICH
domain;
● organizing ICH knowledge in a paradigmatic way;
● studying discourse, language, and semantics within an ICH community; and
53
● revealing mental or cognitive models of an ICH domain.
Content and domain analysis of contra dance involved an examination of domain discourse within the historical documents (texts, recordings, etc.) of contra dance as an ICH, by identifying vocabulary, concepts, works, and identities of people and places that are important parts of the dance tradition.
3.1.3 Ontology building methodology. Although formal ontology building methodologies vary from study to study, design criteria for the creation of ontologies meant for knowledge sharing (Gruber, 1993) through the Semantic Web (Gómez-Pérez, Fernández-
López, & Corcho, 2004; Noy & McGuinness, 2001) have been posited. Gruber (1993) defined an ontology, as used in information science, as an “explicit specification of a conceptualization” where a conceptualization is the basis of a “body of formally represented knowledge” composed of “objects, concepts, and other entities...and the relationships...among them” (p. 1). An ontology declares what exists—or rather, what can be represented in the “universe of discourse”
(p. 2)—reflected through the defined, named entities within a domain and the relationships between them that can be described. Supported by logical statements made about a domain,
“a common ontology is a guarantee of consistency, but not completeness” since an ontology provides a common vocabulary with which to formulate questions, but “is not required to answer all queries that can be formulated in the shared vocabulary” (p. 2). Moreover, as products of design decisions, Gruber emphasized that the design of shared, formal ontologies should be guided and evaluated by “objective criteria that are founded on the purpose of the resulting artifact” (p. 2), for which he proposed an initial set of design criteria (p. 2-3), which included: 1) clarity, through effective communication of the definition of terms, which should be objectively derived, as complete as possible, and well-documented; 2) coherence, with logically consistent defined axioms and inferences consistent with definitions; 3) extendability, as the design of the ontology anticipates uses of its shared vocabulary and the inclusion of new terms does not require revisions of existing definitions; 4) minimal encoding bias, meaning the
54
“conceptualization should be specified at the knowledge level” (p. 3) without need of a certain symbol-level encoding to allow implementation in different representation systems; and 5) minimal ontological commitment, where the ontology “should make as few claims as possible about the world being modeled...defining only those terms that are essential to the communication of knowledge consistent” (p. 3) with the greatest number of potential models.
In their primer for ontology development using Protégé software (Musen, 2015), which was used in this project, Noy and McGuinness (2001) established guidelines which they suggested as a “simple knowledge-engineering methodology,” acknowledging that it is an
“iterative process” for which “there is no one correct way to model a domain” and may include
“viable alternatives” (p. 4). They suggested the following steps: 1) determining scope and domain; 2) reuse of existing ontologies; 3) enumeration of important terms; 4) defining classes and the class hierarchy; 5) defining the properties of classes (known as “slots” in Protégé); 6) defining the facets of those properties; and 7) creating instances. In examining the LOD project
Linked Jazz, Pattuelli, Provo, and Thorsen (2015) adapted the above methodologies for building applied ontologies and best practices for the generation, publishing, and consumption of linked data to establish “guidelines to describe the process of building a real-world ontology” (p. 269).
The process they outlined included the following phases: “(a) specification, (b) modeling, (c) generation, (d) linking, (e) publication, and (f) exploitation” (Pattuelli, Provo, & Thorsen, 2015, p.
269).
Using the stages outlined in the methodologies proposed by Noy and McGuinness
(2001) and Pattuelli, Provo, and Thorsen (2015), the ontology development process was intended to be carried out as follows.
● Determination of the scope and domain, selection of data sources, and analysis of that
information to establish vocabularies and inclusion of biographical, historical, and
geographic information defined the initial stages (see sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). Some of
the initial formal constraints of the ontology were also delineated.
55
● Identification of key concepts and relationships as well as examining classes and
properties from other ontologies cultural heritage ontologies to reuse, extend, or adapt
them where appropriate guided development of the conceptual framework of the first
iterations of the ontology. This included the use of knowledge organization tools and
methods like the creation of draft taxonomies, thesauri, and semantic networks to aid the
model-building process. Formally naming and defining classes, their properties, and
facets of those properties (like domains and ranges) also took place at this stage.
● Population of the ontology with collected sample data occurred as instances were
created. The introduction of real-world examples also prompted revisions in the overall
design of the data model and ontology. The model was then tested using simple
SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language) queries to determine
anticipated functionality based on structural determinations made in the content and
domain analysis phase.
● The ontology was then proposed for publication on the Web, and integration with other
search and visualization tools would then possible after additional population, testing,
and further revision.
3.2 Anticipated Results
This study is anticipated to result in a formal model / ontology for contra dance in an effort to promote safeguarding activities for the domain as an ICH. It would also generate an extensible knowledge base for future growth and further implementation and an environment promoting nascent metadata standards and best practices for use in the ontology. The published ontology would be available for use as a means of transmitting and promoting contra dance traditions, as well as acting as a searchable repository for dance information. The ontology could also promote future linked data projects regarding American folk traditions, expansion into modeling other country dance traditions, and integration or extension of other
ICH KOS.
56
3.3 Work Plan
As described with the methods and tools above, the following efforts offered benchmarks in the completion of the research project:
● Completion of a survey to identify available and suitable sources for contra dance
information and make selection of appropriate data for analysis and modeling.
● Content and domain analysis to determine and define scope and functional requirements
of domain model.
● Use of preliminary KOS like taxonomies, thesauri, and semantic networks to help define
classes as well as hierarchical and associative relationships.
● Development of an initial conceptual framework for domain model based on information
gathered and analyzed as above, and
○ identification and utilization of existing data models and ontologies as part of the
initial development.
● Creation of any necessary instances to act as name authority files, biographical
information, geographic information, etc., where warranted;
● Population of the ontology with sample data (such as dance instructions, contra dance
community members, or performance records).
● Testing of the ontology using simple SPARQL queries and revision of the ontology as
necessary.
● Publication of the ontology and finalization of the project.
57
Chapter 4: Development of a Knowledge Organization Structure for Contra Dance
4.1 Research Questions Addressed and Chapter Overview
This chapter addresses the following research questions:
1a. Is it possible to create a knowledge organization structure for contra dance?
1b. If so, what parameters or functional requirements would such a system have?
Within this context, the chapter looks at the results of applying content and domain analysis to examine both the formal nature of contra dance choreography and the overarching historical traditions and cultural networks that emerge from contra dance as an ICH. This analysis then posits considerations and provides guidance in the development of appropriate structural and system requirements to meet the needs of modeling both the minutiae of contra dance choreography and the larger culture and tradition of contra dance overall. It also documents and discusses the exploration of using KOS tools and technologies in stages to organize and represent the contra dance within a full ontological domain model.
4.2 Concerns and Considerations in ICH Knowledge Organization
The first cluster of research questions posits whether or not it is possible to create a
KOS for contra dance, and if so, what will inform the decision making process for building that structure or system. This question is, perhaps, highly self-referential, and even rhetorical, as this research project is in itself the attempt to show that, yes, indeed, many portions of the contra dance tradition can be modeled through KOS. Moreover, this project takes great pains to outline and demonstrate that other ICH domains have been modeled or represented, in some form or another, through taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, and other conceptual frameworks, and presupposes that the same tools and technologies can be employed here. Nevertheless, the process of constructing a domain model ontology specifically for contra dance, as well as how that local domain model may also be built upon, adapted to, extended from, or made interoperable with other conceptual data models and standards, is the concern this project seeks to explore and address. So, in a more targeted rewording the question, it could be asked
58 what aspects of contra dance should be included in such a model, what aspects can be modeled ontologically, and whether or not there are significant gaps or limitations between the functional requirements identified through domain analysis and the possibilities of ontological modeling itself.
As has been described earlier in the introduction, the ontology construction process should be well-documented with a clear and explicit identification of concepts (or classes), instances, and properties, as well as defining the relationships that exist between those entities.
This requires further discussion about the nature of contra dance information, its own subdomains, and what approaches may be used to organize different portions of the domain space. When studying contra dance as a domain, two subdomains begin to emerge from the corpus of materials—its literature, recordings, languages, practices, history, and its universe of concepts, their characteristics, and the relationships between them—that themselves document contra as an ICH tradition. On a micro-level, there is the structure of the dances themselves, made up of highly structured metrical phrases to which named choreographed movements (or figures) are applied, placed in a particular order, and repeated ad infinitum as the caller and the band see fit in the praxis of performance. At this level, there are, for instance, questions of eliminating or reducing ambiguity through vocabulary control, employing taxonomic and thesaural tools to better understand and describe the nature of the figures themselves by placing them within a hierarchical and associative organizational structure, and structuring data in such a way that it can be usefully digested, searched, or disseminated by practitioners, and later, by the public. Previous works studying and organizing contra dance that were examined for this project chose a variety of ways to classify dances by perceptions of dominant contra dance figures. Furthermore, the author had previously utilized faceted analysis to organize and classify concepts and entities in contra dance choreography as a preliminary study to the research undertaken here through the development of a draft thesaurus of contra dance and
English country dance terms (Coladangelo, 2019).
59
While these efforts to organize contra dance choreography and its conceptual framework in a meaningful way may each be useful in their own right, they are also individually limited to the assumptions made by the designer, due in large part to the fact that they strictly impose a single hierarchical structure upon contra dance concepts that is not entirely organic, universal, or true. The design choices implemented in each classification system may not be shared by all practitioners and scholars of contra dance who are seeking to clearly define its concepts, boundaries, and their defining properties. In other words, various domain experts may emphasize particular similarities or differences between figures in order to classify dances with those figures, and yet they simultaneously risk limiting a more complex or nuanced understanding of the vocabulary of contra dance choreography by foreclosing the myriad ways in which those figures can be characterized and represented, particularly as natural language plays an important role in the lexicon and cadence of contra dance calling.
This, of course, is to say nothing yet of meeting the needs that emerge when examining the networks of dances, callers, choreographers, musicians, tunes, venues, performances, events, publications, recordings, and other entities that will need to be modeled in order to document and safeguard a complete picture of contra dance culture and tradition. The conceptual model of this macro-level will also need to be developed for use and integration with the model for contra dance choreography and must also aim toward interoperability with other ontological and conceptual models, as well as KOS technologies and metadata standards for other dance and movement-based ICH.
4.3 Content and Domain Analysis of Contra Dance Choreography
As a new dancer, the act of swiftly collecting up, defining, and understanding in practice the names and movements of a basic number of figures introduced during the first half-hour teaching session before the start of a contra dance event is something of an initiation rite or a tradition unto itself. Although there is neither space nor interest here in elucidating the communication and semiotic theory that may well permeate the language of contra dance
60 choreography—the assignment of designated words and phrases (known as “calls”) to the execution of particular movements (or “figures”)—it should be noted that a form of content and domain analysis takes place within the mind of a new dancer in the seminal moments of their initial encounter with contra. As they learn the movements and what they are called, as they begin to marry, in their mind, the names of the figures with their designated actions, they begin to build their own comprehensive knowledge base of movements, classifying, on-the-fly, which share similar motions or gestures, and those that possess certain individuating and divergent characteristics, all within their growing vocabulary of contra dance choreography.
While some texts and resources classify dances by such criteria as their perceived difficulty or by their predominating figure, there has yet to be a formal classification process applied to the figures themselves. Yet, in order to construct a meaningful knowledge base, it is assistive to examine some issues that arise in identifying the vocabulary of dance movements and the various properties that characterize or define them within contra dance choreography.
4.3.1 The structure of contra dance choreography: figures, their terms/concepts, and their modifications. Beth Molaro, a nationally known and active teacher and dance caller of contra dances and traditional squares, has been calling dances since 1994 (Molaro, 2019).
Describing her process of teaching dances efficiently and effectively within the limited span of time and attention available for a walkthrough (the initial introduction to a dance’s instructions before the music and calling begins), Molaro cited the following structure for her teaching method, explaining to dancers “who you’re doing something with, what you’re going to do with them, and where you end up” (Merritt, 2014). Using Molaro’s advice, dance instructions were analyzed so that their vocabulary generally fell into one of these structural or content-related areas:
● Roles (who)
● Figures (what)
● Direction, or Distance, or Duration (where or how)
61
The last group of terms were further subdivided or organized to have Direction and Orientation occupying one group (answering where or by what means) and Distance and Duration occupying a second group (answer for how long or to what extent). Through this analysis, a kind of modular grammar of contra dance vocabulary was expressed, in which a dancer identified the subject of their action (a dancer in a particular role), a verb or action they must execute (a figure), and additional modifiers or information that extend an understanding of how the figure must be carried out (direction, orientation, distance, and duration). This syntax was expressed in the following way: Role + Figure + Direction modifier + Distance/Duration modifier.
It was then posited that most simple calls were likely built upon a base term, and then modified accordingly with additional information (or terms)9. The question was, which of these terms best served as the base of the grammatical structure, and which terms would be appended to that base.
4.3.1.1 Functional requirements and definition of contra dance choreography syntax and concepts. The most crucial piece of information a dancer needed in the execution of choreography were the names of figures, and the differences between dances was often noted on the basis of their hook, or predominant figure(s). Although modifiers for roles, direction, and duration, etc., filled out the details necessary to make the dance move smoothly, the figures themselves were the building blocks upon which the choreography was constructed, and represented the core concepts which give calls and dances their meaning. As a result, terms were collected from the surveyed resources, with the establishment of preferred terms, a process begun in the development of the American Contra Dance and English Country Dance
Thesaurus (Coladangelo, 2019). These preferred term names then became conceptual classes
9 When explaining this conceptual framework, a colleague likened it to a kind of pre-coordinate indexing, which is perhaps not a bad way of thinking about it.
62 for those defined movements, roles, and modifiers that are used in the description of dance instructions.
The following example elucidates the process of establishing this syntactic structure and the application of conceptual terms to build instructions using that structure. Take, for instance, a figure like the allemande, in which two dancers face and move around each other, each with one hand joined to the hand of the other dancer. A dancer could allemande with any other role, for any length of time, in any direction, and the figure would still be an allemande. Change the conditions or the defining characteristic of this movement—no longer walking around each other in a single hand hold—and the allemande has ended, the figure no longer being executed.
Contra dance figures, as a vocabulary of movement, therefore, defined the availability of all other modifiers, but could not be anything other than their defined movement. Therefore, it was posited that the names of the basic terms for the figures would form an initial core vocabulary and a class within the ontology called Figure10. This was the first ConceptClass (ConceptClass is itself a superclass for other core conceptual classes) for the ontology, populated with the basic names established for the figures. Role was then created as the second ConceptClass, which included terms for certain situational roles like partners (Partner) or for positional roles like being part of a number one couple (Ones). The third and fourth ConceptClasses were composed of Direction and DistanceDuration to modify and finalize the dance instructions, thus completing Molaro’s instructional trinity.
These ConceptClasses thus formed the core ontological framework that could then be used as a modular vocabulary for the purposes of further describing basic dance choreography.
10 This term/concept, and those that follow, have been capitalized and italicized so that they are shown to represent not just a dance concept, but a modeled ontological class. They would not normally be capitalized or set in a different typeface in the context of a thesaurus of dance terms, nor would they be capitalized or typeset differently in written instructions for contra dance choreography. This stylistic convention, however, will be maintained throughout the remainder of this paper in order to show that for the purposes of this research, a Class (as well as other entities like an objectProperty and a specific_instance) is considered synonymous with the designated label within the domain model ontology.
63
Again, following Molaro’s structure, the fundamental grammar of a StructuredCall was composed of a Figure that has been added to or modified first by Role and then by Direction and DistanceDuration information. Keeping Molaro’s syntactical order in mind, it was possible to create a StructuredCall by beginning with instances/individuals11 of Figure (like Allemande,
Swing, or Circle that represented the general concept of a figure or the designated term for that fundamental movement) and appending a Role instance prefix and various Direction and
DistanceDuration instance suffixes as needed. Each subclass of StructuredCall would then be a set of conditions or property values for Role, a Figure, a Direction, and a DistanceDuration.
It can now be seen how basic, unstructured, natural language calls can be made and gathered into StructuredCalls (using objectProperties with specific allowable values/instances from the Figure, Role, Direction, and DistanceDuration ConceptClasses). For example, the basic written, notated, and/or natural language calls for the A1 section of the dance
“Delphiniums and Daisies” by Tanya Rotenberg were published in the following ways in various sources (modified slightly from their original formatting for the continuity of reading and reprinting here):
● “N Allemande Left 1.5, Ladies chain (to Partner)” (Dance Video Archive, 2019);
● “N Aleman L 1.5, Ravens12 chain (to P)” (Kaufman, 2011);
● “Neighbors allemande left 1 1/2, Ladies chain” (Owen, 2001);
11 Chapter 6 will discuss the building of the ontology with greater depth, but it should be noted that different versions of the Protégé software use the terms “instances” and “individuals” to mean specific instances within a given class. These terms may be used interchangeably in this project to describe the same entities. 12 There is a movement in contra dance to make contra vocabulary less biased and discriminatory on the basis of race and gender. One of these ways is through proposed elimination of gendered role terms like men and women, and gents and ladies, in addition to abandoning terms that denote power structures like lead and follow. A number of callers and choreographers have adopted gender-neutral or gender-free terms such as larks and ravens in place of gents and ladies, so that in this context “ravens” is synonymous with the term “ladies” in the other versions. This project does not seek to pick a side in the current controversy (see “Appendix B: Problems and Limitations” in Coladangelo, 2019, pp. 70-71), and will use what has been perceived as the traditional cultural terms for the purposes of defining vocabulary, even as the author personally finds overwhelming merit with the arguments of those wishing to reevaluate the names of terms in order to make contra dance culture more inclusive.
64
● “Neighbor allemande left 1 & 1/2, Ladies chain” (Page, n.d.-a);
● “Allemande left the one below13 once and a half, Ladies chain” (Pittman, Waller, & Dark,
2009, p. 214);
● “Allemande left neighbor 1 1/2, Ladies chain across” (Smukler, 2000, p. 13);
● “Allemande left neighbor 1½, Ladies chain across” (Smukler, 2010, p. 37); and
● “Neighbor allemande left 1.5, Ladies chain to partner” (Murphy, 2017, p. 5).
As can be seen, all of the building blocks were present, but not all calls or notations followed the same syntax, which in many ways is a feature, not a bug, of contra dance tradition14. However, this lack of continuity between published dance instructions for the very same dance could make it difficult to identify that these calls, in praxis, represent identical movements in execution of the dance. It would also be difficult to compare calls across dances without some understanding of the structural components of those calls. This presented a unique challenge that, while limited, can be partially solved by the creation of StructuredCall subclasses.
Analyzing the versions of the instructions above, the following ConceptClass instances/components were enumerated and compiled into a proposed class named
StructuredCall in the following steps to populate instructions for the A1 section of the dance:
➢ Figure: Allemande
➢ Role: Neighbor
➢ Direction: LeftHand15
13 This call is meant to instruct the number one couple (or Ones) to perform an Allemande with their number two neighbor. It has been ignored/supplanted in this case because the Allemande is performed neighbor to neighbor and is more concisely notated as Neighbor+Allemande rather than specifying one set of instructions for the dancers in the Ones position, and another in the Twos position. 14 The style and structure of how to call and notate contra dance instructions is part of the ICH itself. To seek to codify and supplant this tradition with a single structure would be to erase a crucial part of the tradition. However, this project seeks to structure contra dance information in such a way that various notated versions and different calling styles can be meaningfully linked. 15 A Direction class of Left would not be specific enough in this case. LeftHand has been defined as one dancer’s left hand (which is joined to another’s left hand), with movement in a Counterclockwise. Not all movements associated with “leftness” may include left hands or move in a counterclockwise direction.
65
➢ DistanceDuration: OnceAndAHalf16
➢ StructuredCall subclass: Neighbor+Allemande+LeftHand+OnceAndAHalf
➢ Figure: Chain
➢ Role: Ladies
➢ Direction: Across
➢ DistanceDuration: ToPartner
➢ StructuredCall subclass: Ladies+Chain+Across+ToPartner
Now, in reality, some contra dance instructions were much more complicated and required much further explanation than can be organized by a StructuredCall. Natural language in contra dance choreography has been and always will be the norm, not the exception. However, this proposed basic syntax provided at least one level of ontological structure and provided semantic enhancement for dance instructions that can be defined as the above StructuredCalls. The modular vocabulary structure defined which component ConceptClasses are embodied in a particular StructuredCall. It also anticipated the use of objectProperties to define only specific permissible values/instances in a StructuredCall instance (see section 6.2.1 for further discussion of this data structuring).
4.3.1.2 Development of contra dance choreography classes and properties to describe instances of StructuredCall. As has been described above, the ConceptClass superclass was created to cover conceptual classes of entities that exist within some aspect of the choreography and dance instructions within the ICH domain of contra dance. The following subclasses (and sub-subclasses) of ConceptClass reflected the entities needed to model choreography:
The specificity of a LeftHand ConceptClass eliminates the ambiguity of meaning inherent in some contra dance directional information. 16 Using a spelled-out version of this FractionalDuration eliminates confusion between 1 1/2, 1.5, and 1 ½.
66
● Figure
● Role
○ DanceRole
■ Dancer
■ DancerUnit
● Direction
○ LinearDirection
○ RotationalDirection
■ ClockwiseDirection
■ CounterclockwiseDirection
● DistanceDuration
○ Distance
■ DistanceByDestination
■ DistanceByPlaces
○ Duration
■ DurationInCounts
■ FractionalDuration
Another superclass, FunctionalClass, served as a place to house classes of entities that resulted when instances of the above ConceptClasses were combined, modified, or concatenated. It was also useful in providing a space for creating different categories of information or curated collections of instances that met certain requirements or conditions.
● Call
○ StructuredCall
■ (subclasses of this class are named for the exact combination of
ConceptClass instances in a call)
● defined classes like FiguresForNumbersOfDancers
67
From the last example, the nascent ontology supported collections of instances that would be of interest to domain practitioners, creating meaningful lists of entities, or even microthesauri, of contra dance information (the development of other FunctionalClasses through rules and inference are described in section 6.4.1).
Additionally, properties were needed to define and describe the components of a
StructuredCall (some of which were also used in defining or restricting properties of a Figure).
These included the following objectProperties and dataProperties with the following ranges and data restrictions to determine acceptable property values.
● objectProperties:
○ hasFigure, range: Figure
○ hasDanceRole, range: DanceRole
○ hasDirection, range: Direction
○ hasDistance, range: Distance
○ hasDuration, range: Duration
● dataProperties:
○ numberOfBeats, range: positive integer (1-16)
○ numberOfDancers, range: positive integer
4.3.2 Toward contra dance choreography in an ontological model. Although this project hypothesized the use of ontological modeling to structure contra dance information, so far only the basic choreographic component domain concepts (ConceptClass subclasses) used to build an undefined future number of possible subclasses of StructuredCall and their properties had been defined. Other than the creation of StructuredCalls, there still remained ways in which ConceptClasses, particularly Figure subclasses, needed to be defined in order to provide the ability to more meaningfully append prefix and suffix ConceptClasses. In other words, after establishing the syntax of a StructuredCall, the semantic structures or limitations of contra vocabulary had to be understood. Ontological modeling then allowed further
68 classification and definition of certain contra choreography concepts into relationships as well as allowing the assignment of defining attributes or properties to instances of ConceptClass subclasses.
4.3.2.1 Further Figure definition through objectProperties: the example of the
Swing. The swing (ConceptClass: Figure: Swing) is the most emblematic and ubiquitous figure in contradance choreography. Introduced as an innovation in New England in the latter half of the 19th century, it largely replaced the two-hand turn of English country dance (Dart, 1995), and in the present day, the choreography for a contra dance is considered unsuccessful or undesirable if it does not contain at minimum a swing with one’s partner, or “partner swing” (and even both a partner swing and a neighbor swing) (Ravitz, 2019). With the closeness of contact necessary between dancers, and the lively energy the figure encourages, the Swing largely separates contra from its ECD predecessor, even though the two forms and cultures of country dance share many structural similarities.
A Swing is normally executed between two dancers, each in a different Role, usually, but not limited to, a Gent and a Lady, in a modified closed ballroom position (sometimes simply called a swing position). (For the purposes of StructuredCall notation, one of these dancers is oneself and the other is a dancer in another Role: Partner, Neighbor, Corner, etc.) In a typical
Swing, the two dancers face each other, and the Gent places their right hand at the left shoulder or toward the center of the back of the Lady, and the Lady places their left arm along the right arm of the Gent, with placement of left hand of the Lady on the shoulder or just behind the shoulder of the Gent (in order to share momentum at a mutual axis of rotation between them, which is known as “sharing weight” or “giving weight”). The two dancers stand at a slight angle to each other but are meant to maintain eye contact, and the movement is executed in this mutual embrace as the dancers move around each other, supporting each other’s weight, almost as if trying to follow or walk behind each other Clockwise in a close, circular path. The footwork is usually either a simple WalkingStep or a BuzzStep in which a dancer scoots or
69 pushes off with the right foot and steps down with their left foot to maintain a kind of skipping motion, again, in a circular path. The Duration of a Swing is variable, but usually lasts at minimum eight beats/counts (anything shorter is barely enough time to execute the figure), and no more than sixteen beats/counts (any longer and the figure crosses the boundaries of the musical phrase, an undesirable effect).
Out of the above description, a number of defining or important characteristics (or, in ontological terms, properties) were used to identify attributes of a Swing17. These were structured as the following named objectProperties of the instance Swing, with cardinality and enumerated valid or available property values (instances/individuals or permissible data values), along with relevant class membership of assigned value instances:
● hasPosition value SwingPosition (instance of Position);
● hasFootwork value WalkingStep OR BuzzStep OR PivotStep (instance of Footwork);
● hasDanceRole some [instance of] Dancer OR Gents, Ladies, Ones, Twos, Threes
(selected instances of DancerUnit);
● hasDirection value Clockwise (instance of ClockwiseDirection); and
● hasDuration value EightCounts OR TenCounts OR TwelveCounts OR FourteenCounts
OR SixteenCounts (instance of DurationInCounts).
Other properties of Swing were structured as dataProperties, with their allowable data types:
● numberOfDancers value 2 (xsd:positiveInteger); and
● dancersFacing value true (xsd:boolean).
Figure 1 shows these characteristics as properties of the Swing instance. These objectProperties and dataProperties were also expanded to other Figure instances, generating other property needs, as discussed below.
17 It should be noted that many variations of the Swing exist, largely as modifications and flourishes (Williams & Nau, 1996), but for the purposes of this discussion, the concept for this instance conforms to the traditional description above.
70
Property Type of Data range / Valid instances or data values property Value control hasPosition objectProperty instances of SwingPosition Position hasFootwork objectProperty instances of WalkingStep, BuzzStep, Footwork PivotStep hasDanceRole objectProperty instance of Dancer Dancer instance or some eligible DancerUnit Gents, Ladies, Ones, Twos, instances Threes hasDirection objectProperty instance of Clockwise ClockwiseDirection hasDuration objectProperty instances of EightCounts, DurationInCounts TenCounts...SixteenCounts numberOfDancers dataProperty xsd:positiveInteger 2 dancersFacing dataProperty xsd:boolean True
Figure 1. Basic characteristics of a prospective instance Swing presented as properties with examples of ranges, data values, and encoding standards.
4.3.2.2 Limitations of single-axis classification demonstrating the need for ontological modeling. Through examination of the defining characteristics or properties of the
Swing class in comparison with other Figure instances, it was demonstrated that it is both possible yet disadvantageous to make other kinds of classifying decisions confined to a small or given set of characteristics or properties (which is necessary in thesaural construction). For instance, two other figures in contra dance—namely the Allemande and the Gypsy—involved many of the same characteristics as a Swing, where two dancers also face each other, moving as if following a circular path with a shared axis of rotation between them. In an Allemande, the dancers typically joined either their left hands (LeftHand) or their right hands (RightHand)18, and
18 This explanation has been simplified to include just AllemandeLeftHand and AllemandeRightHand, but a AllemandeHandyHand is also possible, where dancers join opposite hands, or sometimes called
71 shared a palm-to-palm, thumbs-up grip (AllemandeStyleHandhold), clasping in such a manner as to pull away slightly in order to create tension to facilitate movement around each other
(again, by giving or sharing weight). In this case the path could have been either Clockwise (in the case of an AllemandeRightHand) or Counterclockwise (in the case of an
AllemandeLeftHand), but the convention was to designate the Direction of an Allemande by hand connection. The DistanceDuration was also variable; it was counted not in terms of beats/counts, but rather in FractionalDuration (as a full Allemande, or sometimes called “once around,” or Once, assumes that dancers make one revolution around each other to end the figure where they started). A Gypsy had many of the same characteristics and restrictions, but there were no held hands or other physical contact (other than perhaps eye contact); two dancers simply moved around each other, RightShoulder or LeftShoulder, in some
FractionalDuration. Given that there were similar available objectProperty and dataProperty values (some DanceRole values, numberOfDancers value 2, dancersFacing value true), it would have been tempting to classify Swing, Allemande, and Gypsy (and any number of other similar figures) hierarchically by the available Role prefixes, the number of dancers involved, or the toward-facing orientation of the dancers. But they differed on value encoding for Direction and the terms designated for how their DistanceDuration is measured (Figure 2 sorts these similarities and differences in objectProperties and dataProperties and their appropriate available values). It would have indeed been possible to classify these concepts hierarchically in one fashion, and then to have established them as associated terms as in thesaural construction, but this modeling of generically associated relationships (with an inability to address how exactly are they associated) would have been insufficient. Furthermore, as the
“convenient” or “inside” hands (right joined to left or left joined to right) in executing an Allemande. Also note that holding both hands simultaneously and turning would not be an Allemande, but a TwoHandTurn.
72 number of figures and their various characteristics were examined, the potential problems to be solved using merely a taxonomic or thesaural KOS approach would have only increased.
Property Swing values Allemande values Gypsy values hasPosition SwingPosition NoPosition NoPosition hasFootwork WalkingStep, WalkingStep WalkingStep BuzzStep, PivotStep hasHandhold SwingHold AllemandeStyleHandh NoHandhold old hasDanceRole Dancer instance Dancer instance Dancer instance
Gents, Ladies, Gents, Ladies, Gents, Ladies, Ones, Twos, Threes Ones, Twos, Threes Ones, Twos, Threes hasDirection Clockwise LeftHand, RightHand, LeftShoulder, HandyHand RightShoulder hasDuration EightCounts, instance of instance of TenCounts… FractionalDuration FractionalDuration SixteenCounts numberOfDancers 2 2 2 dancersFacing true true True dancersJoinedHands true true False
Figure 2. Comparison of properties and eligible values for three Figure instances: Swing, Allemande, and Gypsy. Classification along any single property axis or using a sole characteristic would be incomplete.
However, as the number of figures increased, the number of both shared and divergent characteristics also increased, making representation more complex. Take, for example, the case of two other figures—the BasketSwing and the SwingingStar—which were movements for a different number of dancers (in this case, FourDancers), yet which shared other important characteristics with the Swing (beyond the similarity in name). Both of these figures moved solely Clockwise, they utilized the BuzzStep footwork, and had a Duration measured in counts, not fractionally, meaning that they shared those properties with the Swing. And yet, the
73
BasketSwing was executed with the dancers facing one another, and their arms wrapped around the back or waist of adjoining dancers (as if to form a basket, somewhat like a cross between a Swing and a Circle figure) and the SwingingStar had right hands joined in the center
(either all four hands joined together or each dancer gently gripping the wrist of the dancer in front of them), as in a StarRightHand.
Again, it would have been alluring to classify these figures, for example, as more specific subclasses of the class Swing (just for an increased number of dancers), with associative relationships to a Circle and a Star, respectively. It would have been equally as valid to classify the Swing, Allemande, and Gypsy under some class that represented figures for two dancers, and to classify Circle, Star, BasketSwing, and SwingingStar as figures for four dancers, with generic associative relationships between them. But this approach would have lacked the kinds of multifaceted specificity that would be necessary in order to fully model the various defining characteristics and modifying conditions (i.e., objectProperties and dataProperties) that an ontological model can offer. It was through this elucidating example that this research project pointed toward the validity and usefulness in developing a domain ontology to address the unfolding semantic complexity present in contra dance choreography.
4.4 Content and Domain Analysis of Contra Dance as an ICH Domain
Beyond modeling the universe of classified terms, their properties, and the relationships between them, there was also a network of entities that existed as the historical narrative of the dance tradition itself. At this level, the tradition was composed of the interconnection of those written instructions for dances examined above, and their relationship to the choreographers, callers, musicians, events, venues, tunes, publications, recordings, and other resources that arose from the activity of the ICH being carried out. It was at this level that the conceptual model needed to look at supporting the agents acting within, and describing the content generated by, the tradition: the people, places, things, and concepts that are linked through contra dance heritage.
74
4.4.1 Identification of functional requirements for contra dance domain classes, properties, and relationships. Contra dance heritage placed strong emphasis on the dances themselves as conceptual works from which other aspects of the tradition arose. Without choreographed dances, callers would have no instructions to give as well as nothing to teach, musicians would not have tunes to select to match to those chosen dances, and most pressing of all, dancers would have nothing to do. As a result, individual, choreographed dance works
(or instances of Dance) represented the starting point entity from which all other entities must be modeled.
4.4.1.1 Properties of Dance as an ontological class. As works, choreographed contra dances shared the following basic characteristics or properties: they had a title (and in some cases, an alternateTitle), were composed or written by someone (creator) and some point in time (date), and they had some kind of formal structure (formation). There may have even been a description or note regarding additional contextual details about the dance, as well as an assigned difficulty as judged by the writer of the dance or applied by others (callers, dancers, etc.). Most importantly, they had Figures that were placed in a particular sequence (a1, a2, b1, b2) that corresponded with the music (64-beat tunes) that will accompany them. This AABB sequence was not only vital to capture but modeling the order and duration of the execution of
Figures within an A or B section was also crucial. For all other above-mentioned attributes, objectProperties were created. For the question of the AABB sequences, two possibilities were posited: 1) sections would be further subdivided as a1.1, a1.2, a1.3, etc., to show the simple order of subsequent instructions without regard to the number of beats or counts they took up (if the duration was unknown), or 2) sections would be further subdivided as a1.1-2, a1.1-4, a1.1-6, up to a1.1-16, etc., to show the range or number of beats or counts that would be taken up by that particular Call. In the end, the compromise was to accept two levels of granularity. At the most granular, those instructions which were composed as StructuredCalls using method 2 were used as values for the AABB sections subdivided by beats. The less granular version
75 could be used in more generic sections without beat subdivisions, where notations as written became named instances, which would in turn serve as values for properties a1, a2, etc.
The model also required linking of related dances, tracking versions and variations of a dance to the original, as well as a way of modeling various notated versions recorded in different sources (see section 4.3.1.1). Again, in the example “Delphiniums and Daisies,” objectProperties for Dance would be implemented as follows, in which it is classified as a
MasterDance (which denotes an “original” dance work which is not itself a variant or
VariantDance):
● Delphiniums_and_Daisies (this is a named specific_instance of Dance which 1) may
have associated Expressions which are specific_instances of a NotatedDance as
recorded in a particular Manifestation, and 2) which may also have related versions or
Works19 named as specific_instances of VariantDances or other MasterDances which
have quoted some portion of this dance):
○ title: mandatory string value of the assigned name for the dance from a name
authority [Delphiniums and Daisies]
○ alternateTitle: optional free-text string value of alternative names for the dance, if
applicable
○ creator: specific_instance value from name authority, if known [Rotenberg,
Tanya]
○ dateCreated: date of creation, if known, encoded YYYY-MM-DD [1985]
○ formation: mandatory values from Formation subclass [Duple] [Improper]
○ difficulty: optional value from Difficulty subclass [Beginner]
19 Chapter 5 discusses mapping this structure to other conceptual models, hinted at here with use of WEMI entities from FRBR and LRM.
76
○ description: optional free-text string with additional contextual information about
the dance [“Delphiniums and Daisies is a contemporary contra, composed by
Tanya Rotenberg of Philadelphia in 1985 for her parents on their 20th wedding
anniversary. These flowers were used in her mother’s wedding bouquet”
[(Pittman, Waller, & Dark, 2009, p. 214)]
○ note: optional free-text string with additional calling instructions or other practical
advice [“A variation of the dance substitutes in a balance and swing in the B1
section.”]
○ music: optional value from Tune subclass [Jig] or value from name authority of
specific_instance of Tune
○ a1: would contain an instance of Call in the description of dance instructions for
the A1 section of the dance, or can be subdivided for StructuredCalls
■ a1.1-8: StructuredCall value for beats 1-8 of section A1
[Neighbor+Allemande+LeftHand+OnceAndAHalf]
■ a1.9-16: StructuredCall value for beats 9-16 of section A1
[Ladies+Chain+Across+ToPartner]
○ a2: would contain an instance of Call in the description of dance instructions for
the A2 section of the dance, or can be subdivided for StructuredCalls
■ a2.1-16: StructuredCall value for beats 1-16 of section A2
[LadiesStart+HeyForFour+Across+PassingRight+Full]
○ b1: would contain an instance of Call in the description of dance instructions for
the B1 section of the dance, or can be subdivided for StructuredCalls
■ b1.1-16: StructuredCall value for beats 1-16 of section B1
[Partner+Swing+SixteenCounts]
○ b2: would contain an instance of Call in the description of dance instructions for
the B2 section of the dance, can be subdivided for StructuredCalls
77
■ b2.1-8: StructuredCall value for beats 1-8 of section B2
[RingOfFour+Circle+ToTheLeft+ThreeQuarters]
■ b2.9-16: StructuredCall value for beats 9-16 of section A1
[Neighbor+Allemande+RightHand+OnceAndAHalf]
● hasVariant (property of MasterDance) OR isVariantOf (property of VariantDance)
○ hasVariant: named specific_instance of VariantDance
[Delphiniums_and_Daisies_balance_and_swing_variation]
○ isVariantOf: named specific_instance of MasterDance
[Delphiniums_and_Daisies]
● isQuotedIn: named specific_instance of a related MasterDance [Streetsboro_Daisies]
● quotes: named specific_instance of Dance related to another Dance, if applicable
Figure 3 shows this structure of properties and value spaces needed to support conceptual modeling of Dance in the above-mentioned specific_instance.
This same template was applied to other dances, demonstrating that it met a basic level of conceptual modeling necessary to describe any contra dance. As a result, through an ontological domain model view of Dance, properties of a generic dance (and their relevant data values) could be enumerated, and further specific_instances could be constructed from available contra dance choreography information. Subclasses of Dance (MasterDance and
VariantDance) had the same value space control recommendations, with the only difference between a MasterDance and a VariantDance being the availability of the inverse hasVariant / isVariantOf properties.
78
Property of Dance Values identifying Dance instance Delphiniums_and_Daisies
Title “Delphiniums and Daisies”
alternateTitle
Creator Rotenberg, Tanya
dateCreated 1985
formation Duple | Improper
difficulty Beginner
description “Delphiniums and Daisies is a contemporary contra, composed by Tanya Rotenberg of Philadelphia in 1985 for her parents on their 20th wedding anniversary. These flowers were used in her mother’s wedding bouquet.”
Note “A variation of the dance substitutes in a balance and swing in the B1 section.”
Music any_jig
hasVariant Delphiniums_and_Daisies_balance_and_swing_variation
quotedIn Streetsboro_Daisies
a1
a1.1-8 Neighbor+Allemande+LeftHand+OnceAndAHalf
a1.9-16 Ladies+Chain+Across+ToPartner
a2
a2.1-16 LadiesStart+HeyForFour+Across+PassingRight+Full
b1
b1.1-16 Partner+Swing+SixteenCounts
b2
b2.1-8 RingOfFour+Circle+ToTheLeft+ThreeQuarters
b2.9-16 Neighbor+Allemande+RightHand+OnceAndAHalf
Figure 3. Basic property-value pairs in describing and modeling conceptual components of a Dance, using “Delphiniums and Daisies” as an example. Note that the subproperties for the metrical sections (a1, a2, b1, b2) took instances of StructuredCall, which are constructed through combinations of instances derived earlier in the analysis, as acceptable values. Free-text data values were put in quotation marks to differentiate them from structured values. A vertical bar separated repeated property values. Instances were italicized.
4.4.1.2 Other contra dance domain classes and their properties. When performed, a choreographed dance had the characteristics of an event or performance: it occurred in a
79 certain time and place, and constituted an activity carried out in a particular way by each person involved with a specific role—called by a caller, accompanied by a band or by musicians playing a particular tune or group of tunes, and ultimately, danced by dancers. Events themselves were also larger named entities (such as was the case with dance weekends and festivals) that contained many dances performed within the temporal and spatial confines of the event.
Moreover, events of all sizes and durations were organized by organizers and sponsored or hosted by dance groups.
Beyond the conceptual framework of dance choreography and notation, dance performances themselves have been recorded and dance choreography has been published. A performed Dance may have been photographed or video recorded, either through analog or digital means. The choreographed instructions for a Dance could be printed in monographs by choreographers and callers, in historical surveys and introductions to contra dance, in articles from dance organizations, and on all kinds of web resources, including websites and online databases, which themselves become sources cited in other places. It is this recording and printing of NotatedDances and Performances that moves the conceptual Works and their notated and performed Expressions into a new zone of physical documentation, which anticipated the use of other models to structure this information (see Chapter 5).
The following classes and subclasses were developed to address the additional modeling requirements of contra dance information within an ICH environment, with short definitions attached:
● Agent (specific_instances act as name authority, defined as any entity with agency, the
ability to conduct or carry out actions, or perform roles within the domain)
○ Person (a single human Agent)
○ CollectiveAgent (any aggregated or collective human Agents operating as a
single Agent)
■ Band (a CollectiveAgent composed entirely of Musicians)
80
■ DanceGroup (a CollectiveAgent that carries out cultural functions related
to the promulgation of contra dance as an ICH)
● (additions to the following ConceptClass subclass):
○ Role
■ PersonnelRole (modifies Agent through the hasPersonnelRole
objectProperty to define the nature of the activities like Events and
Performances carried out by an Agent within the domain)
● Caller (an Agent who calledFor an instance of Event or
Performance)
● Choreographer (an Agent who isCreatorOf a Dance)
● Composer (an Agent who isCreatorOf a Tune)
● Musician (an Agent who isMemberOf a Band, or who playedFor
an instance of Event or Performance)
● Organizer (an Agent who hasOrganized an instance of Event or
Performance)
● SoundEngineer (an Agent who managedSoundFor an Event or
Performance)
● Work
○ (reclassification of Dance as a subclass of Work)
■ MasterDance (original Dance work/concept or dance raised to that level
as an exemplar or main version)
■ VariantDance (any Dance which is significantly based on or has modified
some MasterDance, such that it is often thought of a variation or special
version of an original dance)
○ Tune (a musical Work, usually a distinct melody or folk music composition that is
played for country dancing or intended to accompany contra dancing)
81
■ subclasses for types of Tunes based on their musical characteristics (like
time signature): Hornpipe, Jig, March, Reel
● Place (a location in space at which Events or Performances may occur or Agents may
carry out actions)
● Event (something that occurs within the confines of a time and place)
○ EventSeries (an ongoing, standing, or long-running Event such as the entire run
of an annual dance weekend, festival, or periodic local dances, which may have
extended, nebulous, or open-ended space-time boundaries)
■ SingleEvent (a distinct Event which has defined space-time boundaries
such as a single dance weekend or a single occurrence of local dance)
● EventSession (a subdivision of a distinct SingleEvent such as a
dance workshop, the first half of a local dance, or a particular
caller’s set)
● Expression (the physical or intellectual realization of a Work)
○ NotatedDance (the written Expression of a dance in some type of notated form,
as recorded in a Manifestation)
○ Performance (the physical Expression of a dance as performed in a given time
and place, as recorded in a Manifestation)
● Manifestation (the documentation or evidence of an Expression)
○ AnalogManifestation (any Manifestation that is not digital)
○ DigitalManifestation (a Manifestation in a digital, electronic, or web-based format)
Instances of the above ontological classes were provided with descriptions using the following properties, listed with value ranges or data types:
● Agent subclasses:
○ Person properties:
■ givenName (dataProperty): xsd:string
82
■ familyName (dataProperty): xsd:string
■ hasPersonnelRole (objectProperty): specific_instance of PersonnelRole
■ isMemberOf (objectProperty): specific_instance of CollectiveAgent
○ CollectiveAgent (and member subclass) properties:
■ collectiveName (dataProperty): xsd:string
■ hasMember (objectProperty): specific_instance of Person
● PersonnelRole subclasses (objectProperties):
○ Caller
■ calledFor: specific_instance of Performance or Event
○ Choreographer / Composer
■ isCreatorOf: specific_instance of Dance or Tune
○ Musician
■ playedFor: specific_instance of Performance or Event
○ Organizer
■ organized: specific_instance of Performance or Event
○ SoundEngineer
■ managedSoundFor: specific_instance of Performance or Event
● Work (most existing properties are made applicable to instances of Tune subclass)
○ Tune
■ relatedDance (objectProperty): specific_instance of a related Dance
● Place (links to Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, with the following
objectProperties as appropriate, with string values, but also linking to TGN URLs, where
applicable)
○ country
○ stateOrProvince
○ county
83
○ cityOrTown
○ institution
○ building
○ room
● Event (see also properties of Performance)
○ dateOccurred (dataProperty): xsd:dateTime value for the date of an Event or
Performance
○ occurredDuring (objectProperty): specific_instance of Event (at a higher level of
classification than the individual being described)
○ includedOccurrence (objectProperty): specific_instance of Performance or Event
(at a lower level than the individual being described)
○ occurredWith (objectProperty): specific_instance of Event or Performance (at the
same level of classification as the individual being described)
○ tookPlaceAt (objectProperty): specific_instance of Place
○ wasCalledBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of Caller
○ musicWasPlayedBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of Musician(s) or Band
○ wasOrganizedBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of Organizer
○ soundWasManagedBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of SoundEngineer
● Expression (and subclass member) properties:
○ recordedIn (objectProperty): specific_instance of Manifestation in which the
Expression being described has been recorded or documented
○ relatedExpression (objectProperty): specific_instance of a related Expression
which has a different form/format from the Expression being described (as in the
NotatedDance used in a particular Performance)
○ NotatedDance subclass properties:
84
■ dateNotated (dataProperty): xsd:dateTime value for the date of the
notation
■ isNotationOf (objectProperty): specific_instance of Dance
■ aSectionNotation
● a1Notation (objectProperty): specific_instance of Call
● a2Notation (objectProperty): specific_instance of Call
■ bSectionNotation
● b1Notation (objectProperty): specific_instance of Call
● b2Notation (objectProperty): specific_instance of Call
○ Performance subclass properties:
■ dateOccurred (dataProperty as in Event above)
■ tookPlaceAt (objectProperty): specific_instance of Place
■ dancePerformed (objectProperty): specific_instance of Dance
■ tunePerformed (objectProperty): specific_instance of Tune
■ wasCalledBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of Caller
■ musicWasPlayedBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of Musician(s) or
Band
■ wasOrganizedBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of Organizer
■ soundWasManagedBy (objectProperty): specific_instance of
SoundEngineer
● Manifestation
○ both AnalogManifestation and DigitalManifestation properties:
■ datePublished (dataProperty): xsd:dateTime value for the date of
publication
■ isRecordOf (objectProperty): specific_instance of NotatedDance or
Performance
85
■ hasReference (dataProperty): xsd:string value of a bibliographic source or
some related resource
■ hasURI (dataProperty): xsd:anyURI value of a URI for a source of related
resource
■ relatedManifestation (objectProperty): specific_instance of a related
Manifestation (used for connecting an AnalogManifestation to a
DigitalManifestation, and vice versa, as well as connecting related
Manifestations of any format)
It should also be noted that some objectProperties have inverse relationships with other objectProperties to strengthen the kinds of entity relationships modeled in the ontology. For instance, one of the objectProperties for an Expression—recordedIn—has an inverse relationship with the isRecordOf property for a Manifestation. (See section 6.3.2 for a complete list of properties, domains, ranges, and inverse properties defined by the ontology.)
86
Chapter 5: Adaptation and Reuse of Existing Cultural Heritage Models
5.1 Research Questions Addressed and Chapter Overview
This chapter addresses the following research questions:
2a. What is/are the “best” model(s) for adaptation or reuse—if existing models
used for ICH are appropriate—for informing and constructing a knowledge
organization structure for contra dance?
2b. What are the criteria for determining an appropriate match?
2c. Where is it possible to investigate a novel approach?
Now that the functional requirements had been enumerated and the nascent ontological model had been developed in accord with those requirements, this chapter examines and documents decisions made in refining the development of the ontological classes and properties (in
Chapter 4) which were reused or adapted from other models, or those entities and relationships in existing models to which the domain ontology can be mapped. It will also point out the considerations made with regard to ease of conceptualization and usage, adherence to semantic interoperability, and efforts to meet current trends that were implemented in answering the above questions.
5.2 Identifying the Applicability of Existing Cultural Heritage Data and Conceptual Models
Two, or arguably three, existing models have been widely promulgated in their applicability toward managing the complexities of various cultural heritage domains: 1) CIDOC
CRM (see section 2.5.1.1), 2) FRBR (section 2.5.1.2), and their harmonization in 3) FRBRoo
(2.5.1.3). Previous models of performing arts domains, especially music, have found FRBRoo to be useful, particularly in describing the relationships between works, performances, and their documentation. With the advent of IFLA LRM revising the FRBR family of models, there is now an opportunity to reconfigure FRBRoo through a re-harmonization of CRM with the new LRM model.
87
Although this project does not seek to undertake, let alone approach, the above- mentioned reharmonization task, it did utilize and integrate aspects of CRM and LRM where applicable to provide a framework for the modeling of certain domain concepts and relationships. Specifically, the use of LRM WEMI and Agent entities, and aspects of the Event,
Place, Performance Work, Performance Plan, and Performance classes of CRM and FRBRoo, had significant overlap or reuse with the domain model as introduced in Chapter 4.
Additionally, two other models provided subsidiary support. The DOing REusable
MUSic (DOREMUS) model (2.5.1.9), which also modeled musical works, performances, and recordings with its use of FRBRoo Expression Creation and Self-Contained Expression classes, helped inform the development of two types of contra dance Expressions (Notated Dances and
Performances) related to the same Work. The Linked Irish Traditional Music (LITMUS) ontology contributed the idea that a dance work or expression could be conceptualized as being made up of smaller elements, which in the LITMUS model were called Dance_Component, under a newly created subclass of the FRBRoo Expression Fragment class (2.5.1.10). Furthermore, application of the Dublin Core One-to-One metadata principle as implemented in the Cultural
Heritage in Digital Environments (CHDE) model (2.5.1.8) informed the different needs of modeling analog and digital resources at the Manifestation level.
5.3 Determination of Modeling Requirements and Criteria for Suitability of Adaptation and
Reuse: What is “Best”
After using a bottom-up approach to develop the ontology from analysis of the figures, calls, and dances, the process shifted to a top-down strategy to find existing models that could easily stand in for and represent the entities and structures that are perhaps not endemic to contra dance—namely people, places, events, and the related documentation of ICH traditions.
In answer to the above questions, it was posited that the “best” existing models to match to the contra dance domain model should meet the following criteria:
88
1. Ease of use and conceptual flexibility of entities or classes (eschewing overly complex or
baroque systems or models);
2. Very close or exact matching of entities or classes from the contra dance domain to the
definitions of their potential counterparts in the existing model to be reused (preserving
semantic interoperability); and
3. Avoidance of outdated, deprecated, or obsolete standards in favor of newer, updated
models (to keep with current trends and evolving standards), as well as advancing
research interests by applying novel approaches.
5.3.1 Ease of use and conceptual flexibility. One of the major ongoing criticisms of
CIDOC CRM is its vast, complicated array of entity classes and properties, many of which are found to be unnecessary or unused (Linked Art Contributors, n.d.) in cultural heritage projects.
From a wholesale perspective for this project, CIDOC CRM was indeed found to be too unwieldy, expansive, and museum-centric to be completely or solely applicable to contra dance as an ICH domain. However, the classes of CRM that had been reconfigured in FRBRoo to better define the relationships between works (F1 Work, F14 Individual Work, F16 Container
Work, and F20 Performance Work), expressions (F2 Expression, F22 Self-Contained
Expression, and F24 Performance Plan) and performances (F31 Performance), where performances are subsidiary to or concurrent with events (F31 Performance is a kind of E7
Activity, which is part of an F8 Event (E5 Event in CRM)) were deemed appropriate. This small group of relevant entities from CRM/FRBR/FRBRoo provided an easy to comprehend structure of hierarchies and associations that was examined in the creation and implementation of the
Work, Expression, and Event classes and their subclasses in the contra dance domain ontology. The DOREMUS model further explored the implementation of the FRBRoo F28
Expression Creation entity in its intermediary role with regard to creating an F22 Self-Contained
Expression and as a realization of an F14 Individual Work, which consisted of an E7 Activity,
89 carried out by a E21 Person with an M31 Actor’s Function20. This continued to effectively flesh out the relationship between expressions, performances, and the entities carrying them out, and prefigured the relationship of a Person (or Agent) that inhabits or performs a particular
PersonnelRole.
The WEMI entities of FRBR (now LRM) are, of course, also part of the FRBRoo model.
FRBRoo had already provided some important class concepts above, and this further bolstered the use, inclusion, and extension of WEMI in modeling the contra dance domain. Although
FRBR/LRM is an entity-relationship model (not an ontology), and it is intended to organize a bibliographic universe, the noted flexibility and continued reuse of WEMI in other information environments has made it well suited to structure cultural heritage information, including pop culture franchises. That is, the WEMI entities are well-established, well-known, and well- understood, providing a coherent and extensible framework by which to integrate existing contra dance domain concepts alongside other cultural heritage domains. Beyond WEMI, LRM also provided an existing structure for a generic Agent (LRM-E6), which included individual people
(LRM-E7 Person) and groups or organizations (LRM-E8 Collective Agent), both concepts of which exist in contra dance (modeled as Person and CollectiveAgent classes in the domain ontology, respectively). And finally, the notion of separating descriptions or classifications of digital and analog resources as in the CHDE model usefully instructed how different forms of the
LRM Manifestation entity would fit within a model encompassing conceptual works, written and physical expressions, and ways of recording those expressions in both analog and digital formats.
5.3.2 Class definitions and semantic interoperability. As hinted at above, one of the considerations regarding ease of use and flexibility of existing models lies not just in how well-
20 Note that CRM class entities are classified beginning with a letter E, FRBRoo with a letter F, DOREMUS with a letter M, and LITMUS with a letter T.
90 defined and conceptualized the entities and classes of are, but how well those defined entities already match the exact understanding of concepts as they exist in the real world. As a result, the reuse of existing models must have had a high, if not exact, degree of semantic interoperability to have supported mapping from domain model to existing conceptual and data models.
In the context of contra dance, there were two dominant types of conceptual works, or
Work subentities (Dance and Tune), which are represented together in the context of a
Performance. In LRM, the Work entity (LRM-E2) is defined as the “intellectual or artistic content of a distinct creation” (Riva, Le Boeuf, & Žumer, 2017, p. 21), which is “an abstract entity” and a
“conceptual object” which comes into existence by virtue of a first Expression. A Dance and a
Tune both represented types of Works in the contra dance domain, which existed simultaneously as Expressions: namely either notated instructions or descriptions (as
NotatedDances or in sheet music21, respectively) or Performances (as a Dance or a Tune can be expressed by human movement or by sound, respectively, independent of notation or language system). These forms of expression dovetailed with the definition of LRM-E3, the
Expression entity. An Expression in LRM is defined as a “distinct combination of signs conveying intellectual or artistic content” (p. 23), which includes “visual, aural or gestural signs” like “the form of a text, or the particular sounds, phrasing, etc., resulting from the realization of a musical work.” This is an Expression in exactly the same fashion as those sign-filled expressions (notation/gesture/sound) described above as NotatedDances and Performances in contra dance. Those expressions are then captured onto a carrier or set of carriers known as a
Manifestation (LRM-E4), such as in print books, on websites, on video tapes, or in digital recordings. Contra dance already supported this infrastructure of printed/physical and recorded
21 Sheet music consists of, of course, instructions for music in a notated form, but since Tunes are not the main focus of the contra dance ontology, they are not fully modeled here in the same way that Dances are fully modeled works with notated expressions.
91 manifestations, which were classified as AnalogManifestations and DigitalManifestations in keeping with the analog and digital spaces of CHDE. Although the contra dance model did not need to extend down to the Item (LRM-E5) level, in some cases a very specific Manifestation
(e.g., a caller’s dance card) could have been both an Item, as well as a one-of-a-kind
Manifestation (again, the carrier of the dance card) of an Expression (a NotatedDance) of a
Work (Dance), which adheres to the same semantic structure for those entities as LRM.
FRBRoo—in its expansion of WEMI with different subtypes of each of the entities—also supported semantic interoperability with the contra dance domain ontology. An F1 Work
“comprises distinct concepts or combinations of concepts identified in artistic and intellectual expressions...elaborated by one or more Actors simultaneously or over time” the “substance of” which “is ideas” (Working Group on FRBR/CRM Dialogue, 2016, p. 54). This matched more or less seamlessly with the LRM Work entity, but also emphasized the role of people or collective agents in the execution or elaboration of a Work. An F14 Individual Work (a subtype of F1
Work) was also applicable, insofar as it matched the conceptual notion or abstract content of a
Work. This was important in elucidating the notion of a MasterDance (as well as a
VariantDance) which is a fully conceptualized version of a dance constructed out of
StructuredCalls. Moreover, F20 Performance Work, was also applicable, as a set of “concepts for rendering a particular or a series of like performances” (p. 67) which encapsulated the conceptual or abstract content of a Dance, which would be used to guide future Performances of the same dance.
Again, much as in WEMI, an F2 Expression comprised “the intellectual or artistic realisations of works in the form of identifiable immaterial objects, such as texts,...musical or choreographic notations, movement pattern, sound pattern...or any combination of such forms that have objectively recognisable structures” (p. 55). This definition agreed with
NotatedDances as Expressions which give choreographic instructions for the Dance which they describe. A NotatedDance also qualified as an F25 Performance Plan, which comprised “sets
92 of directions to which individual performances...should conform” (p. 71). An F31 Performance involved “activities that follow the directions of a performance plan” (p. 75), and in accord with that, the domain model included an objectProperty for an Expression that was related to another
Expression (relatedExpression), which would allow the NotatedDance used in the course of teaching the Dance work to be connected to a related Performance (which would also be an
Expression of a Dance Work).
A Performance in the domain model, then, was intended to be an Expression of a Work
(in this case a Dance) described with any number of available objectProperties for the components of a Performance. In the context of a contra dance, this is not a performance or demonstration for an audience, but rather it is the carrying out or realization of a dance work within a communal setting in which the conceptual dance instructions are translated or interpreted into physical signs made through the dancers’ movements, supported by a caller’s teaching and prompting and accompanied by live music. The carrying out of the physical movements marks the Performance, but it is recognized that the process of translating dance concepts into the activity of human movement is not the sole component—even if it is the defining element—because contra dance performances include the efforts of callers, musicians, and others to realize them as performances within the context of contra dance culture.
Furthermore, the domain model Performance would also be linked to (or classified as a very narrow type of) Event, which accorded with the FRBRoo class F8 Event, keeping in mind that
Events and Performances occur in Places (FRBRoo class F9 Place, CRM class E53 Place, as well as LRM-E10 Place). This usage was confirmed by applying the same logic of the M43
Performed Expression class in the DOREMUS model, which explicitly addressed the idea that a performance could constitute an expression22 . LITMUS further bolstered the notion of a call
22 In the context of describing musical works, the DOREMUS M43 Performed Expression class “allows the performance to create a specific Expression (called "Performed Expression") which makes it possible to describe changes between an original musical work and its performed version” (Lisena et al., 2018, p.
93
(and perhaps even the components of calls, like figures) being “a smaller element or portion of overall dance choreography” (Weissenberger, 2019), termed a T17_Dance_Component.
LITMUS also provided some analogs for PersonnelRole (e.g., T27_Role class, with instances like I11_Dance_Caller, I23_Composer, and I30_Musician) as well as a way to represent sets of tunes played together (T11_Instrumental_Tune_Set). This class was appropriated in the ontology as TuneSet and modified/extended in this project to describe sets of dances called within the same session, whether at the same dance event, or in a single performance as a medley, strung together by being called one right after another (see section 6.2.2.2).
The following mapping shows the proposed semantic interoperability of relevant entities/classes for the contra dance domain model, LRM, and FRBRoo/CRM (where applicable), including mappings that are supported by analogous DOREMUS and LITMUS classes (Figure 4 below).
5). It was appropriated here to provide a class of expressions which would describe aspects of a performance that was itself an expression of an original work (i.e., dance), including those aspects which occur in the moment of performance (for instance, a Performance related to a NotatedDance in which that NotatedDance expresses the language of calls or patter (Parkes, 2012) used by a caller in the moment of Performance).
94
Contra Ontology LRM classified entities Classified entities from class entities FRBRoo (F) / CRM (E) and FRBRoo extensions through DOREMUS (M) and LITMUS (T)
Work LRM-E2 Work F1 Work
Dance F14 Individual Work or F20 Performance Work M44 Performed Work T14 Dance
Tune F14 Individual Work or F20 Performance Work M44 Performed Work T10 Instrumental Tune
Expression LRM-E3 Expression F2 Expression or F22 Self-Contained Expression
NotatedDance F25 Performance Plan
Performance F31 Performance T16 Dance Performance T36 Music Performance M42 Performed Expression Creation M43 Performed Expression
TuneSet T11 Instrumental Tune Set
Call (subclass of F23 Expression Fragment FunctionalClass) T17 Dance Component
Manifestation LRM-E4 Manifestation F3 Manifestation Product Type or F4 Manifestation Singleton
Agent LRM-E6 Agent E39 Actor
Person LRM-E7 Person F10 Person / E21 Person
CollectiveAgent LRM-E8 Collective Agent F11 Corporate Body
Band T32 Band
PersonnelRole (subclass T27 Role (equivalent to / subclass of F10 of ConceptClass) Person)
Event F8 Event
Place LRM-E10 Place F9 Place / E53 Place
Figure 4. Contra Ontology classes mapped to their semantic and structural equivalent classes from LRM, FRBRoo, DOREMUS, and LITMUS.
5.3.3 Novel approaches with up-to-date models and standards. The final consideration regarding the applicability of existing models involved inclusion of those well-
95 established, semantically interoperable standards which would be in keeping with current usage and trends. LRM represented the most recent addition to models for bibliographic information, as it integrated and updated the FRBR family of models with its publication and endorsement in
2017. Indeed, this project was the first known ICH domain modeling project which had used or mapped to LRM entities. Although older than LRM, the most current official version of FRBRoo dates to 2015 and CRM to 2011, and numerous cultural heritage projects within the past five to ten years (including many of which were reviewed in this project) have still utilized, extended, modified, or mapped to these existing, internationally endorsed standards. Beyond those established models, CHDE (the development of which arises from research conducted 2017-
2018), DOREMUS (in studies from 2015-2018), and LITMUS (in research from 2017-2019) have been presented at recent professional conferences and described in contemporary publications, but have not been widely referenced or utilized beyond the scope of their individual research projects. This project applied aspects of those models to solve issues inherent in representing the contra dance domain, and anticipates future mapping to DOREMUS and
LITMUS to integrate choreography with the modeling of music performances and traditional music (see section 7.4). These models—rounding out solutions for the issues of analog and digital spaces for ICH (CHDE) as well as the paradigms of performances as expressions
(DOREMUS) and traditional Irish music and dance that overlapped with some characteristics of contra dance (LITMUS)—also represented the vanguard of up-to-date KOS for cultural heritage domains with useful and flexible data models applicable to this project.
5.3.3.1 Leveraging the innovation of the LRM Res class to model and trace the lineage of tradition and thematic content. One of the innovations of LRM is its top-level entity, the LRM-E1 Res class, is defined as “any entity in the universe of discourse” (Riva, Le
Boeuf, & Žumer, 2017, p. 20). This entity provides a catch-all to represent any other entity within the model (e.g., Work, Agent, Event) or especially any other concept which will be important to capture in the bibliographic universe but is not classed as a named entity. Res
96
(and other entities in the model) can be further typed or described by using available attributes; an attribute “characterizes instances of entities”23 (p. 17). One of the attributes available to Res is a Category (an attribute classified LRM-E1-A1), which is “a type to which the res belongs” (p.
40). Some of the FunctionalClasses suggested for the ontology (like FiguresForTwoDancers) use this logic to categorize those entities (specific_instances of the class Figure) by the attribute/property numberOfDancers with a xsd:positiveInteger value of 2. But Res could also be used to classify entities which represent some larger trend or lineage of the tradition, like a
“family” of dances. Much like the “superworks” extension of FRBR developed by Kiryakos et al.
(2017), Lee et al. (2018) and Sugimoto et al. (2018) to model franchises and multiverses of pop cultural phenomena (see section 2.5.1.2.1), Res can be used to group entities that share some historical or traditional conceptual source.
Using the Res class as a framework, the ontology was further revised to identify those dances which had some shared conceptual source or inspiration (a Res “superwork” called an
UrDance24 in the ontology). One example of an UrDance known to the author was the set of conceptual and figural requirements described by Chris Page in the development of his dance
“Chinese New Year”:
Written for Joyce Fortune of the Bay Area, won at the auction of the 2010 Spring Fever dance camp at Monte Toyon, CA. She requested a dance with long lines, some balances, and a swing/circle/swing transition. (A surprisingly tough set of requirements
23 As an aside, if LRM was modeled ontologically, a possible way to represent these attributes could be as union or intersection classes, which create and define conditional classes for entities whose instances meet a particular set of criteria (such as all entities that are classified by intended audience) using an available property relationship (or group of property relationships) which has a specified domain and range (as in instances of Expression, Manifestation, and Nomen classes (domains) that can have the attribute (property) “intended audience,” for which values are instances of a class Intended Audience (range)). A class created on some condition (entities which are intended for a specific instance of Intended Audience, like “children”) would then classify entities by the attribute that meets that condition or set of conditions (e.g., a class of “Children’s Materials” would classify any instance that is an Expression, Manifestation, or Nomen that has the attribute of Intended Audience of “children”). 24 The UrDance was used to “represent something old, primeval, or original” (Schonberg, 1974, p. D17), just as an urtext edition of music aligns with what “the composer actually had in mind” (p. D17). Preserving the integrity of source material from which other cultural products are derived helped to model dances that are part of the same conceptual superwork or family. (It would also support extension into music entities that share a common origin with UrTune.)
97
to fulfill.) This sequence was the option she liked best. (Page, n.d.-b, “Chinese New Year”)
Although the other choreographed options that met the above criteria have remained unpublished, the model could represent all of these dances under a single UrDance (perhaps with an instance named Joyce_Fortune’s_request), that at one time shared a single conceptual origin—not as VariantDances based on an original MasterDance, but equally as instances of
MasterDance that had a shared, conceptual provenance. Furthermore, the Res class would also help to further model any dances or group of dances that are later found to have a common root or that inspired new dances using the folk process25. An example of this kind of UrDance could be the original sequence of figures that are featured in the dances in the conceptual family of “Delphiniums and Daisies” (the original dance work by Tanya Rotenberg that is its exemplar, its balance and swing variant developed through the folk process, any other variants that may exist in the future, Cary Ravitz’s dance “Streetsboro Daisies” which quotes from it, and all notated versions of the instructions for these various dances). All of these dances share a tradition, a common source material whose origins would be important for the model to preserve, especially if the folk process or intentional choreographic decisions later create additional dance works from an original conceptual framework.
A second advantage of the Res class would be the opportunity to provide representation of thematic content or subject matter that is not structurally related to dances yet is an important part of the history or context of dance choreography composition and development. This could be represented through the Category attribute, but also by a more structured version of the Res attribute Note (LRM-E1-A2), which provides information that “is not recorded through the use of
25 “In the study of folklore, the folk process is the way folk material, especially stories, music, and other art, is transformed and re-adapted in the process of its transmission from person to person and from generation to generation” (“Folk Process”, n.d.). It has also been defined in the unpublished dissertation Reflections on the Modern Folk Process by Katherine MacDonald as “the process by which cultural artifacts are changed, whether minutely or in significant amounts, to form new cultural products” (as cited in Egenes, 2010, p. 2).
98 specific attributes and/or relationships” (Riva, Le Boeuf, & Žumer, 2017, p. 40). This could include concepts like the conditions under which dances were written (as an auction prize or in honor or a wedding anniversary) or dances that were named or composed within some larger theme, such as dances composed or named with “subjects” like festivals or holidays (e.g.,
“Chinese New Year”), plants (“Delphiniums and Daisies,” “'Fiddleheads”), or even dances
“about” or mentioning birds (“Little Green Heron,” “Songbird,” “Raven Joy,” “Early Rising
Robins”). This contextual information would be especially useful to dance callers and organizers who may wish to create inventive dance programs and events that meet some kind of need beyond figural or structural components. It may also encourage historians and researchers to study trends in thematic content that is of cultural interest to the contra community and its traditions.
99
Chapter 6: Contra Ontology Development, Implementation, and Finalization
6.1 Research Questions Addressed and Chapter Overview
This chapter addresses the following research questions:
3a. How will the domain ontology for contra dance function?
3b. How would it be interoperable with other ontologies, other systems of dance
notation, other dance forms/genres, other performing arts, ritual practices and
traditions with basis in human movement, and related folk music traditions?
With the basic infrastructure of the ontology in place (Chapter 4), and with reuse of and mapping to other domain and data models proposed (Chapter 5), this section of the project reevaluated the ontology in light of further examination of contra dance data and the introduction of instances into the ontology. First, the representation of dance choreography was made more flexible by introducing the concept of a core of structured choreographic data which can enhance or annotate less structured data, or to which less structured data can be linked. Other relationships in the model were revised to reflect complexities that arose with regard to the representation of performances and their components as well as the characteristics of connections between agents. A case use was also diagrammed to show how the ontological properties described the semantic relationships between classes and instances. The classes and properties resulting from this revision process were classified, and the ontology was tested through the use of a reasoner and simple SPARQL queries. Finally, some key aspects of the structural composition of the ontology were offered as opportunities for reuse and interoperability (with a more detailed discussion of these insights and future avenues in Chapter
7).
6.2 Ontology Development as an Iterative Process
The previous two chapters elucidated the steps taken in performing an analysis of the choreographic and cultural content in the contra dance domain (Chapter 4) and reuse or integration with existing conceptual models used to organize and represent cultural heritage
100 information (Chapter 5). By examining dance concepts and instructions and the networks of dance works, dance notations, performances, events, people, groups, and places, the model established functional requirements for a KOS model and emphasized the need to model the domain ontologically in order to capture its inherent complexity. Further revisions, additions, and refinements of concepts, terms, and their placement in hierarchical structures was aided by examination and adaptation of other existing models (CRM, LRM, FRBRoo, CHDE, DOREMUS, and LITMUS). As dances and other information were being considered and added to the ontology, there were also revisions to both the conceptual underpinnings of the ontology, as well as revisions and extensions to the properties needed for some classes of entities. These revisions developed from the recognition of difficulties regarding the structuring of natural language, dance notation, and contra dance choreography concepts, as well as refinements of properties and class relationships when compared to other models.
6.2.1 Revision of the conceptual model for choreography through development of a structured data core linked to and enhancing semi-structured and unstructured data.
Although presented in the fullness of its conceptualization in Chapter 4 as a functional requirement, the process of determining layers of levels of data structuring was only possible after careful consideration of examples of contra dance choreography. Dances with a very basic, simple, or straightforward choreography can easily be interpreted and represented using
StructuredCalls, as they fit easily into providing a structured description with minimum and maximum numbers of components like instances of Figure, DanceRole, Direction and
DistanceDuration. StructuredCalls then are a subclass of Call with instances that have properties and property values meeting certain cardinality constraints as follows:
● hasFigure exactly 1 Figure;
● hasDanceRole exactly 1 DanceRole;
● hasDirection min 1 Direction and max 2 Direction;
● hasDistance exactly 1 Distance or hasDuration exactly 1 Duration; and
101
● numberOfBeats some xsd:positiveInteger.
And yet, there were examples of calls in dances that were not or could not be structured as above. These calls or instructions required more explanation—especially in descriptive natural language—than would have been possible to represent with even a complex
StructuredCall. Furthermore, the very act of reducing natural language instructions or different forms of notation to a single structure would have been to erase an important part of the traditions of the ICH. Just as the paradigm of Indigenous knowledge (see section 2.6) informed research into the necessity of modes of representation that recognized and centered on the value of context, process, and socially constructed meaning, ontology construction in this project also needed to find ways to both represent contra dance choreography in a controlled, formal way and to avoid a totalizing structure that blotted out the diversity of language. Indeed, the way a choreographer wished to describe, a notator wished to notate, and a caller wished to teach and call a dance were all parts of the context and process of creating, disseminating, and transmitting contra dance as an ICH. Furthermore, it was even more crucial to find ways to allow the unstructured natural language of calls and free-text descriptions to not just exist, but to become more discoverable by linking them to calls that would constitute structured data.
Recognizing the need to safeguard all levels of discourse in the description of dance choreography, the notion of solely constructing or indexing calls as structured data was reconfigured to allow the ontology to support levels or layers of structuring. This led to the creation of two additional subclasses of Call: 1) UnstructuredCall, which would be used to represent natural language calls or complex, textual descriptions that could not be meaningfully rendered or distilled into the faceted components needed to produce a StructuredCall and 2)
SemiStructuredCall, an intermediary stage that supported some level of structure and vocabulary control, but could not meet the level of a fully StructuredCall.
As a result, this approach led to the conceptualization of dance choreography information (and the language and concepts with which it is composed) as three levels or layers
102 of data at various stages of semantic enrichment: beginning with an outer realm of unstructured, natural language descriptions and notations; a smaller, secondary zone of semi-structured data comprised of notations that would support some level of structuring using ConceptClass components/vocabulary; and an inner core of structured data that met a required level of representative components (which also represented instances of fully modified Figures). Figure
5 visualizes this conceptual data structure supported by the model, including examples at different levels and their property-value pairs.
Figure 5. Classes/levels of choreographic data structuring supported by the Contra Ontology, with examples of instances, their properties, and data values.
To match this conceptual structure, the Call subclass of FunctionalClass was also revised and further defined:
● Call (any instance of dance instructions or notations within a Work or Expression)
○ StructuredCall
■ Subclasses of this class are named for the exact combination of
ConceptClass instances (Figure, DanceRole, Direction, and
103
DistanceDuration) in a call, and includes a known value for the
dataProperty of numberOfBeats. Ideally, instances of Dance include
StructuredCalls.
○ SemiStructuredCall
■ Instances of this class have some—but not all—of the structural elements
(property-value pairs) defined in a StructuredCall and are eligible for
further refinement and strengthening of structure. Instances of
NotatedDance are likely to include SemiStructuredCalls.
○ UnstructuredCall
■ Instances of this class are essentially “free-text”26 which may receive
structuring in the future and represent natural language instructions such
as calls given by a caller or detailed sentences in the written description
of a dance. Instances of NotatedDance will include portions or sections of
UnstructuredCalls, especially where phrasing of the call is not standard or
conventional, or where data structuring is not appropriate or possible.
Beyond simply providing structured data where possible, the ontology also provided ways to link an instance of SemiStructuredCall or UnstructuredCall to a matching
StructuredCall. This could be done in one of two ways: 1) by asserting the SemiStructuredCall or UnstructuredCall as equivalent to the instance of a StructuredCall if an exact match was determined to exist, or 2) by using an ontological reasoner (see also section 6.4.1) to infer the presence of a StructuredCall in an SemiStructuredCall or UnstructuredCall with properly defined objectProperties and assigned values. Figure 6 shows a screenshot of an example of an
26 These cannot be treated as values of dataProperties because the ontology would not allow xsd:string values to be linked to or made equivalent to an specific_instance in the same way as an objectProperty would. Therefore, the free-text string of a UnstructuredCall notated in a specific way becomes an instance which can be linked to SemiStructuredCalls and StructuredCalls.
104 asserted equivalence in the ontology. Figure 7 shows a screenshot of examples of asserted and inferred instances of StructuredCall. Instances of SemiStructuredCall and UnstructuredCall were then used in the following instances: as values at the less granular level in the description of calls for instances of Dance using the a1, a2, b1, b2 objectProperties (and not the more specific a1.1-2, etc., subdivisions), and as values in the objectProperties for instances of
NotatedDance (a1Notation, etc.).
Figure 6. Protégé software screenshot showing an asserted equivalence of an UnstructuredCall with a matching StructuredCall. A StructuredCall was declared “Same Individual As” an UnstructuredCall, and the UnstructuredCall thereby inherits the structuring of objectProperties and class membership (LadiesChainAcrossToPartner) of the StructuredCall. This was one method employed in the ontology to structure unstructured data by semantically linking it to a more structured version.
105
Figure 7. Protégé software screenshot showing asserted and inferred instances of StructuredCall. Because the StructuredCall class was established as a defined class (meaning that instances met a minimum level of criteria), the ontology can infer instances of StructuredCall for those instances that meet the criteria but are not explicitly asserted as class members (inferred instances are highlighted in yellow). This was the second method to classify structured data by allowing a reasoner to infer the presence of eligible instances of StructuredCall.
6.2.2 Revision of classes and properties to model additional complex relationships in the domain. As more dances, notations, and cultural heritage models were examined, with new instances being populated into the ontology, further revisions were made to classify and describe important relationships within the domain. This included the development of new classes and subclasses, properties and subproperties, and relating instances in additional ways.
6.2.2.1 Further subdivision of objectProperties for NotatedDance calls. Just as in instances of Dance which had objectProperties to describe subsections of the AABB metrical structure, NotatedDance instances also required subdivisions to support their notation of
UnstructuredCall and SemiStructuredCall instances. Because the sequence of calls needed to be captured, but UnstructuredCalls and SemiStructuredCalls may not have had a clear or known number of beats, the objectProperties available for instances of NotatedDance simply
106 designated the order of the sequence, and not both the sequence and duration. Therefore, while a Dance had objectProperties that took StructuredCalls as values (described as values of a1.1-8, a1.9-16, etc.), a NotatedDance had objectProperties named a1’1Notation, a1’2Notation, etc., that took instances of UnstructuredCalls and SemiStructuredCalls, with a naming convention that differentiated them from the representation of StructuredCalls in instances of
Dances.
6.2.2.2 Classes and properties for components and groupings related to
Performances. Another place where the sequence of actions or events was important to model was in those instances which marked the combination or stringing together of tunes or dances performed one after another. As described above, the LITMUS ontology (see section 5.3.2 and
Figure 4) provided the impetus in this ontology for the creation of a TuneSet class to describe and classify groups of instances of Tune performed as one unit. An instance of TuneSet could then be used as a value for the property tunePerformed in describing an instance of
Performance, and the TuneSet would itself be described with objectProperties that state the sequence of the instances of Tune played (tune1, tune2, tune3, etc.). Therefore, an instance of
TuneSet was defined as any entity that was a value of tunePerformed used to describe a
Performance and would itself be described using instances of Tune as values for properties tune1, tune2, etc. (i.e, a Tune which is itself a kind of composite tune). A class of
PerformanceSet was created as a type of FunctionalClass (which had acted previously as a superclass for classes and instances which were composites of other classes, like Calls), and
TuneSet was classified under PerformanceSet. Two additional classes for dance groupings similar in concept to the TuneSet were also created: DanceSet and Medley. A DanceSet was created to house the collection of Dances called within the scope of a specific Event or a subclass of Event (much like a set list for a concert), and was defined as any entity that occurredWith an instance of EventSession and that had Dance values for properties dance1, dance2, etc. A Medley identified a special kind of grouping of Dances which had been called
107 one after another in a single, discrete Performance; in this case the Medley acted as one instance of Dance, without a break between each individual Dance. An instance of Medley was defined (similarly to the TuneSet) as any entity that was an instance of dancePerformed used to describe a Performance and was itself described using instances of Dance for properties dance1, dance2, etc. (i.e, a Dance which is itself a kind of composite dance).
6.2.2.3 Classes and properties revised to model the Agent class and its relationships. One of the revisions to the objectProperties of the ontology was discovered in examination of the relationships within and among practitioners of contra dance as an ICH. For instance, descriptions of dances often explained their origins or contextual information such as how they had been written for or dedicated to specific people or organizations. It was found that a great deal of contra dance heritage was bound up not just in the relationships between callers, musicians, organizers, etc., who worked together on dance events but also in the networks of relationships between Agents in the contra dance community that spurred the creation of new dances or adaptations of existing dances. As a result, instances of Work (meaning both Dances and Tunes) would have available objectProperties for describing dances writtenFor and dedicatedTo instances of Agent. A Dance described as writtenFor an Agent defined a relationship where the Dance was created expressly for an individual or group; dedicatedTo implied a relationship where a Dance was connected to the thought or memory of an individual or group either during the process of, or after, its creation.
Given the importance of regional and local relationships in the contra dance community, it was also found that knowing location information was important for not just Events or
Performances, but also for Agents. An objectProperty of isBasedIn would then describe the home location(s) of instances of Agents. It was also crucial to have properties to describe personal relationships among Dancers and Musicians, such as those who attended / danced an
Event or Performance, as well as Musicians and Bands that played together, as collaboration was a key component of these community connections. An objectProperty of attendedBy
108 described Events and Performances with instances of Agents who were participants, and objectProperties of dancedWith and playedWith allowed representation of those important community interactions delineated above. Other important personal and professional relationships were modeled with the following objectProperty inverse pairs: mentorOf / menteeOf and influenced / influencedBy. Time frames for these relationships were also important to measure, so additional dataProperties were created as birthDate and deathDate for instances of Person and foundedDate and disbandedDate for Collective Agent instances.
Although NotatedDances expressed some conceptual Dance, it was often important to keep track of who was responsible for a particular notation. This was important not just in the case of the original notation by the Dance creator, where a Work is instantiated in its first
Expression, but also the ways in which other notators had chosen to use their skills or preferences in notating a Dance, and to track similarities in notation styles. To reflect this relationship, an objectProperty of notator was created to describe this aspect of a NotatedDance
(like the creator of a Dance), and a PersonnelRole of Notator was implemented to house instances of those who penned notations. Similarly, instances of Manifestation called for describing the Agents responsible for their creation and dissemination. A class of Publisher was used for entities making resources available, and Documenter was established for the entities whose actions documented evidence of performances, as in those who filmed dances or audio recorded calls or tunes, described by objectProperties of publisher and documenter, respectively.
6.2.2.4 Further delineating properties of the calling tradition. In examination of the heritage inherent in dance calling, the language used in the called versions of dance performances was found to be so distinct in character that even when arising from a notated version (like the notation on a caller’s dance card), a new subclass of Expression termed a
CalledDance was meant to reflect called versions as separate from (but potentially related to)
NotatedDances. A CalledDance then represented a verbal Expression of a Dance which could
109 be performed (and recorded) both within (as part of or related to) and separate from (as in the case of a calling demonstration) the context of a dance Performance. A CalledDance instance would have objectProperties structured in similarly to those for a NotatedDance (a1’1Called, a1’2Called, etc.), and those properties would take Calls as instances.
Although it would be difficult to know the number of repetitions of a Dance that take place in a single performance27, knowing the duration of a performance was thought to be important for understanding the nature of contra dance and the length of its dance performances and its accompanying music performances, since a major compliment or criticism of the calling tradition is whether or not dancers perceived that dances were “too short” or ran on “too long.” A dataProperty of eventDuration allowed capture of this information for the duration of Events and Performances. Manifestations were also given a dataProperty of resourceDuration to capture, in part, the length of recorded Performances.
6.2.2.5 Revision of inverse properties. The final significant revision to the objectProperties of the ontology was the establishment of inverse properties (and their domains and ranges) where possible to strengthen the inferences made by the ontology. (A complete list of properties, inverse properties, domains and ranges can be found below in section 6.3.2.)
6.3 Ontology Implementation
Once revised, the ontology was populated with instances to support the illustration of use cases (section 6.3.3) and further testing (section 6.4). As part of the final implementation, classes and properties were fully documented and organized as seen below.
27 The number of times dancers went through a dance were not usually counted by a caller, but were more than likely determined by the caller watching the dance floor and ending a dance based on the location of a pair or group of dancers preselected at the start of the dance ending more or less where they began after multiple progressions, ensuring that everyone was able to move up and down the line sufficiently to experience the dance with all the other dancers in that major set. Some other callers have used a stopwatch and have timed dances to conclude after a certain number of minutes.
110
6.3.1 Contra Ontology classes. Figure 8 shows the names and hierarchical structure of classes found in the proposed ontology.
Top Level Second Level Third Level Fourth Level Fifth Level
Res
Work
Dance
MasterDance
VariantDance
Tune
Hornpipe
Jig
March
Reel
Expression
CalledDance
NotatedDance
Performance
Manifestation
AnalogManifestation
DigitalManifestation
Agent
Person
CollectiveAgent
Band
DanceGroup
Event
EventSeries
SingleEvent
EventSession
111
Place
ConceptClass
Figure
Role
DanceRole
Dancer
DancerUnit
PersonnelRole
Caller
Choreographer
Composer
Documentor
Musician
Notator
Organizer
Publisher
SoundEngineer
Direction
LinearDirection
RotationalDirection
DistanceDuration
Distance
DistanceByDestination
DistanceInPlaces
Duration
DurationInCounts
FractionalDuration
Formation
Progression
Difficulty
112
Position
Handhold
Footwork
FunctionalClass
Call
StructuredCall
SemiStructuredCall
UnstructuredCall
PerformanceSet
DanceSet
Medley
TuneSet
Theme
UrDance
Culture
Figure 8. Classes of the Contra Ontology, including their names and hierarchical structure.
6.3.2 Contra Ontology objectProperties, inverse properties, domains, and ranges.
Figure 9 shows the names, domains, ranges, and inverses of objectProperties found in the proposed ontology.
objectProperty Domain Range Inverse Property
calledFor Agent Performance or Event wascalledBy
isCallerOf Agent CalledDance caller
isCreatorOf Agent Work creator
hasMember CollectiveAgent Agent isMemberOf
dancedWith Agent Agent (dancedWith)
hasPersonnelRole Agent PersonnelRole isPersonnelRoleOf
hasWorkWrittenFor Agent Work writtenFor
influenced Agent Agent influencedBy
113
influencedBy Agent Agent influenced isBasedIn Agent Place isLocationBaseOf isDedicateeOf Agent Work dedicatedTo isDocumentorOf Agent Manifestation documentor isMemberOf Agent CollectiveAgent hasMember isNotatorOf Agent NotatedDance notator isPublisherOf Agent Manifestation publisher menteeOf Agent Agent mentorOf mentorOf Agent Agent menteeOf playedFor Agent Event or Performance musicWasPlayedBy playedWith Agent Agent (playedWith) organized Agent Event or Performance wasOrganizedBy managedSoundFor Agent Event or Performance soundWasManagedBy wasAttendeeOf Agent Event or Performance attendedBy hasDanceRole Call or Figure DanceRole hasDirection Call or Figure Direction hasDistance Call or Figure Distance hasDuration Call or Figure Duration hasFigure Call Figure attendedBy Event or Performance Agent wasAttendeeOf includedOccurrence Event Event or Performance occurredDuring occurredDuring Event or Performance Event includedOccurrence occurredWith Event Event (occurredWith) tookPlaceIn Event Place wasLocationOf aSectionCalled* CalledDance Call bSectionCalled* CalledDance Call caller CalledDance Agent isCallerOf isCalledVersionOf CalledDance Dance hasCalledVersion aSectionNotation* NotatedDance Call bSectionNotation* NotatedDance Call
114
isNotationOf NotatedDance Dance hasNotation notator NotatedDance Agent isNotatorOf dancePerformed Performance Dance or Medley dancePerformedDuring musicWasPlayedBy Event or Performance Agent playedFor soundWasManagedBy Event or Performance Agent managedSoundFor tunePerformed Performance Tune or TuneSet tunePerformedFor wasCalledBy Event or Performance Agent calledFor wasOrganizedBy Event or Performance Agent organizer recordedIn Expression Manifestation isRecordOf relatedExpression Expression Expression (relatedExpression) hasFootwork Figure Footwork hasHandhold Figure Handhold hasPosition Figure Position documenter Manifestation Agent isDocumenterOf isRecordOf Manifestation Expression recordedIn publisher Manifestation Agent isPublisherOf relatedManifestation Manifestation Manifestation (relatedManifestation) dance1** Medley or DanceSet Dance tune1** TuneSet Tune country Place Place stateOrProvince Place Place county Place Place cityOrTown Place Place institution Place Place building Place Place room Place Place isLocationBaseOf Place Agent isBasedIn wasLocationOf Place Event or Performance tookPlaceIn isPersonnelRoleOf PersonnelRole Agent hasPersonnelRole creator Work Agent isCreatorOf
115
aSection* Dance Call
bSection* Dance Call
dancePerformedDuring Dance or Medley Event or Performance dancePerformed
difficulty Dance Difficulty
formation Dance Formation
hasCalledVersion Dance CalledDance isCalledVersionOf
hasNotation Dance NotatedDance isNotationOf
music Dance Tune or TuneSet relatedDance
progression Dance Progression
dedicatedTo Work Agent isDedicateeOf
hasVariant Dance Dance isVariantOf
isQuotedIn Work Work quotes
relatedWork Work Work (relatedWork)
relatedDance Tune or TuneSet Dance music
tunePerformedFor Tune Performance tunePerformed
Figure 9. Contra Ontology objectProperties, including names, domains, ranges, and inverse properties. *Metrical sections have subproperties (not shown here for the sake of brevity) for specific sections of dances by sequence and/or number of beats. **There are numbered versions of these properties (again, not shown for brevity) to support the number and sequence of dances in a DanceSet or Medley instance and the number and sequence of tunes in a TuneSet instance.
6.3.3 Contra Ontology dataProperties, domains, and ranges. Figure 10 shows the names, domains, and ranges of dataProperties found in the proposed ontology.
dataProperty Domain Range
collectiveName CollectiveAgent xsd:string
disbandedDate CollectiveAgent xsd:dateTime
foundedDate CollectiveAgent xsd:dateTime
birthDate Person xsd:dateTime
deathDate Person xsd:dateTime
familyName Person xsd:string
givenName Person xsd:string
116
numberOfBeats Call xsd:positiveInteger [>=1, <=16]
dateOccurred Event or Performance or CalledDance xsd:dateTime
eventDuration Event or Performance xsd:duration
eventName Event xsd:string
dancersFacing Figure xsd:boolean
dancersJoinedHands Figure xsd:boolean
hasTwirl Figure xsd:boolean
numberOfDancers Figure xsd:positiveInteger
datePublished Manifestation xsd:dateTime
hasReference Manifestation xsd:string
hasURI Manifestation xsd:anyURI
resourceDuration Manifestation xsd:duration
dateNotated NotatedDance xsd:dateTime
dateCreated Work xsd:string
description Work xsd:string
note Work xsd:string
alternateTitle Work or Expression or Manifestation xsd:string
title Work or Expression or Manifestation xsd:string
nomen Res xsd:string
Figure 10. Contra Ontology dataProperties, including names, domains, and ranges.
6.3.4 Visualization of specific use case with domain entities and relationships modeled as classes, properties, and instances. Continuing to follow the example of
“Delphiniums and Daisies” used earlier in the analysis of contra dance and in the development of the initial draft of the ontology, Figure 11 shows a visualization of an instance of a performance of that dance work that took place on August 6, 2011 organized by the Childgrove
Country Dancers of St. Louis, Missouri as modeled through the ontology, with some associated information surrounding the use case also made part of the visualization.
117
Figure 11. Visualization of a resulting semantic network of ICH information from the use case modeling of an instance of Performance. This is a performance by the Childgrove Country Dancers of the dance work “Delphiniums and Daisies” by Tanya Rotenberg, called by Bob Green with music by Reel Women and the Jigelos. The visualization also shows links to various upper level ontological classes as well as an associated notation of the dance by Bob Green and the video recording documentation of the performance.
6.4 Ontology Testing and Finalization
With the introduction of instances and use cases, the final steps of ensuring the ontology met its functional requirements and was able to represent important aspects of the contra dance came through the use of a semantic reasoner to determine if the ontology was logically consistent, and through the use of basic SPARQL queries to retrieve information from the ontology. Once the ontology met these benchmarks, the specification was finalized for future web publication.
6.4.1 Ontological inferences by built-in reasoner. One of the most powerful facets of an ontology is the ability to make inferences about implicit knowledge that is based on explicitly asserted information or rules. Inferences, in the context of the Semantic Web, are “automatic procedures” that “can generate new relationships based on the data and based on some additional information in the form of a vocabulary, e.g., a set of rules” (World Wide Web
Consortium, 2015). The asserted or defined classification structures and relationships between
118 entities in an ontology support the ability to make inferences using the foundational logic of
OWL 2 that was used to build the ontology. This logic is then used by a software application called a reasoner to make deductions about new facts that are derived from information already present in the ontology (Abburu, 2012). The Protégé software used to build the Contra
Ontology has several reasoners available as plug-ins, including the HermiT OWL Reasoner.
According to its developers—the Information Systems Group in the Department of Computer
Science at the University of Oxford—HermiT “can determine whether or not the ontology is consistent, identify subsumption relationships between classes, and much more” and is “the first publicly-available OWL reasoner based on a novel “hypertableau” calculus which provides much more efficient reasoning than any previously-known algorithm” (Information Systems Group, n.d.). This reasoner has been used to verify the validity of the ontology by checking it for conflicts and has ensured the ontology is operating with sound, consistent logic. Furthermore, the reasoner has been enabled to test the logical assertions of the ontology by leaving examples of known entities unclassified by what would be their known classes, but instead solely defined through property relationships. As a result, the reasoner was able to classify instances based on their property value assertions meeting the criteria of a defined ontological class. This also helped establish instances of defined subsets of dance works and members of
FunctionalClasses. The following screenshots in Figures 12, 13, and 14 show the presence of classified instances inferred or deduced by the reasoner based on the fulfillment of specific criteria or logical requirements.
119
Figure 12. Protégé software screenshot showing inferred duple improper dances. The reasoner used the defining criteria (under Equivalent To) for members of the DupleImproperDance class (instances of dances with formation defined as Duple and Improper) and inferred members of that class (under the list of Instances highlighted in yellow).
Figure 13. Protégé software screenshot showing inferred figures performed by two dancers. The reasoner used the defining criteria (under Equivalent To) for members of the FiguresForTwoDancers class (instances of figures defined with a value of 2 as the numberOfDancers) and inferred members of that class (under the list of Instances highlighted in yellow).
120
Figure 14. Protégé software screenshot showing inferred sets of tunes. The reasoner used the defining criteria (under Equivalent To) for members of the TuneSet class (instances defined with tune1, tune2, etc., objectProperties) and an inferred member of that class (under the list of Instances highlighted in yellow).
6.4.2 Examples of SPARQL queries and results. An additional method of testing the ontology as a potential knowledge base was to ensure that the ontology could return valid answers to basic queries. SPARQL is the language used to construct queries involving data stored in RDF format (World Wide Web Consortium, 2013), like that found in an ontology. It should be noted that unlike the reasoner, SPARQL queries do not return implied knowledge, so query results are only provided if the ontological relationships are explicitly asserted, not implied. Figure 15 shows a basic SPARQL query and results duplicating the inferred results shown in Figure 12 of a list of dances in duple improper formation. Figure 16 shows the query and results for the name of a dance that is set to a tune which has an alternate title “The Glen
Road to Carrick.” Figure 17 shows the query and results for a list of choreographers based in
Ohio, where the ontology was populated with four asserted instances of choreographers (Don
Armstrong, Becky Hill, Carol Kopp, and Tanya Rotenberg) and three instances of Agent based in Ohio (Becky Hill, Carol Kopp, and Dick Swain).
121
Figure 15. Protégé software screenshot showing a SPARQL query and results for dances with both duple and improper formations. The query first identifies dances in duple formation, and then those dances in duple formation which are also improper.
Figure 16. Protégé software screenshot showing a SPARQL query and results for a dance which is set to a tune with the alternate title “The Glen Road to Carrick.” The query first identifies dances that have tunes to which they are set, and then finds tunes with an alternate title data value matching a literal string value as entered in the query.
122
Figure 17. Protégé software screenshot showing a SPARQL query and results for choreographers based in Ohio. The query first selects instances of choreographers, then identifies where those choreographers are based, and then identifies which choreographers are based in a location with Ohio as the value for the property stateOrProvince.
6.4.3 Finalization of the specification. The Contra Ontology files can be downloaded from https://lcoladan.wixsite.com/contradance/contra-ontology.
6.5 Contra Ontology and Its Potential for Interoperability
Although this ontology offered a way of organizing and representing the knowledge of a very specific ICH domain, there could be a number of opportunities where both the structure of the ontology and the formal aspects of its conceptual development encourage reuse and integration with other knowledge organization systems, especially other ontologies.
6.5.1 Interoperability through domain overlap and linked data approaches. First, the Contra Ontology continued the process of defining, refining, and contextualizing domain entities and their attributes and descriptions related to the contra dance community and its traditions. Contra dance is, of course, only one branch of the larger history of the country dance
ICH, but many of the modeling techniques could be easily extrapolated to encompass representation of English country dance and traditional square dancing, if not other subgenres
123 of country dance. Other forms of country dance ICH would also benefit from ontological modeling, and the domain model for contra dance, which has been influenced by and been influential to other forms of country dance, would be significantly enhanced by linking its own
KOS to those of other related domains. Furthermore, such an expanded country dance ontology would be a compliment to the work that has been done in representing traditional Irish music (through the LITMUS ontology), an ICH with some common traits with the repertoire of contra dance music, which pulls together tunes from, among others, Irish, Scottish, French-
Canadian, and old-time music traditions. This would also mark an opportunity to integrate country dance with a growing list of music domain representations and data models developed as linked data initiatives, ontologies, or cataloging projects extending formal standards like
FRBRoo. And while not explicitly built as an extension of LRM or FRBRoo, it has been demonstrated that this ontology readily dovetails with their overall structures, making integration with other models built on those standards possible.
The process of ontology building for ICH domains is also the structuring of ICH information as linked data. This is another important way the Contra Ontology supports interoperability with other ICH linked data projects and could lead to its contributing to a semantic portal providing federated access to related ICH linked data. Much in the same way the Sampo model (section 2.5.1.7) created an infrastructure to allow data from multiple ontologies related to Finnish history and cultural heritage to be integrated and searched together, the Contra Ontology could become one of the ontologies in a “sampoed” network of ontologies for country dance, for traditional Anglo-Celtic-American folk music and dance, or for exploration of other folk dance ICH. As metadata schemas and domain models for other folk traditions are developed, it may even be possible to use both ontologies and dance notation methods in tandem to provide multiple simultaneous methods of representing and comparing movement-based ICH across cultures.
124
6.5.2 Conceptual interoperability with other ICH domains. Moreover, the conceptual underpinnings of the development of the representation of contra dance choreography could also provide a roadmap to guide future KOS for performing arts, ritual practices, and movement- based ICH. Five of the strategies employed in modeling contra dance choreography were 1) the creation of a structured, modular, additive dance “grammar” of component dance concepts
(represented with a controlled vocabulary) assembled in an established syntactical order, through the use of instances with a minimum level of necessary described properties
(StructuredCalls); 2) methods for representing discrete, sequential actions found in dance instructions through ontological properties of the described dance work or expression (the metrical sections of Dance, NotatedDance, and CalledDance), 3) differing levels of data structuring to support both the needs of ontological modeling (StructuredCalls) and the various levels of natural language and notated discourse (UnstructuredCalls and SemiStructuredCalls) present in the domain; 4) support for differing levels of data structuring found at the different levels of domain discourse (StructuredCalls for Dances, UnstructuredCalls and
SemiStructuredCalls in NotatedDances and CalledDances); and 5) rendering dance instructions as objects (“things, not strings”) to allow semantic annotation of less structured data by either equivalence assertion or ontological inference. After successful use in the structuring of the
Contra Ontology, these strategies could then be employed to other kinds of cultural performances, demonstrations, rituals, ceremonies, and formalized systems of motion which have the following essential characteristics: 1) ICH composed of fundamental units of movement or gesture combined together in their practice or carrying out, 2) ICH marked by an adherence to or a requirement to describe or understand actions or events as occurring in a specific sequence or order, and 3) ICH that tolerate or support, as part of their cultural expression, multiple modes of symbolic communication or linguistic representation to indicate, reference, or describe the same concepts. It stands to reason that ICH which share these characteristics would benefit from a similar treatment in terms of domain modeling approaches,
125 and would be at least conceptually interoperable with the Contra Ontology (if not logically and physically with some adaptation) especially if integrated or built within a larger model supporting the essential ICH characteristics described above.
126
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions
7.1 Thesis Summary
This project to design a conceptual model for the community folk dance tradition of contra dance resulted in the construction of a domain ontology. The study concluded that ontological modeling and semantic technologies were well-suited to structure information about contra dance, and the ontology would serve as the infrastructure for a knowledge base to safeguard and disseminate contra dance history and culture. Insights gained in the development of the ontology also provided a number of suggested principles and standards to aid future ICH domain modeling research. Prompted by the safeguarding paradigm initiated through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage as well as a perceived lack of domain models serving as preservation methods for intangible cultural heritage in North
America, this research examined a New England / Appalachian form of country dance, a form of social dancing with roots in 17th century England. A survey of dance resources was conducted, reviewing examples of choreography notation and instructions, records of dance events, and video recordings of dance performances. Domain and content analysis were performed on the resources to determine concepts and themes regarding choreographic components and their relationships, the structure and function of cultural works, their creative expressions and performances, and the evidence of their expressions in documents and recordings. Ontology building methodology and previously developed models for cultural heritage domains guided the ontology development, revision, and testing phases. The model carried out in the ontology presented a way to represent the flexible, modular nature of contra dance choreography as structured data through establishment of a standard vocabulary and syntactical structure, as well as the sequential order of movements. It simultaneously supported the semantic enhancement of unstructured and semistructured choreographic data found in the natural language instructions of dance calling and varying traditions of written notation, which were
127 necessary parts of the dance heritage to preserve. The ontology also classified and described the properties of other entities found in the cultural heritage domain, such as dance works, performances, dance practitioners and groups, and the places dance events occur. The top levels of the ontology were also adapted from or mapped to the IFLA Library Reference Model
(LRM) and the object-oriented Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBRoo) model. Suggested opportunities for future research included integration of the ontology with other relevant knowledge organization systems, domain ontologies, conceptual models, and dance notation methods, extension to other related intangible cultural heritage, as well as developing metadata standards and other semantic technologies to further safeguard contra dance history and tradition.
7.2 Discussion
A number of key insights were gained in the creation and development of the Contra
Ontology. First, it was demonstrated that contra dance was well suited to be modeled ontologically, and its unique characteristics presented challenges and requirements that an ontology could address. This included the opportunity to use instances of choreographic components, and relevant properties, to construct more complex choreographic entities, and to define and modify those entities as they occurred in different contexts. Ontological modeling also provided a way to link conceptual works to their linguistic and temporal expressions/realizations and to link those expressions/realizations to physical and digital documentary evidence that is part of the cultural record of the contra dance community.
Moreover, the ontology allowed connections to be made between the ICH concepts, expressions, and evidence of practice and the context of the people that have carried it out and the places in which has historically lived and flourished.
Beyond that underlying foundation to support a knowledge base for contra dance, the ontology was shown to be ready for extension or mapping to other ontologies and models, including the use of linked data approaches, and it also provided some ideas for avenues,
128 strategies, and techniques to model or represent other kinds of ICH. In order to represent the complexities of entities, their defining characteristics, and the relationships between those entities, this project posited the efficacy of, and built, an ontological model to provide the infrastructure of an ICH knowledge base for contra dance. An ontology was a valuable choice over other forms of KOS for two important reasons: 1) the ability to semantically represent the complexity of hierarchical and associative relationships between entities as well as their properties, and 2) its automatic integration into a linked data environment. It is these two characteristics of ontological modeling which support its future interoperability. It was also found that the modularity of components and the representation of sequences were two crucial aspects for any ontological model of contra dance to support. Additionally, the model posited a structured data core to which less structured data could be linked, semantically enhancing and annotating unstructured and semi-structured data. In this way, the model supported both different levels of cultural expression while maintaining structured representation of the domain.
These outcomes, along with examination of their applicability to other related dance and music traditions as well as similarly situated ICH domains, aspire to a set of draft principles for ICH domain modeling and representation elucidated below.
7.2.1 Structural and semantic approaches to enhancing domain data. A principal hurdle encountered in the study was, ironically, part of the strength of contra dance as a cultural tradition: the interplay between the combination of established and alternate terms or names for figures; the semi-structured vocabulary of dance notation, instructions, and choreography; and natural language expressions used as calls in performance, marked by a caller’s individual style, choice of words, and speaking patterns. As was discussed in the analysis of contra dance choreography (Chapter 4), even among written, notated versions of the same dance work, there were multiple “translations” or “transliterations,” in which each notator provided their own shorthand for spelling out the components of dance calls for instructional or documentation purposes. Rather than seeking to completely codify contra dance choreography into one unified
129 system, this project accepted this conundrum—or welcomed the opportunity—to recognize that an important element of contra dance history is preserving the individual and regional variations in figure names and call structures. Subsuming all calls and notations into one system of representation would have erased this important tradition from the domain model. So, in recognizing the impossibility of completely and totally modeling and structuring the traditional and natural language of contra dance, the acknowledgment of the necessity of its presence provided the impetus to address the problem as a semantic one. By creating linkages between concept (dance choreography) and variation (dance notation)—and between the stages of unstructured, semistructured, and structured data present in dance choreography and dance calling—semantic annotation leveraged through ontological domain modeling of contra dance information bridged the gap between the disparate nature of the tradition itself and the design of a functional system to make it more accessible than it previously was.
7.2.2 Immediate opportunities for expansion and integration of the Contra
Ontology with other adjacent domains and KOS. With future population of additional instances and its use by domain practitioners, this contra dance knowledge base stored in the
Contra Ontology will hopefully flourish in capturing and safeguarding the cultural significance of the tradition of creative works promulgated by contra dance practitioners, organizations, events, and resources. It may also be expanded to cover other forms of country dance, given the similarities they possess in vocabulary, modularity of choreographic components, formal aspects of dance structure and sequence, levels and traditions of notation, methods of dance instruction, expressions of creative works, and networks of practitioners. Integration with other knowledge organization systems that overlap in structure, domain, and content, like LRM and
FRBRoo, the LITMUS ontology, the American Folklore Society Ethnographic Thesaurus through the Library of Congress (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/ethnographicTerms.html), and the controlled vocabulary for types of musicians provided by The Getty Research Institute Art and
Architecture Thesaurus (https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/) offer immediate
130 inroads to expanding the Contra Ontology to represent related folk music traditions and concepts with linked data approaches. Labanotation, structured as an XML schema either through MovementXML (Hatol, 2006) or LabanXML (Nakamura and Hachimura, 2006) would easily provide Labanotation-style markup to contra dance information encoded in XML, or integration with an Labanotation-based ontology developed by El Raheb and Ioannidis (2011) would link contra dance choreographic vocabulary and its properties to their equivalent representations in Labanotation.
7.2.3 A set of aspirational draft principles for organizing and representing other
ICH domains. When extrapolating the value of the Contra Ontology and the methods of analysis and ontology development employed in this project to other domains (see section
6.5.2), it was found that the following concepts provided important aspirational benchmarks or guidelines that could be used to develop and evaluate models of other movement-based ICH traditions. Although they have not been used as a means of measuring or evaluating this project, they are posited here for consideration and future debate. These have been termed here by the author as the ICONTRA (Intangible Culture ONTological Representation and
Application) principles, which endeavor to see more ICH domain modeling projects which seek to support and represent:
1. Modularity of components, from their most basic or atomic level to their highest
aggregated level, including any intermediary stages of combinations of components
found in the practice of the ICH. Understanding choreography, or any system of
aggregated, stylized movement as a form of physical expression with intricacies and
complexities which can also be broken down into simpler gestures or motions will
provide a foundation for discovering similarities in dance components among different
styles of dance. The same modeling mindset can also be extended to any ICH traditions
that have individual elements put together in purposeful, substantive combinations. One
way to think of it would be as a vocabulary or collection of concepts which become more
131
meaningful as they are combined or modified by other concepts, as if building sentences
from words, and narratives from strings of sentences. Many ICH have their own sets of
terms, concepts, themes, archetypes, etc., that are often reconfigured or
recontextualized by combination or permutation. Any system that seeks to represent
folkloric or cultural content should allow for representation of any number of basic
concepts as well as complex ones linked or traced back to their original, basic, or
simplest component elements.
2. Sequences, timelines, or the order of events or concepts. Movement does not happen
independent of time, and an important characteristic of dance and other ritualized motion
is not just the static forms in which the human body is posed at moments in time, but in
the transitions from one gesture to another. In continuing to employ the narrative
metaphor, a cogent story requires an understanding of a sequence of actions occurring
one after another, often with aggregated, self-referential, or repeating information in
order to construct meaning. Knowing the order of actions in a performance or ritual is
just as important as comprehending the discrete meanings of its components. Music,
theater, and dance are inseparable from the passage of time, and the proper
performance of ritualized movement found in ICH like religious ceremonies and martial
arts relies heavily on carrying out of a known sequence of events. The role and
importance of historical time frames, narrative order, and sequential activities should
also be considered in ICH modeling.
3. Differing levels of conceptualization, instantiation, and domain concept discourse. ICH
may embody entire traditions and practices which include any number of tangible
objects, animate beings, physical places and structures, or intangible activities and
concepts. All levels of instantiation, corporealization, and realization of the ICH domain
should be represented and connected. This should include ways to represent and
connect intangible concepts and ideas, the various expressions and realization of those
132
concepts, and the evidence of those expressions that come to exist. It should be
understood that all levels of abstractions, processes, conveyances, and embodiments of
the ICH contain vital information: about the nature of their own creation and meaning
(reflexive information), about one another (relational information), and about the ICH
itself (explanatory information).
4. Alternate forms of signs, languages, or notations for similar or identical concepts.
Representation of an ICH may also be complicated by the vantage point of the observer,
which may not accord with the culture (and cultural presuppositions) of the knowledge
organizer producing the mode, or even more unfortunately, with the culture being
represented. Language (or any form of symbolic or structured communication) provides
the main cognitive tool to construct and represent meaning, and ICH models should
strive to be “multilingual” in the broadest sense of the term. Where alternate lexicons or
multiple languages exist within the ICH practice itself, as many levels of cognitive
representation and encoding should be present in the model to support the various ways
it manifests itself symbolically and linguistically. Outside of the domain of the ICH, the
model should also attempt to address the representational needs of both anticipated and
unanticipated users. Even if one mode of representation is chosen as “preferred,” the
model should avoid imposing a single cognitive supremacy or bias upon the domain,
which can be avoided by making as many alternative methods of symbolic or linguistic
representation available as possible. This is even more crucial in the case of not just
honoring but re-centering Indigenous modes of thinking, and allowing communities of
practice to take ownership of and responsibility for their own heritage.
5. Availability and description of contextual information, relationships, and networks of
meaning discovered within the ICH. Just as dance and other cultural heritage marked by
organized movement does not exist independent of time, the practice of ICH is also
deeply embedded in, inseparable from, and impossible without, human thought and
133
action rooted in physical locations and communal spaces. Therefore, models should
place the concepts, practices, and evidence of ICH in the context of any related actors,
and within relevant temporal and spatial parameters. Through that contextualization, it
should become evident that an important part of ICH, and therefore an ICH model, will
be the patterns of human relationships that undergird the ICH, people and groups who
influence one another and take action together or on behalf of others, and the shared
notions and identities that emerge from inhabiting shared locations.
6. Elucidation of the nature, structure, and function of cultural concepts, evidence, and
networks endemic to the heritage to both preserve traditions for those inside the
community and to promulgate them to those outside the community. Modeling should
not lose sight of the fact that it may be useful to practitioners and non-practitioners alike,
safeguarding the passage of the ICH from one generation to the next by enabling future
exploration and instruction. To that end, the model should strive to be useful to the
outsider or novitiate who wishes to gain entrance through observation of and interaction
with small, concrete details—the outward signs and tangible evidence of the ICH
practice—by providing the underlying structure for systems and technologies that
support learning and, thereby, transmission of the ICH. At the same time, the model
should also aim to be of service to the professional or specialist seeking to preserve their
heritage, and to uncover larger, more complex connections to add to their knowledge of
the domain. The understandings and conceptualizations of those who are within the
culture (e.g., ICH practitioners, Indigenous peoples, domain experts) should exist as an
important part of the representational model—ideally in concert with and adding
knowledge to—in order to more fully enrich the experience for those who seek to utilize it
from the outside.
134
7.3 Challenges and Limitations
This study was limited in scope to contra dance, a particular form of American folk dance which, upon examination, revealed both structured and patterned elements while permitting a great deal of variety with regard to choreographic vocabulary and notation methods (to say nothing of the individual variation in movement and style among individual dancers). For instance (beyond some of the semantic issues addressed in the above discussion) the relatively recent inclusion of “hash calling” (Kermiet, 1995, p. 2)—a tradition of on-the-fly dance calling that has origins in and ties to modern western square dance calling—has been slowly integrated into the repertoire of a handful of intrepid contemporary contra dance callers. Eschewing formalized or preplanned choreography that is the hallmark of a more patterned style of calling, hash calling in modern western squares is characterized by “little repetition” (Mayo, 2019, p. 17) and “can be thought of as “improvised choreography” in which the sequence of calls is put together as it is called” (p. 18). In the case of contra dance hash dances, the calling heavily relies on a caller’s knowledge of figures—the conventions of their use in choreography by way of attributes and constraints like the nature of the movement, direction, and duration—to choreograph dances on the spot. By stringing together unusual or unique combinations of movements that would not be possible by adhering to the traditional AABB structure (even as
AABB-structured tunes are being played) the caller is able to create a new or unique dance experience in the moment. As a result, dancers must be especially attentive to the caller and their calls, and open to the comparative chaos that hash calling presents in contrast to traditional methods and forms of contra dance choreography. Because this practice is both somewhat novel and anomalous to the formal structures that are traditionally presented in contra dance choreography—especially as it is not prerecorded through notation, but rather improvised—this study does not seek to address it. However, as the tradition of hash calling continues to develop and take hold within contra dance culture, it may be possible with
135 modifications to represent a new class of calls (HashCall) that can be used to describe or annotate the instructions for a new class of dances (HashDance).
Furthermore, with contemporary practitioners of contra being exposed to influences and infusions of new dance styles (particularly swing dance and other folk dance forms), dancers often embellish their own dance techniques with “flourishes,” which are not themselves figures in the traditional sense, but modify pre-existing contra dance figures or provide personal variations in the execution of those figures. Given the high variability of personal use of flourishes, as well as their improvisational nature, those movements cannot be accurately modeled within the scope of this particular study. Moreover, because of the highly decentralized, scattered, unstructured, and heterogeneous nature of contra dance data and information (contained in published texts, online texts, written and recorded music, digital videos, etc.), it was impossible to account for all contra dance resources in existence when conducting even the most thorough content and domain analyses. Efforts were made to mitigate this limitation by gathering information from authoritative sources reflective of the long timeline of contra dance tradition in order to create a representative historical sample.
Additionally, because the model focused solely on contra dance, it is unknown at this time if the model will be extendable—with or without modification—to other forms of country dance, to other folk dance genres, or dance movement in general, or other movement-based ICH. That research interest was beyond the scope of this particular study, but includes an area of further inquiry (see section 7.4).
Beyond these immediate limitations relevant to contra dance, there were challenges related to the ontological modeling of cultural heritage which may complicate or present barriers to the objectivity or accuracy of the domain modeling process. Pierazzo (2018) contended (and warned) that the analyses necessary in developing a model of a humanities domain—the processes of selection and simplification, and the determination of purpose and function—were inherently subjective activities. She posited:
136
But if a model has to be helpful for deepening the knowledge of a specific domain or for building something new, how can one be sure that the model itself is indeed useful beyond the author of the model itself? How can subjectivity be incorporated into modeling; how can it be compensated and accounted for? (p. 125) and suggested:
The models we build to study and analyze them become acceptable to the community of peers when we are able to make these models and their implication evident to the community of peers with which we share a body of pre-existing knowledge. To do so, we will have to use an adequate “rhetorical form”—that is to say, to comply with the expectations of our own community of reference. (p. 129)
Beyond the concerns of subjectivity, Doty (2013) addressed the inherent difficulty in ontologically modeling live performances. Discussing the theatrical arts, he noted that theorists have not settled on discrete definitions which would place performances—and other works, manifestations, interpretations, and variations—into a meaningful or accurate categorization within, for instance, a catalog record. Citing the nebulous relationships between concepts like the Work, the theatrical performance (or Performance-work), the Script (or text of dialogue and actions), the Production, and each Individual Performance, Doty concluded:
When information is contained in embodied practice, the challenges of recording it are considerable because neither the bodies nor the actions themselves can be archived or stored. Records that embodied action took place, therefore, must be based upon a rigorous underlying ontology that distinguishes which elements of the event are essential to record, and which elements distinguish one event from another. While the preceding ontology has focused primarily on live theatrical performance, a similar (though obviously not identical) ontology could be applied to describe dance, performance art, and even oral histories and culture. (p. 12)
Doty’s identification of this possible extension to other ICH, but also its potential pitfalls, no doubt presented a similar theoretical conundrum—with no ideal solution—within the process and context of modeling this particular folk dance domain.
7.4 Future Research
This project provided a roadmap toward formalizing the unstructured and disparate information through the construction of a domain model and knowledge organization structure to safeguard contra dance history and tradition. Strategies employed here point to the possibilities of further modeling applied to adjacent and related folk dance domains, especially the
137 choreography and cultural networks of other country dance domains. This same work could also be extended to model folk music traditions and cultural domains marked by natural, performative, and ritual movement. Finally, the future implementation of metadata schemas, semantic analysis, other notation methods, linked data approaches, and additional mapping and modeling methods may also be considered. The following is a list of potential opportunities for further research and exploration arising from this study:
● further revision of the ontology through testing by different user groups in the contra
dance community and North American folk dance researchers;
● development of an XML schema for marking up and encoding contra dance
choreography;
● creation of a metadata application profile (AP) to define usage and implementation of
standards, value vocabularies, and encoding schemes for contra dance metadata;
● extension of the Contra Ontology to other related cultural heritage domains: folk
tunes/music, English country dance, square dancing, and other genres of country
dancing;
● mapping the Contra Ontology to LITMUS and DOREMUS;
● utilization of a sample set of structured contra dance instructions and calls in order to
train machines to perform semantic analysis (i.e., text mining, entity extraction, semantic
annotation) of natural language contra dance choreography and notation to help
automate the creation of structured contra dance data;
● application of the tools and techniques of this study to structurally model other non-
country dance folk dance domains and ICH involving sequenced, formalized, and
ritualized movement practices (e.g., gestural and non-verbal communication, dance
theater, religious and cultural ceremonies);
● implementation of Laban Movement Analysis on contra dance figures, calls, and
choreography to express contra dances using Labanotation;
138
● semantic analysis and annotation of video recordings of country dance performances to
support and enhance ICH preservation and transmission;
● integration of Linked Open Data initiatives to the Contra Ontology by mapping to Linked
Open Vocabularies (LOV) and ontological models like Dublin Core Metadata Element
Set (dce), DCMI Metadata Terms (dcterms), Friend of a Friend vocabulary (foaf),
Schema.org vocabulary (schema), Expression of Core FRBR Concepts in RDF (frbr),
and the Music Ontology (mo);
● consideration of a reharmonization project integrating LRM and CRM as part of an
updated FRBRoo model; and
● establishment of a project to model LRM ontologically.
7.5 Conclusion
This project presented a valid ontological model for the ICH domain of contra dance, supporting the case that semantic technologies like ontologies present a valuable series of tools to be used in promoting the sustainability and transmission of ICH that marks the safeguarding paradigm. It offered solutions to the challenges of modeling a choreographic tradition with modular components, an unstandardized vocabulary, and patterns of repeating, sequential actions. The model also honored the varieties of linguistic expression that help define the tradition while offering semantically-powered architecture to structure and enhance unstructured domain data. These solutions further enabled the modeling of relationships between conceptual dance works and their symbolic and physical expressions, which connected to the documentary evidence of the cultural output of the contra dance community produced by a network of human action situated in specific locations and time periods. As a result, the ontology can be used to house a knowledge base to preserve and disseminate contra dance history and culture.
Through insights gained from the development of the Contra Ontology and its conceptual model, this project hopes to encourage future projects that are interoperable with other cultural heritage models, as well as efforts focusing on semantic technologies, representational models,
139 and the construction of ontologies for other North American folk dance and music traditions, genres of country dance and international folk dance, and even other ICH domains.
140
Appendix A: List of Contra Dance Choreography Resources Consulted
American Country Dances On-Line
http://www.quiteapair.us/calling/acdol/
Antony’s Dance Database
http://www.heywood.nl/antony/dances/
The Caller’s Box
http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/thecallersbox/
Caller's Companion™ Database for Dance Callers
http://callerscompanion.com/index.html
The Contra Dance Database
https://contradb.weebly.com/the-database.html
Contra Dance Terms - Cincinnati Contra Dancers
http://www.cincinnaticontradance.org/contraterms.htm
Contra Dances (collected by Jeff Kaufman)
https://www.jefftk.com/contras/dances/index
Contra Dances by Paul Balliet - Glossary
https://sites.google.com/site/contradancesbypaulballiet/home/figures
ContraDB
https://contradb.weebly.com/
ContraLab List of Dances
http://www.contralab.net/dances%20printed.htm
Country Dance and Song Society (CDSS) Contra Dance Resources
https://www.cdss.org/resources/how-to/contra-dance-resources
Michael Dyck's Contradance Index
https://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/
141
Rich Goss’ collection of dance cards
http://www.richgoss.com/dancecards.doc
Rick Mohr Contra Dances
http://rickmohr.net/Contra/DancesAll.asp#Introduction
Webfeet: Dance Description index
https://www.webfeet.org/dances/index.html
Wikipedia article on contra dance choreography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_dance_choreography
Wikipedia article on contra dance form
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_dance_form
142
References
Abburu, S. (2012). A survey on ontology reasoners and comparison. International Journal of
Computer Applications, 57(17), 33-39. doi:10.5120/9208-3748
Achichi, M., Bailly, R., Cecconi, C., Destandau, M., Todorov, K., & Troncy, R. (2015).
DOREMUS: Doing reusable musical data. In Proceedings of the ISWC 2015 Posters &
Demonstrations Track co-located with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference
(ISWC-2015), Bethlehem, PA, USA, October 11, 2015. Retrieved from http://ceur-
ws.org/Vol-1486/paper_75.pdf
Achichi, M., Lisena, P., Todorov, K., Troncy, R., & Delahousse, J. (2018). DOREMUS: A graph
of linked musical works. In D. Vrandečić, K. Bontcheva, M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, V.
Presutti, I. Celino, M. Sabou, L.-A. Kaffee, & E. Simperl (Eds.), The Semantic Web –
ISWC 2018, 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October
8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part II (pp. 3-19). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00668-6_1
Alakus, M. (2017). Protecting culture and civilization: Indexing world heritage. The Indexer,
35(2), 80-85.
Allbeck, J. (2010). Serious games. Retrieved from
https://cs.gmu.edu/~gaia/SeriousGames/index.html
Alivizatou-Barakou, M., Kitsikidis, A., Tsalakanidou, F., Dimitropoulos, K., Chantas, G.,
Nikolopoulos, S., Al Kork, S., Denby, B., Buchman, L., Adda-Decker, M., Pillot-Loiseau,
C., Tillmane, J., Dupont, S., Picart, B., Pozzi, F., Ott, M., Erdal, Y., Charisis, V.,
Hadjidimitriou, S., Hadjileontiadis, L., Cotescu, M., Volioti, C., Manitsaris, A., Manitsaris
S., & Grammalidis, N. (2017). Intangible cultural heritage and new technologies:
Challenges and opportunities for cultural preservation and development. In M.
Ioannides, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, & G. Papagiannakis (Eds.), Mixed reality and
143
gamification for cultural heritage (pp. 129-158). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49607-8_5
American Folklife Center. (2014). American Folklife Center metadata and standards. Retrieved
from https://www.loc.gov/folklife/edresources/edcenter_files/Dublincorerev201406.pdf
Amin, R., Baker, O. F., Deraman, A., & Yatim, N. F. M. (2012). Transforming model to meta
model for knowledge repository of Malay intangible culture heritage of Malaysia.
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2(2), 231-238. Retrieved
from https://www.iaescore.com/journals/index.php/IJECE/article/view/5393/0
Aristidou, A., & Chrysanthou, Y. (2013). Motion indexing of different emotional states using LMA
components. In B. Chen & A. Sharf (Chairs), SIGGRAPH Asia 2013 Technical Briefs
(SA 2013), Hong Kong, Hong Kong, November 19-22, 2013 (pp. 1-4). New York, NY:
Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2542355.2542381
Aristidou, A., Stavrakis, E., Charalambous, P., Chrysanthou, Y., & Himona, S. L. (2015). Folk
dance evaluation using Laban Movement Analysis. ACM Journal on Computing and
Cultural Heritage, 8(4), 1-19. doi:10.1145/2755566
Aristidou, A., Stavrakis, E., & Chrysanthou, Y. (2014a). Cypriot intangible cultural heritage:
Digitizing folk dances. Pliroforiki, April 2014(25), 42-49.
Aristidou, A., Stavrakis, E., & Chrysanthou, Y. (2014b). LMA-based motion retrieval for folk
dance cultural heritage. In M. Ioannides, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, E. Fink, R. Žarnić, A.-
Y. Yen, & E. Quak (Eds.), Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage:
Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, 5th International Conference, EuroMed
2014, Limassol, Cyprus, November 3-8, 2014, Proceedings (pp. 207-216). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13695-0_20
Aristidou, A., Stavrakis, E., & Chrysanthou, Y. (2014c). Motion analysis for folk dance
evaluation. In R. Klein & P. Santos (Eds.), GCH 2014 - Eurographics Workshop on
Graphics and Cultural Heritage (pp. 55-64). doi:10.2312/gch.20141304
144
Artese, M. T., & Gagliardi, I. (2012). Cataloging intangible cultural heritage on the Web. In M.
Ioannides, D. Fritsch, J. Leissner, R. Davies, F. Remondino, & R. Caffo (Eds.), Progress
in Cultural Heritage Preservation: 4th International Conference, EuroMed 2012,
Lemessos, Cyprus, October 29-November 3, 2012, Proceedings (pp. 676-683).
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34234-9_71 augmented reality. (2019). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 9, 2019 from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/augmented%20reality
Bealle, J. (2005). Old-time music and dance: Community and folk revival. Bloomington, IN:
Quarry Books.
Bellini, P., & Nesi, P. (2015). Modeling performing arts metadata and relationships in content
service for institutions. Multimedia Systems, 21(5), 427-449. doi:10.1007/s00530-014-
0366-0
Berezina-Blackburn, V. (2016). Motion capture history, technologies and applications [Microsoft
PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/berezina-
blackbu.1/classes/mocap/MotionCaptureOverview2016.pdf
Biagetti, M. T. (2018). A comparative analysis and evaluation of bibliographic ontologies. In F.
Ribeiro & M. E. Cerveira (Eds.), Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge
Organization in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO
Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal (pp. 501-510). Baden-Baden, Germany:
Ergon Verlag.
Blake, J. (2018). Museums and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage — Facilitating
participation and strengthening their function in society. International Journal of
Intangible Cultural Heritage, 13, 17-32. Retrieved from
http://www.ijih.org/volumeMgr.ijih?cmd=volumeView&volNo=13
Bonn, M., Kendall, L., & McDonough, J. (2017). Libraries and archives and the preservation of
intangible cultural heritage: Defining a research agenda. Champaign, IL: School of
145
Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/97228
Brownlow, R., Capuzzi, S., Helmer, S., Martins, L., Normann, I., & Poulovassilis, A. (2015). An
ontological approach to creating an andean weaving knowledge base. ACM Journal on
Computing and Cultural Heritage, 8(2), 1-30. doi:10.1145/2700427
Brucher, K. (2016). Assembly lines and contra dance lines: The Ford Motor Company Music
Department and leisure reform. Journal of the Society for American Music, 10(4), 470-
495. doi:10.1017/S1752196316000365
Bush, M. R., & Roodman, G. M. (2013) Different partners, different places: Mathematics applied
to the construction of four-couple folk dances. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts, 7(1),
17-28. doi:10.1080/17513472.2013.772042
Byrd, D. (2017). Hands four and pass it down: Generational encounters in modern urban contra
dance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1903/19914
Cabeça, S. M. (2018). Cultural mapping: A sustainable methodology for intangible cultural
heritage. MEMORIAMEDIA Review, 3, 1-9.
https://memoriamedia.net/pdfarticles/ENG_MEMORIAMEDIAREVIEW_Cultural_Mappin
g.pdf
Carboni, N., & de Luca, L. (2016). Towards a conceptual foundation for documenting tangible
and intangible elements of a cultural object. Digital Applications in Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage, 3(4), 108-116. doi:10.1016/j.daach.2016.11.001
Carboni, N., & de Luca, L. (2017). Towards a semantic documentation of heritage objects
through visual and iconographical representations. International Information & Library
Review, 49(3), 207-217. doi:10.1080/10572317.2017.1353374
Chamnongsri, N. (2019). Metadata standards for palm leaf manuscripts in Asia. In E.
Garoufallou, F. Sartori, R. Siatri, & M. Zervas (Eds.), Metadata and Semantic Research,
146
12th International Conference, MTSR 2018, Limassol, Cyprus, October 23-26, 2018,
Revised Selected Papers (pp. 242-254). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-030-14401-2_23
Chan, J. C. P., Leung, H., Tang, J. K. T., & Komura, T. (2011). A virtual reality dance training
system using motion capture technology. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,
4(2), 187-195. doi:10.1109/TLT.2010.27
Chansanam, W., & Tuamsuk, K. (2015). Development of imaginary beings knowledge structure.
In R. B. Allen, J. Hunter, & M. L. Zeng (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Providing Quality
Information 17th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries, ICADL 2015,
Seoul, Korea, December 9-12, 2015, Proceedings (pp. 291-293). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Chansanam, W., & Tuamsuk, K. (2016). Development of imaginary beings ontology. In A.
Morishima, A. Rauber, & C. L. Liew (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Knowledge, Information,
and Data in an Open Access Society - 18th International Conference on Asia-Pacific
Digital Libraries, ICADL 2016, Tsukuba, Japan, December 7-9, 2016, Proceedings (pp.
231-242). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49304-6_28
Chansanam, W., Tuamsuk, K., Kwiecien, K., Ruangrajitpakorn, T., & Supnithi, T. (2015).
Development of the belief culture ontology and its application: Case study of the Greater
Mekong Subregion. In T. Supnithi, T. Yamaguchi, J. Z. Pan, V. Wuwongse, & M.
Buranarach (Eds.), Semantic Technology: 4th Joint International Conference, JIST 2014,
Chiang Mai, Thailand, November 9-11, 2014, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 297-310).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15615-6_22
Chantas, G., Karavarsamis, S., Nikolopoulos, S., & Kompatsiaris, I. (2018). A probabilistic,
ontological framework for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage. ACM Journal on
Computing and Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 1-29. doi:10.1145/3131610
147
Chantas, G., Kitsikidis, A., Nikolopoulos, S., Dimitropoulos, K., Douka, S., Kompatsiaris, I., &
Grammalidis, N. (2015). Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks for knowledge-driven analysis of
ICH content. In L. Agapito, M. M. Bronstein, C. Rother (Eds.), Computer Vision - ECCV
2014 Workshops, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-7 and 12, 2014, Proceedings, Part II
(pp. 355-369). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16181-5_25
Chantas, G., Nikolopoulos, S., & Kompatsiaris, I. (2014). Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks for
treasuring the intangible cultural heritage. In VISAPP 2014 - Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications, Volume 3,
Lisbon, Portugal, 5-8 January, 2014 (pp. 796-802). Portugal: SciTePress.
Chao, H., Delbridge, M., Kenderdine, S., Nicholson, L., & Shaw, J. (2018). Kapturing kung fu:
Future proofing the Hong Kong martial arts living archive. In S. Whatley, R. Cisneros, A.
Sabiescu (Eds.), Digital echoes: Spaces for intangible and performance-based cultural
heritage. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73817-8_13
Chen, C.-C. (2018). Discovering an ontology of traditional performing arts in Taiwan. In
Proceedings of the 10th Asia Library and Information Research Group (ALIRG)
Workshop, December 15-16, 2018, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. Retrieved from
http://opendata.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~emi/alirg2018/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/4-9-Chia-
ChunChen.pdf
Chen, Y.-N., & Hao-Ren, K. (2013). FRBRoo-based approach to heterogeneous metadata
integration. Journal of Documentation, 69(5), 623-637. doi:10.1108/JD-07-2012-0086
Choensawat, W., Takahashi, S., Nakamura, M., Choi, W., & Hachimura, K. (2010). Description
and reproduction of stylized traditional dance body motion by using Labanotation.
Transactions of the Virtual Reality Society of Japan, 15(3), 379-388. Retrieved from
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tvrsj/15/3/15_KJ00007408714/_article
Choensawat, W., Takahashi, S., Nakamura, M., & Hachimura, K. (2011). The use of
Labanotation for choreographing a Noh-play. In Proceedings of 2011 Second
148
International Conference on Culture and Computing (Culture and Computing 2011), 20-
22 October 2011, Kyoto, Japan (pp. 167-168). Los Alamitos, CA: The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/Culture-Computing.2011.65
Choensawat, W., Takahashi, S., Nakamura, M., & Hachimura, K. (2012). LabaNOHtation:
Laban meets Noh. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2012 Posters (SIGGRAPH'12) Los Angeles,
California, August 5-9, 2012 (p. 1). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
doi:10.1145/2342896.2342902
Choffé, P., & Leresche, F. (2016). DOREMUS: Connecting sources, enriching catalogues and
user experience. In Proceedings of IFLA WLIC 2016 - Connections. Collaboration.
Community in Session 93 – Cataloguing and Information Technology, 24th IFLA World
Library and Information Congress, Columbus, OH, 3-19 August 2016. Retrieved from
http://library.ifla.org/1322/
Chowdhury, G. G., & Ruthvan, I. (2015). Managing digital cultural heritage information. In I.
Ruthven & G. G. Chowdhury (Eds.), Cultural heritage information: Access and
management. Chicago, IL: Neal-Schuman.
Coladangelo, L. P. (2019). American contra dance and English country dance thesaurus.
Unpublished manuscript, School of Information, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. (n.d.). Content analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis
Connaway, L. S., & Radford, M. L. (2017). Research methods in library and information science
(6th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Cope, J. L. (2014). Contra addiction. Louisville Magazine, 65(6), 23-24.
Copes, L. (2010). Dancing with mathematics: Mathematics related to contra dancing. Retrieved
from http://www.larrycopes.com/contra/
Cozzani, G., Pozzi, F., Dagnino, F. M., Katos, A. V., & Katsouli, E. F. (2017). Innovative
technologies for intangible cultural heritage education and preservation: The case of i-
149
Treasures. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 21(2), 253-265. doi:10.1007/s00779-
016-0991-z
Dimitropoulos, K., Manitsaris, S., Tsalakanidou, F., Nikolopoulos, S., Denby, B., Al Kork, S.,
Crevier-Buchman, L., Pillot-Loiseau, C., Adda-Decker, M., Dupont, S., Tilmanne, J., Ott,
M., Alivizatou, M., Yilmaz, E., Hadjileontiadis, L., Charisis, V., Deroo, O., Manitsaris, A.,
Kompatsiaris, I., & Grammalidis, N. (2014). Capturing the intangible: An introduction to
the i-Treasures project. In VISAPP 2014 - Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications, Volume 3, Lisbon, Portugal, 5-
8 January, 2014 (pp. 773-781). Portugal: SciTePress.
Dai, M., Sun, C., & Wang, M. (2014). Research on the knowledge character and classification of
intangible cultural heritage. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 634, 153-158.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.643.153
Dance Notation Bureau. (2019). Notation basics. Retrieved from
http://dancenotation.org/lnbasics/frame0.html
Dance Video Archive. (2019). Delphiniums and daisies _____ by Tanya Rotenberg _____
(duple improper). Retrieved from http://dancevideos.childgrove.org/contra/contra-
modern/227-delphiniums-and-daises
Dart, M. (1987). Cuing in contradance. Folklore Forum, 20(1/2), 85-107.
Dart, M. M. (1995). Contra dance choreography: A reflection of social change. New York, NY:
Garland Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.cdss.org/elibrary/dart/
DCMI Cultural Heritage Metadata Task Group. (2012). Cultural Heritage Metadata Task Group.
Retrieved from http://www.dublincore.org/groups/cultural-heritage/
DCMI Usage Board. (2012a). Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, version 1.1: Reference
description. Retrieved from http://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dces/
DCMI Usage Board. (2012b). DCMI Metadata Terms. Retrieved from
http://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/
150
DCMI Usage Board. (2012c). DCMI Type Vocabulary. Retrieved from
http://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
Dimitropoulοs, K., Tsalakanidou, F., Nikolopoulos, S., Kompatsiaris, I., Grammalidis, N.,
Manitsaris, S., Denby, B., Crevier-Buchman, L., Dupont, S., Charisis, V., Hadjileontiadis,
L., Pozzi, F., Cotescu, M., Çiftçi, S., Katos, A., & Manitsaris, A. (2018). A multimodal
approach for the safeguarding and transmission of intangible cultural heritage: The case
of i-Treasures. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(6), 3-16. doi:10.1109/MIS.2018.111144858
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., & Jessel, J.-P. (2011). Classifying serious games: The G/P/S model. In
P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through
educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 118-136). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch006
Doerr, M. (2009). Ontologies for cultural heritage. In S. Staab & R. Studer (Eds.), Handbook on
Ontologies (pp. 463-486). New York, NY: Springer.
Doerr, M., Bekiari, C., & Le Boeuf, P. (2008). FRBRoo, a conceptual model for performing arts.
In 2008 Annual Conference of CIDOC, Athens, September 15-18, 2008 (pp. 1-15).
Retrieved from https://www.ics.forth.gr/_publications/drfile.2008-06-42.pdf
Doty, C. (2013). The difficulty of an ontology of live performance. InterActions: UCLA Journal of
Education and Information Studies, 9(1). Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jf4g75m
Dou, J., Qin, J., Jin, Z., & Li, Z. (2018). Knowledge graph based on domain ontology and natural
language processing technology for Chinese intangible cultural heritage. Journal of
Visual Languages and Computing, 48, 19-28. doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2018.06.005
Doulamis, N., Doulamis, A., Ioannidis, C., Klein, M., & Ioannides, M. (2017). Modelling of static
and moving objects: Digitizing tangible and intangible cultural heritage. In M. Ioannides,
N. Magnenat-Thalmann, & G. Papagiannakis (Eds.), Mixed reality and gamification for
151
cultural heritage (pp. 567-589). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
49607-8_23
Doulamis, A., Voulodimos, A., Doulamis, N., Soile, S., & Lampropoulos, A. (2017). Transforming
intangible folkloric performing arts into tangible choreographic digital objects: The
Terpsichore approach. In F. Imai, A. Tremeau, & J. Braz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th
International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics
Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2017) - Volume 5: VISAPP (pp. 451-460).
doi:10.5220/0006347304510460
Drémeau, A., & Essid, S. (2013). Probabilistic dance performance alignment by fusion of
multimodal features. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing Proceedings, May 26-31, 2013, Vancouver Convention Center,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 3642-3646). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638337
Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Egenes, J. (2010). The remix culture: How the folk process works in the 21st century. PRism
7(3), 1-4. Retrieved from https://www.prismjournal.org/uploads/1/2/5/6/125661607/v7-
no3-c1.pdf
Eide, Ø., & Ore, E.-C. S. (2018). Ontologies and data modeling. In J. Flanders & F. Jannidis
(Eds.), The shape of data in digital humanities: Modeling texts and text-based resources
(pp. 178-203). New York, NY: Routledge.
El Raheb, K., & Ioannidis, Y. (2011). A Labanotation based ontology for representing dance
movement. In E. Efthimiou, G. Kouroupetroglou, S.-E. Fotinea (Eds.), Gesture and Sign
Language in Human-Computer Interaction and Embodied Communication: 9th
International Gesture Workshop, GW 2011, Athens, Greece, May 25-27, 2011, Revised
Selected Papers (pp. 106-117). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
34182-3_10
152
El Raheb, K., & Ioannidis, Y. (2014). Modeling abstractions for dance digital libraries. In M.
Klein, A. Rauber, & S. J. Cunningham (Chairs), 2014 IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on
Digital Libraries (JCDL), 8th-12th September, 2014, City University London, London,
United Kingdom (pp. 431-432). doi:10.1109/JCDL.2014.6970210
Erlien, T., & Bakka, E. (2017). Museums, dance, and the safeguarding of intangible cultural
heritage: “Events of practice” – A new strategy for museums? Santander Art and Culture
Law Review, 2/2017(3), 135-156. doi:10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.017.8427
Europeana Foundation. (n.d.). The Europeana Data Model for cultural heritage. Retrieved from
https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Share_your_data/Technical_requ
irements/EDM_Documentation/EDM_Factsheet.pdf
Europeana Foundation. (2016). Definition of the Europeana Data Model v5.2.7. Retrieved from
https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Share_your_data/Technical_requ
irements/EDM_Documentation/EDM_Definition_v5.2.7_042016.pdf
Folk process. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_process
The Franklin Institute. (2018). What’s the difference between AR, VR, and MR? Retrieved from
https://www.fi.edu/difference-between-ar-vr-and-mr
Froschauer, J., Seidel, I., Gärtner, M., Berger, H., & Merkl, D. (2010). Design and evaluation of
a serious game for immersive cultural training. In 2010 16th International Conference on
Virtual Systems and Multimedia, VSMM 2010, Transdisciplinary “Creativity”, October 22-
23, 2010, Seoul, Korea, Proceedings (pp. 253-260). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/VSMM.2010.5665978
Giannoulakis, S., Tsapatsoulis, N., & Grammalidis, N. (2018). Metadata for intangible cultural
heritage: The case of folk dances. In F. Imai, A. Tremeau, & J. Braz (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 13th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer
153
Graphics Theory and Applications (VISAPP 2018) (pp. 634-645).
doi:10.5220/0006760906340645
Goienetxea, I., Arrieta, I., Bagüés, J., Cuesta, A., Leiñena, P., & Conklin, D. (2012). Ontologies
for representation of folk song metadata. Retrieved from
https://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/8053
Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., & Corcho, O. (2004). Ontological engineering with
examples from the areas of knowledge management, e-Commerce and the Semantic
Web. London, UK: Springer.
Green, B. [Bob Green]. (2011, August 12). Delphiniums daises [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WcOpLxeSsc
Griesbeck, C. (1996). Introduction to Labanotation. Retrieved from https://user.uni-
frankfurt.de/~griesbec/LABANE.HTML
Gruber, T. R. (1993). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing.
Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.89.5775&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Guest, A. H. (2015). Early development and publications in Kinetography Laban/Labanotation.
Library News, 10(1), 1-3. Retrieved from
http://dancenotation.org/news/Library_News/library_v10_n1.pdf
Gunzenhauser, M. (1996). The square dance and contra dance handbook: Calls, dance
movements, music, glossary, bibliography, discography, and directories. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Company.
Guo, H., Miao, Z., Zhu, F., Zhang, G., & Li, S. (2014). Automatic Labanotation generation based
on human motion capture data. In S. Li, C. Liu, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Pattern Recognition
6th Chinese Conference, CCPR 2014, Changsha, China, November 17-19, 2014,
Proceedings, Part I (pp. 426-435). Retrieved from
https://cse.sc.edu/~hguo/publications/automatic_labanotation_generation.pdf
154
Ha, S. (2017). Cultural heritage preservation methodology: Korean mask dance drama.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(8), 431-
439. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i8/3246
Hachimura, K. (2017). Digital archives of intangible cultural properties. In T. Ishida, N. Tosa, and
K. Hachimura (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Culture
and Computing (Culture and Computing 2017) Kyoto, Japan, 10-12 September 2017
(pp. 61-62). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
doi:10.1109/Culture.and.Computing.2017.38
Haggarty, L. (1996). What is…content analysis? Medical Teacher, 18(2), 99-101.
doi:10.3109/01421599609034141
Hahm, H. (2015). Encouraging ICH safeguarding through an online system: Ichpedia project.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Courier of Asia and the Pacific, 23, 3. Retrieved from
https://ichcourier.ichcap.org/wp-content/uploads/ICH-Courier-V23-web.pdf
Haibo, Y. (2017). Design and implementation of intangible cultural heritage management
system. In W. Lu & Y. Xiao (Chairs), Proceedings of 2017 International Conference on
Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS 2017), 15-16 October 2017, Huaian, Jiangsu, China
(pp. 105-108). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
doi:10.1109/ICRIS.2017.33
Hajibayova, L., & Buente, W. (2017). Representation of indigenous cultures: Considering the
Hawaiian hula. Journal of Documentation, 73(6), 1137-1148. doi:10.1108/JD-01-2017-
0010
Hast, D. E. (1993). Performance, transformation, and community: Contra dance in New
England. Dance Research Journal, 25(1), 21-32. doi:10.2307/1478188
Hast, D. E. (1994). Music, dance, and community: Contra dance in New England (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Accession No.
304145282)
155
Hatol, J. (2006). MovementXML: A representation of semantics of human movement based on
Labanotation (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/2741
Herman, J. (1995). Music in a dance context: The case of contra in Los Angeles. UCLA Journal
of Dance Ethnology, 19, 6-13.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches — traditional
as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422-462.
doi:10.1108/00220410210431136
Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-
analysis. Journal for the American Society of Information Science, 46(6), 400-425.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199507)46:6<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y
Holden, C. (2013). The application of FRBR to musical works. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/record?id=uuid%3Aa506a3c0-548e-41e5-b90b-a3408b505bc9
Holden, R., Kaltman, F., & Kulbitsky, O. (1956). The contra dance book. Newark, New Jersey:
American Squares.
Horton, L. (2001). Material expressions of communality among dance groups. Western Folklore,
60(2/3), 203-226. doi:10.2307/1500377
Horton, L., & Jordan-Smith, P. (2004). Deciphering folk costume: Dress codes among contra
dancers. Journal of American Folklore, 117(466), 415-440. doi:10.1353/jaf.2004.0090
Hu, H., Tseng, R., Lin, C., Ming, L., & Ikeuchi, K. (2014). Analyzing Taiwanese Indigenous folk
dances via Labanotation and comparing results from interdisciplinary studies. In M.
Ioannides, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, E. Fink, R. Žarnić, A.-Y. Yen, & E. Quak (Eds.),
Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and
Protection, 5th International Conference, EuroMed 2014, Limassol, Cyprus, November
3-8, 2014, Proceedings (pp. 196-206). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-13695-0_19
156
Hu, J., Lv, Y., & Zhang, M. (2014). The ontology design of intangible cultural heritage based on
CIDOC CRM. International Journal of u- and e- Service, Science and Technology, 7(1),
261-274. doi:10.14257/ijunesst.2014.7.1.24
Huang, C.-H., & Huang, Y.-T. (2013). An Annales school-based serious game creation
framework for Taiwanese indigenous cultural heritage. ACM Journal on Computing and
Cultural Heritage, 6(2), 1-31. doi:10.1145/2460376.2460380
Huang, Z. (2018). Towards improving the knowledge representation and searching of Manchu
costume culture: An ontology-based method with APP implementation. In G. Hua, D.
Wu, R. Zhang, J. Zhang, X. Shang, & A. Huang (Eds.), Proceedings of 8th International
Conference on Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences (LISS), August 3-6, 2018,
Toronto, Canada & Beijing, China (pp. 1-6). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/LISS.2018.8593252
Hug, C., & Gonzalez-Perez, C. (2012). Qualitative evaluation of cultural heritage information
modeling techniques. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 5(2), 1-20.
doi:10.1145/2307723.2307727
Hume, C. (2016). Two decades of dancing - the contra way! English Dance & Song, 78(5), 26-
27.
Hyvönen, E. (2009). Semantic portals for cultural heritage. In S. Staab & R. Studer (Eds.),
Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 757-778). New York, NY: Springer.
Hyvönen, E. (2016). Cultural heritage linked data on the Semantic Web: Three case studies
using the Sampo model. In Proceedings of VIII Encounter of Documentation Centres of
Contemporary Art: Open Linked Data and Integral Management of Information in
Cultural Centres, Artium, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, October 19-20, 2016. Retrieved from
https://seco.cs.aalto.fi/publications/submitted/hyvonen-vitoria-2017.pdf
Hyvönen, E., Mäkelä, E., Kauppinen, T., Alm, O., Kurki, J., Ruotsalo, T., Seppälä, K., Takala, J.,
Puputti, K., Kuittinen, H., Viljanen, K. Tuominen, J., Palonen, T., Frosterus, M., Sinkkilä,
157
R., Paakkarinen, P., Laitio, J., & Nyberg, K. (2009). CultureSampo: A national
publication system of cultural heritage on the Semantic Web 2.0. In L. Aroyo, P.
Traverso, F. Ciravegna, P. Cimiano, T. Heath, E. Hyvönen, R. Mizoguchi, E. Oren, M.
Sabou, E. Simperl (Eds.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 6th European
Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2009 Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 31-June 4,
2009 Proceedings (pp. 851-856). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-
642-02121-3_69
Hyvönen, E., Mäkelä, E., Salminen, M., Valo, A., Viljanen, K., Saarela, S., Junnila, M., &
Kettula, S. (2005). MuseumFinland—Finnish museums on the semantic web. Web
Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 3(2-3), 224-241.
Retrieved from http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/download/74/72
ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group. (n.d.) Short intro. Retrieved from
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/node/202
ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group. (2018). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual
Reference Model, version 6.2.3. Retrieved from http://www.cidoc-
crm.org/Version/version-6.2.3
IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. (2009). Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Retrieved from
https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf
Information Systems Group. (n.d.). HermiT OWL reasoner. Retrieved from http://www.hermit-
reasoner.com/
Isa, W. M. W., Zin, N. A. M., Rosdi, F., & Sarim, H. M. (2018). Digital preservation of intangible
cultural heritage. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
12(3), 1373-1379. doi:10.11591/ijeecs.v12.i3.pp1373-1379
Jaumard-Hakoun, A., Al Kork, S. K., Adda-Decker, M., Amelot, A., Buchman, L., Dreyfus, G.,
Fux, T., Roussel, P., Pillot-Loiseau, C., Stone, M., & Denby, B. (2013). Capturing,
158
analyzing, and transmitting intangible cultural heritage with the i-Treasures project. In
Ultrafest VI, November 2013, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (pp. 1-4). Retrieved from
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01136931/document
Jordan-Smith, P. (2000). For as many as will: Deciphering the folklore of contra dance and
english country dance events (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (Accession No. 304585183)
Jordan-Smith, P. (2001). About that swing: "Sleaze" dancing and community norms at River
Falls Lodge. Western Folklore, 60(2/3), 183-202. doi:10.2307/1500376
Kaewboonma, N., & Tuamsuk, K. (2016). Knowledge organization of the GMS folk songs for
ontology development. In J. Sun, Q. Zhu, C. Khoo, & S. Ou (Eds.), Proceedings of the
7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education and Practice: Innovation
in Library & Information Science in the Age of Big Data (pp. 184-193).
Kaewboonma, N., & Tuamsuk, K. (2018). Ontology of folk songs in the Greater Mekong
Subregion (GMS). Knowledge Organization, 45(1), 33-42. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-
1-33
Kakali, C., Lourdi, I., Stasinopoulou, T., Bountouri, L., Papatheodorou, C., Gergatsoulis, M., &
Doerr, M. (2007). Integrating Dublin Core metadata for cultural heritage collections using
ontologies. In S. A. Sutton, A. S. Chaudhry, & C. Khoo (Eds.), DC 2007: Proceedings of
the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, "Application
Profiles: Theory and Practice", 27-31 August 2007, Singapore (pp. 128-139). Retrieved
from http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/871
Kapadia, M., Chiang, I., Thomas, T., Badler, N. I., & Kider, J. T. (2013). Efficient motion retrieval
in large motion databases. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on
Interactive 3D Graphics and Games (I3D '13) (pp. 19-28). Retrieved from
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=hms
159
Karavarsamis, S., Ververidis, D., Chantas, G., Nikolopoulos, S., & Kompatsiaris, Y. (2016).
Classifying Salsa dance steps from skeletal poses. In 2016 14th International Workshop
on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing (CBMI), June 15-17, 2016, Bucharest, Romania
(pp. 1-6). doi:10.1109/CBMI.2016.7500244
Kaufman, J. (2006). Dialectical variation in contra dance. Retrieved from
https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/linguistics/2007_kaufm
an_jeff.pdf
Kaufman, J. (2011). Contra dance: Delphiniums and daisies. Retrieved from
https://www.jefftk.com/contras/dances/delphiniums
Kermiet, C. (1995). Some thoughts on experienced dances [PDF document]. Retrieved from
https://k-1.us/articles/thoughts_on_experienced_dances.pdf
Kettula, S., & Hyvönen, E. (2012). Process-centric cataloguing of intangible cultural heritage. In
Proceedings of CIDOC 2012: Enriching Cultural Heritage, Helsinki, Finland, June 10-14,
2012. Retrieved from https://seco.cs.aalto.fi/publications/2012/kettula-hyvonen-
intangible-cidoc-2012.pdf
Khan, M. P., Aziz, A. A., & Daud, K. A. M. (2018). Documentation strategy for intangible cultural
heritage (ICH) in cultural heritage institutions: Mak Yong Performing Art Collection. In M.
Ioannides, E. Fink, R. Brumana, P. Patias, A. Doulamis, J. Martins, & M. Wallace (Eds.),
Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and
Protection, 7th International Conference, EuroMed 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 29-
November 3, 2018, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 470-479). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01762-0_41
Kiddier, G. (2013). An American contra dance caller. English Dance & Song, 75(4), 16-17.
Kim, E. S. (2011). ChoreoSave: A digital dance preservation system prototype. Proceedings of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-10.
doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801043
160
Kim, H., Matuszka, T., Kim, J.-I., Kim, J., & Woo, W. (2016). An ontology-based augmented
reality application exploring contextual data of cultural heritage sites. In K. Yetongnon, A.
Dipanda, R. Chbeir, G. De Pietro, & L. Gallo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Signal Image Technology & Internet Based Systems (SITIS
2016) 28 November-1 December, 2016, Naples, Italy (pp. 468-475).
doi:10.1109/SITIS.2016.79
Kim, S., Ahn, J., Suh, J., Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2015). Towards a semantic data infrastructure for
heterogeneous cultural heritage data - Challenges of Korean Cultural Heritage Data
Model (KCHDM). In G. Guidi., R. Scopigno, J. C. Torres, H. Graf, F. Remondino, L.
Duranti, P. Brunet, S. Hazan, & J. Barce (Eds.), 2015 Digital Heritage International
Congress (2015 Digital Heritage) federating the 21st International VSMM, 13th
Eurographics GCH, plus Special Sessions from CIPA ICOMOS/ISPRS Special Heritage
Documentation Workshop, CAA Fall Symposium,7th International Meeting Arqueologica
2.0, Space2Place, Archeovirtual, ICOMOS Digital Interpretation Panel, EU projects, et
al., Volume 2, Analysis & Interpretation, Theory, Methodologies, Preservation &
Standards, Digital Heritage Projects & Applications, 28 September- 2 October 2015,
Granada, Spain (pp. 275-282). doi:10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419508
Kim, S.-M. (2015). Towards organizing and retrieving classical music based on Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://d-
scholarship.pitt.edu/25923/
Kiryakos, S., & Sugimoto, S. (2015). A linked data model to aggregate serialized manga from
multiple data providers. In R. B. Allen, J. Hunter, & M. L. Zeng (Eds.), Digital Libraries:
Providing Quality Information 17th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital
Libraries, ICADL 2015, Seoul, Korea, December 9-12, 2015, Proceedings (pp. 120-131).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27974-9
161
Kiryakos, S., Sugimoto, S., Lee, J.-H., Jett, J., Cheng, Y.-Y., & Downie, J. S. (2017). Towards a
conceptual framework for superworks. In JADH2017: Proceedings of the 7th Conference
of Japanese Association for Digital Humanities, “Creating Data through Collaboration,”
Doshisha University, September 11-12, 2017 (pp. 47-49). Retrieved from
http://conf2017.jadh.org/files/Proceedings_of_JADH2017.pdf
Kishimoto, K., & Snyder, T. (2016). Popular music in FRBR and RDA: Toward user-friendly and
cataloger-friendly identification of works. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(1), 60-
86. doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1105898
Kitsikidis, A., Dimitropoulos, K., Douka, S., & Grammalidis, N. (2014). Dance analysis using
multiple Kinect sensors. In VISAPP 2014 - Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications, Volume 3, Lisbon, Portugal, 5-
8 January, 2014 (pp. 789-795). Portugal: SciTePress.
Knust, A. (1959). An introduction to Kinetography Laban (Labanotation). Journal of the
International Folk Music Council, 11, 73-76. doi:10.2307/834865
Kojima, K., Furukawa, K., Maruyama, M., & Hachimura, K. (2017). Multi-site linked MOCAP
streaming system for digital archive of intangible cultural heritage. In T. Ishida, N. Tosa,
and K. Hachimura (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on
Culture and Computing (Culture and Computing 2017) Kyoto, Japan, 10-12 September
2017 (pp. 61-62). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
doi:10.1109/Culture.and.Computing.2017.27
Kojima, K., Hachimura, K., & Nakamura, M. (2002). LabanEditor: Graphical editor for dance
notation. In IEEE ROMAN: 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human
Interactive Communication 2002 Proceedings, September 25-22, 2002, Berlin, Germany
(pp. 59-64). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2002.1045598
162
Kovavisaruch, L., Wisanmongkol, J., Sanpachuda, T., Chaiwongyen, A., Wisadsud, S.,
Wongsatho, T., Tangkamcharoen, B., Nagarachinda, B., & Khiawchaum, C. (2011).
Conserving and promoting Thai sword dancing traditions with motion capture and the
Nintendo Wii. In D. F. Kocaoglu, T. R. Anderson, & T. U. Daim (Eds.), 2011 Proceedings
of PICMET '11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET) (pp. 1-
5).
Kruskal, J. (2015). An inside view of contra dancing in Brooklyn, 2015: Swing your partner and
do-si-do. Voices: Journal of New York Folklore, 41(3-4), 3-11.
Laban/Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies. (2019). Laban Movement Analysis. Retrieved
from https://labaninstitute.org/about/laban-movement-analysis/
Le Boeuf, P. (2005). Musical works in the FRBR model or “Quasi la Stessa Cosa”: Variations on
a theme by Umberto Eco. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 39(3-4), 103-124.
doi:10.1300/J104v39n03_08
Le Boeuf, P. (2012). Towards performing arts information as linked data? In SIBMAS 2012
Conference: Best Practice! Innovative Techniques for Performing Arts Collections,
Libraries and Museums. Retrieved from https://hal-bnf.archives-
ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/807942/filename/Towards_Performing_Arts_Information_As_
Linked_Data.pdf
Lee, J. H., Jett, J., Cho, H., Windleharth, T., Disher, T., Kiryakos, S., & Sugimoto, S. (2018).
Reconceptualizing superwork for improved access to popular cultural objects.
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 55(1), 274-281.
doi:10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501030
Li, L., Choi, W., Hachimura, K., Nishiura, T., & Yano, K. (2013). Presentation of Japanese
cultural event using virtual reality. In J. Kim & J.-I. Park (Eds.), Computer Vision —
ACCV 2012 Workshops: ACCV 2012 International Workshops, Daejeon, Korea,
163
November 5-6, 2012: Revised Selected Papers, Part II (pp. 72-82). Berlin, Germany:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37484-5_7
Linked Art Contributors. (n.d.). CIDOC-CRM class analysis. Retrieved from
https://linked.art/model/profile/class_analysis.html
Lisena, P., Achichi, M., Choffé, P., Cecconi, C., Todorov, K., Jacquemin, B., & Troncy, R.
(2018). Improving (re-) usability of musical datasets: An overview of the DOREMUS
project. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, 42(2), 194-205. doi:10.1515/bfp-2018-0023
Lombardo, V., Battaglino, C., Pizzo, A., Damiano, R., & Lieto, A. (2015). Coupling conceptual
modeling and rules for the annotation of dramatic media. Semantic Web, 6(5), 503-534.
doi:10.3233/SW-140156
Lombardo, V., & Damiano, R. (2012). Semantic annotation of narrative media objects.
Multimedia Tools and Applications, 59(2), 407-439. doi:10.1007/s11042-011-0813-2
Lombardo, V., Damiano, R., & Pizzo, A. (2018). Drammar: A comprehensive ontological
resource on drama. In D. Vrandečić, K. Bontcheva, M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, V. Presutti, I.
Celino, M. Sabou, L.-A. Kaffee, & E. Simperl (Eds.), The Semantic Web –
ISWC 2018, 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October
8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part II (pp. 103-118). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00668-6_7
Lombardo, V., & Pizzo, A. (2013). Ontologies for the metadata annotation of stories. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage)
federating the 19th International VSMM, 10th Eurographics GCH, & 2nd UNESCO
Memory of the World Conferences, plus special sessions from CAA, Arqueologica 2.0,
Space2Place, ICOMOS ICIP & CIPA, EU projects, et al., Volume 2, 28 October-1
November 2013, Marseille, France (pp. 153-160). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6744747
164
Lombardo, V., & Pizzo, A. (2014). Multimedia tool suite for the visualization of drama heritage
metadata. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(7), 3901-3932. doi:10.1007/s11042-
014-2066-3
Lombardo, V., & Pizzo, A. (2015). The visualization of drama hierarchies. In J. Braz, A. Kerren,
& L. Linsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information
Visualization Theory and Applications - Volume 1: IVAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2015) (pp. 163-
170). doi:10.5220/0005314801630170
Lombardo, V., Pizzo, A., & Damiano, R. (2016). Safeguarding and accessing drama as
intangible cultural heritage. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 9(1), 5:1-
26. doi:10.1145/2812814
Lourdi, I., Papatheodorou, C., & Nikolaidou, M. (2007). A multi-layer metadata schema for digital
folklore collections. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 197-213.
doi:10.1177/0165551506070711
Maasz, D., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Stanley, C., Rodil, K., & Mbinge, U. (2018). A digital
indigenous knowledge preservation framework: The 7C model—Repositioning IK
holders in the digitization of IK. In D. S. Jat, J. Sieck, H. N.-N. Muyingi, H. Winschiers-
Theophilus, A. Peters, & S. Nggada (Eds.), Digitisation of culture: Namibian and
international perspectives (pp. 29-47). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-
7697-8_3
Madalli, D. P., Balaji, B. P., & Sarangi, A. K. (2015). Faceted ontological representation for a
music domain. Knowledge Organization, 42(1), 8-24. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2015-1-9
Mäkelä, E., Hyvönen, E., & Ruotsalo, T. (2012). How to deal with massively heterogeneous
cultural heritage data – lessons learned in CultureSampo. Semantic Web, 3(1), 85-109.
doi:10.3233/SW-2012-0049
165
Mallik, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2012). Acquisition of multimedia ontology: an application in
preservation of cultural heritage. International Journal of Multimedia Information
Retrieval, 1(4), 249-262. doi:10.1007/s13735-012-0021-5
Mallik, A., Chaudhury, S., & Ghosh, H. (2011). Nrityakosha: Preserving the intangible heritage
of indian classical dance. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 2(3), 1-25.
doi:10.1145/2069276.2069280
Manitsaris, S., Glushkova, A., Bevilacqua, F., & Moutarde, F. (2014). Capture, modeling and
recognition of expert technical gestures in wheel-throwing art of pottery. ACM Journal on
Computing and Cultural Heritage, 7(2), 1-17. Retrieved from https://hal-mines-
paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00975857v2
Marolt, M., Vratanar, J. F., & Strle, G. (2009). Ethnomuse: Archiving folk music and dance
culture. In D. V. Puzkanov & A. A. Gogol (Chairs), IEEE EUROCON 2009 (pp. 322-326).
doi:10.1109/EURCON.2009.5167650
Martini, R. G., Araújo, C., Almeida, J. J., & Henriques, P. R. (2016). OntoMP, an ontology to
build The Museum of the Person. In Á. Rocha, A. Correia, H. Adeli, L. Reis, & M.
Mendonça Teixeira (Eds.), New advances in information systems and technologies:
Volume 2 (pp. 653-661). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31307-
8_67
Mayo, J. (2019). Calling for modern square dancing [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://www.sdfne.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/publications/Calling-for-Modern-
Square-Dancing.pdf
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 1(2), 1-10.
Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386
Menninga, C. (2011). Matrices in motion: An exploration of contra dance patterns interpreted
through performance-oriented dance. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10166/679
166
Miller, D., & Le Boeuf, P. (2005). “Such stuff as dreams are made on”: How does FRBR fit
performing arts? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 39(3-4), 151-178.
doi:10.1300/J104v39n03_10
Monika, W., Wijesundara, C., & Sugimoto, S. (2017). Modeling digital archives of intangible
cultural heritage based on One-to-One Principle of Metadata. In C. Berpan & S.
Sriborisutsakul (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Conference on Library &
Information Education and Practice (A-LIEP 2017) (pp. 137-148).
Montalvo, M., Calle-Ortiz, E., & Chica, J. (2017). A multimodal robot based model for the
preservation of intangible cultural heritage. In B. Mutlu, M. Tscheligi, A. Weiss, & J. E.
Young (Chairs), Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '17) (pp. 213-214). New York, NY:
Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3029798.3038315
Morganstern, H. (2010). Divided by a common dance: Contra dancing in England and the
States. English Dance & Song, 72(3), 12-13.
Mui, W. L. (2010). Connections between contra dancing and mathematics. Journal of
Mathematics and the Arts, 4(1), 13-20. doi:10.1080/17513470903188182
Murphy, D. (2017). Dugan’s calling 101 class: Resources shared after the class [PDF
document]. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5704775b40261d846362291c/t/587557bb3e00be
2f7fbe24f3/1484085179714/Post-ClassResources.pdf
Musen, M. A. (2015). The Protégé project: A look back and a look forward. AI Matters, 1(4), 4-
12. doi:10.1145/2757001.2757003
Nakamura, M., & Hachimura, K. (2006). An XML representation of Labanotation, LabanXML,
and its implementation on the notation editor LabanEditor2. Review of the National
Center for Digitization, 2006(9), 47-51. Retrieved from
http://elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/ncd/9/ncd09047.pdf
167
Nakazawa, A., Nakaoka, S., Kudoh, S., & Ikeuchi, K. (2002). Digital archive of human dance
motions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Systems and
Multimedia (VSMM2002), 25-27 September 2002, Gyeongju, Korea (pp. 180-188).
Retrieved from http://www.cvl.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/research_e/vsmm02/5-motion2.pdf
Naveda, L. A., & Leman, M. (2008). Representation of Samba dance gestures, using a multi-
modal analysis approach. In E. Ruffaldi & M. Fontana (Eds.), ENACTIVE08:
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enactive Interfaces (pp. 68-74).
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-503783
New England Folk Festival Association. (2019). An introduction to NEFFA. Retrieved from
https://www.neffa.org/about/
Nicolas, Y. (2005) Folklore requirements for bibliographic records: Oral traditions and FRBR,
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 39(3-4), 179-195. doi:10.1300/J104v39n03_11
Nielsen, E. M. (2011). Folk dancing. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.
Nisheva-Pavlova, M., & Pavlov, P. (2011). Ontology-based search and document retrieval in a
digital library with folk songs. Information Services & Use, 31(3-4), 157-166.
doi:10.3233/ISU-2012-0645
Norris, R. S. (2001). Embodiment and community. Western Folklore, 60(2/3), 111-124.
doi:10.2307/1500372
Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your
first ontology. Retrieved from
https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101.pdf
The Ohio State University Department of Dance. (2019a). Labanotation. Retrieved from
https://dance.osu.edu/research/dnb/resources
The Ohio State University Department of Dance. (2019b). LabanWriter. Retrieved from
https://dance.osu.edu/research/dnb/laban-writer
168
Ormond, C. (2014). Madison’s Tuesday night dances—Fostering talent for more than twenty
years. CDSS News, Spring 2014, 10-12.
Owen, R. (2001). Delphiniums and daisies. Retrieved from
http://www.quiteapair.us/calling/acdol/dance/acd_275.html
Page, C. (n.d.-a). Delphiniums and daisies. Retrieved from
http://chrispagecontra.awardspace.us/choreography/reviews/delphiniums.htm
Page, C. (n.d.-b). My dances. Retrieved from
http://chrispagecontra.awardspace.us/dances/index.htm
Park, S. C. (2014). ICHPEDIA, a case study in community engagement in the safeguarding of
ICH online. International Journal of Intangible Cultural Heritage, 9, 69-82. Retrieved from
http://www.ijih.org/volumeMgr.ijih?cmd=volumeView&volNo=9#none
Parkes, T. (2012). Patter calling — origins. Retrieved from
https://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/733
Pattuelli, M. C., Provo, A., & Thorsen, H. (2015). Ontology building for Linked Open Data: A
pragmatic perspective. Journal of Library Metadata, 15(3-4), 265-294.
doi:10.1080/19386389.2015.1099979
Peterson, I. (2003). Contra dances, matrices, and groups. Math Trek, March 2003.
Pierazzo, E. (2018). How subjective is your model? In J. Flanders & F. Jannidis (Eds.), The
shape of data in digital humanities: Modeling texts and text-based resources (pp. 117-
132). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pietrobruno, S. (2013). YouTube and the social archiving of intangible heritage. New Media &
Society, 15(8), 1259-1276. doi:10.1177/1461444812469598
Pittman, A. M., Waller, M. S., & Dark, C. L. (2009). Dance a while: A handbook for folk, square,
contra, and social dance (10th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Pramartha, C., & Davis, J. G. (2016). Digital preservation of cultural heritage: Balinese kulkul
artefact and practices. In M. Ioannides, E. Fink, R. Brumana, P. Patias, A. Doulamis, J.
169
Martins, & M. Wallace (Eds.), Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage:
Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, 7th International Conference, EuroMed
2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 29-November 3, 2018, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 491-
500). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_38
Pramartha, C., Davis, J. G., & Kuan, K. K. Y. (2017). Digital preservation of cultural heritage: An
ontology-based approach. In Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2017,
Hobart, Australia (pp. 1-12).
Qing, W., & Shilin, S. (2018). Digital inheritance strategy of intangible cultural heritage and big
data model — Taking the southern Liaoning Province as an example. In Y. Xiao (Chair),
Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data &
Smart City (ICITBS 2018), 25-26 January 2018, Xiamen, China (pp. 295-298).
Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
doi:10.1109/ICITBS.2018.00082
Raimond, Y., Abdallah, S., Sandler, M., & Giasson, F. (2007). The Music Ontology. In S. Dixon,
D. Bainbridge, & T. Rainer (Eds.), ISMIR 2007: Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Music Information Retrieval (September 23-27, 2007, Vienna, Austria)
(pp. 417-422). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Computer Society.
Ravitz, C. (2019, March 4). Notes on choreography for duple minor improper contra dances.
Retrieved from https://www.dance.ravitz.us/chor.php
Renear, A. H., & Dubin, D. (2007). Three of the four FRBR Group 1 entity types are roles, not
types. In A. Grove (Ed.), Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST), Milwaukee, WI (US), 19-24
October 2007. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/12377
Riley, J. (2008). Application of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)
to music. In J. P. Bello, E. Chew, & D. Turbull (Eds.), ISMIR 2008: Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Drexel University —
170
Philadelphia, USA, September 14-18, 2008 (pp. 439-444). Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.575.4570&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Riley, J., Hunter, C., Colvard, C., & Berry, A. (2007). Definition of a FRBR-based metadata
model for the Indiana University Variations3 project. Retrieved from
http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/variations3/docs/v3FRBRreport.pdf
Riley, J., Mullin, C., Colvard, C., & Berry, A. (2008). Definition of a FRBR-based metadata
model for the Indiana University Variations3 project, phase 2: FRBR Group 2&3 Entities
and FRAD. Retrieved from
http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/variations3/docs/v3FRBRreportPhase2.pdf
Riva, P., Le Boeuf, P., & Žumer, M. (2017). IFLA Library Reference Model: A conceptual model
for bibliographic information. Retrieved from
https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr-lrm/ifla-lrm-august-2017_rev201712.pdf
Rossi, J. (2018). The Republic of Korea ICHpedia wiki and the creation of a new web-based
community of practice through online participatory methodologies. MEMORIAMEDIA
Review, 3, 1-9. Retrieved from
https://memoriamedia.net/pdfarticles/ENG_MEMORIAMEDIAREVIEW_ICHpedia.pdf
Royal Academy of Dance. (2019). Benesh International: Benesh Movement Notation. Retrieved
from https://ca.royalacademyofdance.org/benesh-international-benesh-movement-
notation/
Saad, S., De Beul, D., Mahmoudi, S., & Manneback, P. (2012). An ontology for video human
movement representation based on Benesh notation. In Proceedings of the 2012
International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems (ICMCS 2012),
Tangier, Morocco, May 10-12, 2012 (pp. 77-82). doi:10.1109/ICMCS.2012.6320129
Sankhla, A., Kalangutkar, V., Bhuyan, H. B. G. S., Mallick, T., Nautiyal, V., Das, P. P., &
Majumdar, A. K. (2018). Automated translation of human postures from Kinect data to
Labanotation. In R. Rameshan, C. Arora, & S. D. Roy (Eds.), Computer Vision, Pattern
171
Recognition, Image Processing, and Graphics 6th National Conference, NCVPRIPG
2017, Mandi, India, December 16-19, 2017, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 494-505).
Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-0020-2_43
Scaturro, I. (2013). Faceted taxonomies for the performing arts domain: The case of the
European Collected Library of Artistic Performance. Knowledge Organization, 40(3),
205-211. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2013-3-205
Schmitz, D. (2015). The dance preservation and digitization project: The technology summit and
beyond. Retrieved from
http://www.danceheritage.org/dhc_whitepaper_preservation_digitization.pdf
Schonberg, H. C. (1974, March 24). What on earth is an “urtext”? The New York Times, p. D17.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/24/archives/what-on-earth-is-an-
urtext-some-persist-in-asking-embarrassing.html
Seelig, C. (2019). Contra dance/contradance links for sites outside Canada and the United
States. Retrieved from http://www.contradancelinks.com/world.html
Selmanović, E., Rizvić, S., Harvey, C., Bosković, D., Hulusić, V., Chahin, M., & Šljivo, S. (2018).
VR video storytelling for intangible cultural heritage preservation. In R. Sablatnig & M.
Wimmer (Eds.), GCH 2018 - Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage,
Vienna, Austria, November 12-15, 2018 (pp. 57-66). doi:10.2312/gch.20181341
Siddons, L., & Allen, J. (2016). Cooperation and consensus—Scissortail Traditional Dance
Society of Oklahoma. CDSS News, Spring 2016, 16-17, 20.
Smukler, D. (2000). Syllabus of the 13th Annual Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend, January
14-16, 2000. Retrieved from
https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2000.pdf
Smukler, D. (2010). Syllabus of the 23rd Annual Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend, January
15-17, 2010. Retrieved from
https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2010.pdf
172
Smukler, D. (2014). Master index, 1988-2014 [Microsoft Excel spreadsheet]. Retrieved from
https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/RPDLW_Index.xls
Somerset Theatre Factory. (2015). On Laban Movement Analysis and The Eight Efforts.
Retrieved from
https://somersetacademy.enschool.org/ourpages/auto/2015/8/21/49669536/On%20Laba
n%20Movement%20Analysis.pdf
Sousa, F. (2017). Map of e-inventories of intangible cultural heritage. MEMORIAMEDIA Review,
1, 1-13. Retrieved from
http://memoriamedia.net/pdfarticles/ENG_MEMORIAMEDIAREVIEW_Mapa_einventario
s.pdf
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 7, 1-6. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol7/iss1/17/
Sugimoto, S. (2019). Modeling culture — A perspective from digital archives and metadata
[Microsoft PowerPoint presentation].
Sugimoto, S., Kiryakos, S., Wijesundara, C., Monika, W., Mihara, T., & Nagamori, M. (2018).
Metadata models for organizing digital archives on the Web: Metadata-centric projects at
Tsukuba and lessons learned. In A. A. Baptista & P. Walk (Chairs), Open Metadata for
Open Knowledge: 2018 Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and
Metadata Applications (pp. 95-105). Retrieved from
http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/3968/2166
Tai, Y.-S., Rau, D. V., & Yang, M.-C. (2008). A semantic study on Yami ontology in traditional
songs. In C.-R. Huang & Y. Mikami (Chairs), IJCNLP 2008, The 6th Workshop on Asian
Language Resources (ALR 6), Proceedings of the Workshop, 11-12 January 2008,
Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, India (pp. 81-84). Retrieved from
http://aclweb.org/anthology/I08-7011
173
Tan, G., Hao, T., & Zhong, Z. (2009). A knowledge modeling framework for intangible cultural
heritage based on ontology. In C. Zhao, Y. Wu, J. Wang, & Q. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of
2009 Second International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling (KAM
2009), 30 November-1 December, 2009, Wuhan, China (pp. 304-307). Los Alamitos,
CA: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/KAM.2009.17
Tan, G., Sun, C., Zhong, Z. (2009). Knowledge representation of “Funeral Dance” based on
CIDOC CRM. In C. Zhao, Y. Wu, J. Wang, & Q. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of 2009 Second
International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling (KAM 2009), 30
November-1 December, 2009, Wuhan, China (pp. 39-42). Los Alamitos, CA: The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/KAM.2009.163
Thomas, M., & Peebles, C. (2016). A graph-theoretic approach to the analysis of contra dances.
In Proceedings of Bridges Finland 2016: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture,
Education, Culture, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, August 9-13, 2016 (pp.
285-292). Retrieved from http://archive.bridgesmathart.org/2016/bridges2016-285.pdf
Tian, M., Fazekas, G., Black, D. A., & Sandler, M. B. (2013). Towards the representation of
Chinese traditional music: A state of the art review of music metadata standards. In M.
Foulonneau & K. Eckert (Eds.), DC-2013 Lisbon, Linking to the Future: 2013
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications.
Retrieved from http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/3672
Tuamsuk, K., Kaewboonma, N., Wirapong, C., & Leopenwong, S. (2016). Taxonomy of folktales
from the Greater Mekong Sub-region. Knowledge Organization, 43(6), 431-439.
doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2016-6-431
Tuamsuk, K., Wirapong, C., & Kaewboonma, N. (2018). Ontology of folktales in the Greater
Mekong Subregion. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies, 13(1),
57-67. doi:10.1504/IJMSO.2018.096454
174
UNESCO. (2014). Basic texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage, 2014 edition. Retrieved from
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230504
UNESCO. (2017a). Intangible cultural heritage. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/culture/intangible-cultural-heritage/
UNESCO. (2017b). Tangible cultural heritage. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/culture/tangible-cultural-heritage/
UNESCO. (2017c). What is meant by "cultural heritage"? Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-
property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-
questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2008). World heritage information kit. Retrieved from
http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_infokit_en.pdf
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2010). Categories of astronomical heritage. Retrieved from
https://www3.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/about/categories-of-astronomical-
heritage
University of Michigan Library. (2019). Serious games. Retrieved from
https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282989&p=5955091
University of New Hampshire Library. (2019). Guide to the Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend
Collection, 1988-2017. Retrieved from
https://www.library.unh.edu/find/archives/collections/ralph-page-dance-legacy-weekend-
rpdlw-1988-2017
Valentin, E. (2013). Intangible search, searching the intangible: The project E.CH.I. and the
Inventarisation of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies, 2(8), 113-120. doi:10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n8p113
175
Varela, M. E. (2016). Interoperable performance research: Promises and perils of the Semantic
Web. TDR: The Drama Review, 60(3), 136-147. doi:10.1162/DRAM_a_00574
Virtual reality. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/virtual%20reality
Vosinakis, S., Avradinis, N., & Koutsabasis, P. (2018). Dissemination of intangible cultural
heritage using a multi-agent virtual world. In M. Ioannides, J. Martins, R. Žarnić, & V. Lim
(Eds.), Advances in Digital Cultural Heritage: International Workshop, Funchal, Madeira,
Portugal, June 28, 2017, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 197-207). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75789-6_14
Walkowitz, D. J. (2013). City folk: English country dance and the politics of the folk in modern
America. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Wang, Y., Deng, X., Zhang, K., & Lang, Y. (2018). The intangible cultural heritage show mode
based on AR technology in museums - Take the Li Nationality non-material cultural
heritage as an example. In 2018 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Image, Vision
and Computing (ICIVC), June 27-29, 2018. Chongqing, China (pp. 936-940). Chongqing,
China: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
doi:10.1109/ICIVC.2018.8492843
Watts, V. (2015). Benesh Movement Notation and Labanotation: From inception to
establishment (1919–1977). Dance Chronicle, 38(3), 275-304.
Weiss-Randall, D. (2016). Bravo! Using library dance collections to recreate historical ballets.
The Reference Librarian, 57(2), 100-113. doi:10.1080/02763877.2016.1123562
Weissenberger, L. K. (2017). Stories, songs, steps, and tunes: A linked data ontology for Irish
traditional music and dance. In International Society for Knowledge Organization,
UK/Ireland Chapter, 2017 Annual Conference, Knowledge Organisation: What’s the
Story? 11-12 September, 2017, London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lynnsey_Weissenberger/publication/320197501_St
176
ories_Songs_Steps_and_Tunes_A_Linked_Data_Ontology_for_Irish_Traditional_Music
_and_Dance/links/59d4c230aca2721f436fefa7/Stories-Songs-Steps-and-Tunes-A-
Linked-Data-Ontology-for-Irish-Traditional-Music-and-Dance.pdf
Weissenberger, L. K. (2018a). Linked data in music and its potential for ITMA/traditional music
web resources. Brio, 55(1), 52-57. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1323755
Weissenberger, L. K. (2018b). LITMUS: Developing a linked data ontology for Irish traditional
music and dance [Microsoft PowerPoint presentation].
https://www.slideshare.net/Europeana/litmus-developing-a-linked-data-ontology-for-irish-
traditional-music-and-dance-by-lynnsey-weissenberger-europeanatech-conference-2018
Weissenberger, L. K. (2019). Summary. Retrieved from https://www.itma.ie/litmus/ontology
Wen, Y., & Chen, J. (2016). Intangible cultural heritage display using augmented reality
technology of Xtion PRO interaction. International Journal of Simulation: Systems,
Science and Technology, 17(40), 29.1-29.4. doi:10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.40.29
Wheeler, J. (2016). Instructing group theory concepts from pre-kindergarten to college through
movement activities (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1461184131
Wielinga, B. J., Schreiber, A. T., Wielemaker, J., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (2001). From thesaurus
to ontology. In Y. Gil, M. Musen, & J. Shavlik (Chairs), Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP ’01), Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada, October 22-23, 2001 (pp. 194-201). New York, NY: Association for Computing
Machinery. doi:10.1145/500737.500767
Wijesundara, C., Monika, W., & Sugimoto, S. (2017). A metadata model to organize cultural
heritage resources in heterogeneous information environments. In S. Choemprayong, F.
Crestani, & S. J. Cunningham (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Data, Information, and Knowledge
for Digital Lives: 19th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries, ICADL
177
2017, Bangkok, Thailand, November 13-15, 2017, Proceedings (pp. 81-94). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70232-2_7
Wijesundara, C., & Sugimoto, S. (2018). Metadata model for organizing digital archives of
tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and linking cultural heritage information in
digital space. LIBRES, 28(3), 58-80. Retrieved from https://www.libres-
ejournal.info/2706/
Wijesundara, C., Sugimoto, S., Narayan, B. & Tuamsuk, K. (2016). Bringing cultural heritage
information from developing regions to the global information space as Linked Open
Data: An exploratory metadata aggregation model for Sri Lankan heritage and its
extension. In J. Sun, Q. Zhu, C. Khoo, & S. Ou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Asia-
Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education and Practice: Innovation in
Library & Information Science in the Age of Big Data (pp. 117-132).
Wilke, L., Calvert, T., Ryman, R. & Fox, I. (2005). From dance notation to human animation: The
LabanDancer project. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 16(3-4), 201-211.
doi:10.1002/cav.90
Williams, J., & Nau, D. (1996, August 12). Some swing positions. Retrieved from
https://www.prismnet.com/contradance/articles/swing-positions.html
Woodley, M. S., Clement, G., & Winn, P. (2005). DCMI glossary. Retrieved from
http://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/usageguide/glossary/
Working Group on FRBR/CRM Dialogue. (2016). Definition of FRBRoo: A conceptual model for
bibliographic information in object-oriented formalism, version 2.4. Retrieved from
https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/FRBRoo/frbroo_v_2.4.pdf
World Wide Web Consortium. (2013). SPARQL 1.1 overview. Retrieved from
https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/
World Wide Web Consortium. (2015). Inference. Retrieved from
https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/inference
178
Xu, S. (2018). Intangible cultural heritage development based on augmented reality technology.
In Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS
2018), 26-27 May, 2018, Changsha, China (pp. 352-355). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICRIS.2018.00094
Yang, W.-B., Jan, J.-F., Wang, T.-J., Lu, Y.-C., Kuo, C.-L., & Yen, Y.-N. (2018). Digital
interpretation and presentation for monuments built by ARCHES — Take Kinmen Area
heritage as an example. In M. Ioannides, E. Fink, R. Brumana, P. Patias, A. Doulamis, J.
Martins, & M. Wallace (Eds.), Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage:
Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, 7th International Conference, EuroMed
2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 29-November 3, 2018, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 366-
375). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01762-0_31
Young, K. E. (2011). Living culture embodied: Constructing meaning in the contra dance
community (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/726
Zhang, S., Li, Q., Yu, T., Shen, X., Geng, W., & Wang, P. (2006). Implementation of a notation-
based motion choreography system. In H. Zha, Z. Pan, H. Thwaites, A. C. Addison, & M.
Forte (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interactive
Technologies and Sociotechnical Systems (VSMM '06), Xi'an, China, October 18-20,
2006 (pp. 495-503). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11890881_54
Zhao, H., & Mudur, S. P. (2006). On the use of 3D scanner for Chinese opera documentation. In
H. Zha, Z. Pan, H. Thwaites, A. C. Addison, & M. Forte (Eds.), Interactive Technologies
and Sociotechnical Systems: 12th International Conference, VSMM 2006, Xi'an, China,
October 18-20, 2006 Proceedings (pp. 377-386). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Zhao, Z. (2017). Digital protection method of intangible cultural heritage based on augmented
reality technology. In W. Lu & Y. Xiao (Chairs), Proceedings of 2017 International
Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS 2017), 15-16 October 2017, Huaian,
179
Jiangsu, China (pp. 135-138). Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICRIS.2017.41
Žumer, M. (2018). IFLA Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM)—Harmonisation of the FRBR
family. Knowledge Organization, 45(4), 310-318. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-4-310
Žumer, M., & Riva, P. (2017). IFLA LRM — Finally here. In Advancing Metadata Practice:
Quality, Openness, Interoperability, 2017 Proceedings of the International Conference
on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 26-29 October 2017 (pp. 13-23). Retrieved
from http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/3852