Expanding the Virtual Record Treasury of Ireland Knowledge Graph

Tracking #: 4018-5232

Authors: 
Beyza Yaman
Alex Randles
Lucy McKenna
Lynn Kilgallon
Diego Rincon-Yanez
Neil Johnston
Peter Crooks
Declan O'Sullivan

Responsible editor: 
Guest Editors 2025 OD+CH

Submission type: 
Full Paper
Abstract: 
The Virtual Record Treasury of Ireland (VRTI) is an online resource which digitally reconstructs the archival collections lost with the destruction of the Public Office of Ireland in 1922. This resource includes a distributed Knowledge Graph (KG), which employs Semantic Web principles and Linked Data to support discoverability of historical entities across multiple archival collections. CIDOC-CRM serves as the core ontology, extended with bespoke types to address domain-specific needs. VRTI-KG was deployed successfully in June 2022, at the end of the first phase of the VRTI’s development. The second phase of VRTI-KG development witnessed challenges arising from expanding data sources, advances in technology, an expanding user base, and advanced user requirements. This article focuses on the technical solutions developed to overcome these challenges, which include: developing a robust URI structure; updating and expanding the ontology; uplifting authoritative geospatial data; and creating a map interface to facilitate public engagement. Finally, two bespoke user interfaces were created for the KG; the KG Editor is designed to enable domain experts to interact intuitively with the KG, while the KG Explorer allows public users to navigate seamlessly between historical data in VRTI-KG and the reconstructed archival records in the VRTI document database.
Full PDF Version: 
Tags: 
Reviewed

Decision/Status: 
Accept

Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
By Jose Emilio Labra-Gayo submitted on 19/Mar/2026
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

As this is a review based on a new version of the paper that I had already reviewed, I checked that the authors had taken into account my previous comments and they did it in almost all the cases except in my suggestion of including a cleaner version of an architecture diagram. Nevertheless, as they jusfity why they consider it is better not to include it, I accept that argument.

I consider the paper can be accepted for publication.

Review #2
Anonymous submitted on 29/Mar/2026
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

I confirm that the authors have addressed the previously provided feedback, and I am happy to recommend acceptance.