The Historical Framing Problem: Temporal Modeling of Interactions between Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage

- The article proposes an ontology for modeling historical frames and the interaction of tangible and intangible culture. The case study is clearly presented and used to show the usefulness of the developed ontology.
- However, the first part of the article is dedicated to a theoretical reflection that is not completely convincing and whose presentation could be improved in terms of clarity of the argumentation.
- There are also several repetitions across sections and subsections (e.g. section 5) and the English is not always adequate, with some passages that are difficult to understand (e.g. Section 4.4). In general, the article needs a good copyediting, e.g. some punctuation marks are misplaced before parentheses or references to figures are given without parentheses. Some authors are mentioned without proper references.
- I suggest to introduce the addressed problem by briefly referring to the various aspects of the case study that the authors would like to model, so that it can become more concretely graspable by the reader. Then, the theoretical discussion can follow, but reorganising it and shortening it. Namely, sections 3.2 and 3.3 can be shortened.
- The discussion of the shortcomings of existing ontologies is not always convincing and some relevant ontologies are not taken into consideration. For example, (1) the Ontology Network for Citizen Curation by Asprino et al. 2024 https://doi.org/10.1145/3704729. (2) the modeling of time seems overcomplicated and it’s not clear what are the benefits of the proposed solution. Why is a module like CRMgeo not suitable? (3) Why is CRMinf not suitable for the modeling of frames? Or maybe even CRM’s E13_Attribute_Assignment.
- The figures about the historical frames are very dense but they are not integrated well enough in the argumentation.

Full paper criteria:
* (1)
* The provided information is clearly organised and the structure of the repository is presented in a README file.
* The description of the modules is provided in files named overview.md, I suggest to rename them as README.md so that they will be rendered on GitHub.
* (2) The provided information is complete and well documented. All modules are described and accompanied by a description of their development and include diagrams.
* (3) Currently there is no DOI, I suggest to create a release on GitHub and connect the repository to the authors’ Zenodo account, so that a DOI will be assigned.
* (4) The visualisation tools linked return errors https://sofibar.github.io/CulturalHeritageHistoricalContext/

The paper presents an interesting case study that can serve as a template for many similar instances where tangible and intangible instances of cultural heritage interact. I think the paper would vastly benefit from the introduction of the case study earlier, as most concepts could be introduced and illustrated with examples from the case study.

The paper presents modules that extend existing ontologies for the modeling of the interplay between CH objects and the interaction with those objects quite elegantly. However, cultural heritage is often used interchangeably with artworks, whereas tangible cultural heritage includes more than artworks. Would the proposed model also hold for e.g. indigenous seeds/plants and their usage in rituals/medicine/food preparation used in specific situations or occasions?

The paper claims that "... multiple solutions could be covered by existing ontologies". I would have liked to see a short sketch and a discussion of the shortcoming of the different solutions, and the motivation why exactly the presented solution was chosen.

The illustrations of the modules add majorly to the paper, I would welcome them in a larger size. Figure 17 is barely legible.

While I think the concept of the Historical Frames is very valuable, the section introducing the concepts could be shorter and more focused on the application.

The UNESCO definition of culture is given three times, but the quote is not once cited.

In general, the presentation, structure and grammar of the paper should be reworked. Several sentences are difficult to follow due to complex syntax; revising for clarity and conciseness would improve readability. "Events of a very ephemeral nature during these processions are the continuous swinging of liturgical incense holders that with their odors enhance the religious and spiritual experience of the material objects that are carried around.", "Although the class is intended to represent cultural traits of a culture..." , "At these occasions..."
Punctuation/spacing should be revised, e.g. spaces before and after punctuation (e.g. "property:motivates"), citations and hyphens. Some punctuation is missing, such as "interact with them in different ways One of the"
Hyperlinks and cross-references, e.g. for sections and figures and citations, should be provided.

e.a. -> et al.

Formatting should follow the swj/sage style guide, at least page numbers should be provided. Some typesetting is inconsistent, e.g. Table 6. domain/range bold, inch signs are used instead of quotation marks etc.

Table 1 should be reworded for clarity, e.g. ObjectInEvent is missing from the table, and instead :ObjectInRecurrentEvent is listed a subclass of ObjectInSituation not ObjectInEvent (as in text and ODP Figure). "The class :ObjectInSituation is then further specified in a subclass, namely :ObjectInEvent, to be used when the object function is present in a situation that has a more precise identity (e.g., a liturgical mass). This :ObjectInEvent subclass in its turn has two subclasses, namely :ObjectInRecurrentEvent and :ObjectInUniqueEvent."

The descriptions in the table leave some questions unanswered, e.g. Why are :ObjectInSituation and :ObjectInUniqueEvent described as situations, and :ObjectInRecurrentEvent as "Objects observed in situations"

To sum up, I see this paper as a valuable addition to the special issue, but some revisions in form, language and structure are needed.

----------------

(1) Originality

The paper is original in the sense that it models artworks and their different use cases and interpretations. The paper presents a novel use case.

(2) Significance

The paper presents a significant application and modeling effort. The significance could be demonstrated better by outlining possible other applications in the domain of tangible culutral heritage (see example above).

(3) Quality of writing
The quality of writing is mixed, with certain section being lengthy. Some sentences and phrasings are somewhat wooden or outright grammatically wrong. Typesetting and layouting needs to be improved.

(4) Data
The data seems to be sufficiently documented and complete.

The article addresses the problematic distinction between tangible and intangible cultural heritage in modeling interactions between material and immaterial expressions of the arts, affecting the understanding of their social functions and symbolic meanings.

It proposes a system of historical frames comprising reference frames, annotation frames, and historical frames for spatial-temporal analysis, alongside an ontological model to express these frames by extending existing ontologies, with a focus on ephemeral events.

The article includes a case-study of the 12th-century reliquary shrine of St. Servatius, resulting in four modules that describe objects' functions in context, frames for ephemeral events, the evolution of objects, and specific characteristics of ephemeral events and objects.

+ The article is clearly structured
+ Both the involved historical artefacts as well as the technical solutions of the proposed ontological model are introduced thoroughly
+ A Long-term Stable Link to Resources is provided
+ The article has an adequate number of scientific references
+ The article is written grammatically correct English
- maybe “12th century reliquary shrine” → “12th-century reliquary shrine” (adjective)
- maybe “spatial-temporal” → “spatiotemporal” (or “spatio-temporal”)
- I would add the developers’ names to the reference: [21] https://s3.amazonaws.com/VRA/ontology.html
- double comma in references: [48] S. Peroni,, D. Shotton, and F. Vitali

Originality. The goal of this paper is to model the interaction between art objects and their historical and socio-cultural contexts, with particular attention to ephemeral events and practices belonging to intangible cultural heritage. The authors propose a novel historical frames system articulated into three components (Reference, Annotation, and Historical Frames), the latter of which is operationalized through four modules: Object in Situation, Historical Frame, Evolution, and Ephemeral in Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. A significant contribution of the paper lies in its critical discussion of spatio-temporal modeling in CIDOC CRM. In particular, the treatment of space-time as a unified continuum raises unresolved issues concerning the ontological status of objects and events, especially in relation to the endurant/perdurant distinction. The paper usefully highlights these tensions and motivates the need for alternative modeling strategies when dealing with interactions between objects, events, and change over time.

Significance. Despite the relevance of the topic and the quality and novelty of the proposed solutions, the paper suffers from structural and editorial weaknesses. It is overly long and somewhat repetitive; several acronyms and references (such as ICON, CnR, and even the concept of Ontology Design Patterns) are used without being properly introduced. This reduces readability and makes the paper less accessible to readers outside an expert audience. Moreover, the advantages of the proposed model become evident mainly through the case study, and largely from the perspective of cultural studies. In the introduction, however, it is not sufficiently clear which specific research gap the ontology aims to fill, nor how it positions itself with respect to existing models. A more explicit comparison with alternative representations would strengthen the contribution. At present, the paper tends—rather correctly—to assume that existing models are inadequate for representing interactions between art objects and ritual or performative practices, but it does so without systematically demonstrating what is actually missing. An explicit “ablation-style” discussion (clarifying what cannot be represented if certain components are removed) would make the benefits of the model clearer.
A further limitation concerns the absence of agency and intentionality. The model does not explicitly represent agents, purposes, or intentions, which are crucial for capturing the full meaning behind intangible practices. For example, ritual actions such as invoking protection from a threat or achieving communion with a saint through drinking from a cup are not merely events, but intentional performances grounded in beliefs and goals (a plan for obtaining protection from the deity, in some sense). The lack of purpose and agency, though not strictly relevant to the modeling of temporal aspects, limits the model’s ability to represent the anthropological dimension of ritual, where meaning is enacted through purposeful action that occurs according to some orderly plan.
Finally, while the model is highly articulated, an asymmetry emerges between the detailed treatment of object functions and uses, and the processes by which objects are created and modified while preserving their identity (that have to do more with the FRBR model).

Quality of writing. I therefore suggest a substantial restructuring of the paper. In particular, the authors should clearly distinguish: i. the reference theories and the requirements they set; ii. the existing gaps in research; iii. specifying for which research communities they are relevant and why; iv. the reference models and their limitations; v. the proposed solution and its specific contributions.
In addition, the description of the modules is currently intertwined with technical discussions that, while important, make the paper difficult to follow. A clearer separation between conceptual motivation and technical implementation would improve readability. Adopting consistent typographical conventions for classes, properties, and individuals (e.g., italics, small caps) would further enhance clarity.

Overall, the paper addresses a timely and relevant problem and proposes an ambitious framework, but it would greatly benefit from a more focused structure and clearer positioning with respect to existing work. A stronger treatment of agency and intentionality in the modeling of intangible cultural heritage, perhaps in the discussion section, would also broaden the scope of the paper.