Comparison of ArchOnto and RiC-O: Pros and Cons
| ArchOnto | RiC-O |
|---|---|
| Less flexible representation | More flexible representation |
| More cumbersome representation | Less cumbersome representation |
| More integrated with other GLAM domains | Less integrated with other GLAM domains |
| The core base (CIDOC CRM) is developed specifically for the museums domain | Developed specifically for the archives domain |
| The core base (CIDOC CRM) is a well-established model | Recent model and ontology |
| Lack of completeness for the expression of provenance | Lack of completeness for the expression of provenance |
| Active users and developers community | Active users and developers community |
| ArchOnto | RiC-O |
|---|---|
| Less flexible representation | More flexible representation |
| More cumbersome representation | Less cumbersome representation |
| More integrated with other GLAM domains | Less integrated with other GLAM domains |
| The core base (CIDOC CRM) is developed specifically for the museums domain | Developed specifically for the archives domain |
| The core base (CIDOC CRM) is a well-established model | Recent model and ontology |
| Lack of completeness for the expression of provenance | Lack of completeness for the expression of provenance |
| Active users and developers community | Active users and developers community |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.