Report on shape analysis and matching and on semantic matching

Abstract

In GRAVITATE, two disparate specialities will come together in one working platform for the archaeologist: the fields of shape analysis, and of metadata search. These fields are relatively disjoint at the moment, and the research and development challenge of GRAVITATE is precisely to merge them for our chosen tasks. As shown in chapter 7 the small amount of literature that already attempts join 3D geometry and semantics is not related to the cultural heritage domain. Therefore, after the project is done, there should be a clear ‘before-GRAVITATE’ and ‘after-GRAVITATE’ split in how these two aspects of a cultural heritage artefact are treated.This state of the art report (SOTA) is ‘before-GRAVITATE’. Shape analysis and metadata description are described separately, as currently in the literature and we end the report with common recommendations in chapter 8 on possible or plausible cross-connections that suggest themselves. These considerations will be refined for the Roadmap for Research deliverable.Within the project, a jargon is developing in which ‘geometry’ stands for the physical properties of an artefact (not only its shape, but also its colour and material) and ‘metadata’ is used as a general shorthand for the semantic description of the provenance, location, ownership, classification, use etc. of the artefact. As we proceed in the project, we will find a need to refine those broad divisions, and find intermediate classes (such as a semantic description of certain colour patterns), but for now the terminology is convenient – not least because it highlights the interesting area where both aspects meet.On the ‘geometry’ side, the GRAVITATE partners are UVA, Technion, CNR/IMATI; on the metadata side, IT Innovation, British Museum and Cyprus Institute; the latter two of course also playing the role of internal users, and representatives of the Cultural Heritage (CH) data and target user’s group. CNR/IMATI’s experience in shape analysis and similarity will be an important bridge between the two worlds for geometry and metadata. The authorship and styles of this SOTA reflect these specialisms: the first part (chapters 3 and 4) purely by the geometry partners (mostly IMATI and UVA), the second part (chapters 5 and 6) by the metadata partners, especially IT Innovation while the joint overview on 3D geometry and semantics is mainly by IT Innovation and IMATI. The common section on Perspectives was written with the contribution of all