INTRO – the intertextual, interpictorial, and intermedial relations ontology
Last modified: 2025-06-25
About: INTRO is an ontology for the fields of literary studies, art studies and intermediality
studies for the representation of intertextual, interpictorial, and intermedial relations.
It enables the presentation and categorization of diverse features of both textual
and pictorial origin and their linking. Its subject area includes the scholarly discourse
on these texts/images, interrelations, and features, insofar as research results are
also understood as texts with features and relations. For more information, see "Description". Special Thanks to: Ingo Börner
Version Info: BETA 202506 – Subclasses are subject to refinement and addition; provisional state
indicated by "INT"-IRIs/Labels without number. A version history can be found at the
end of the document.
INTRO is an ontology for the fields of literary studies, art studies and intermediality
studies for the representation of intertextual, interpictorial, and intermedial relations.
It enables the presentation and categorization of diverse features of both textual
and pictorial origin and their linking. Its subject area includes the scholarly discourse
on these texts/images, interrelations, and features, insofar as research results are
also understood as texts with features and relations.
Hierarchy of Central Classes The notions of 'text' and, by extension, 'image' in this ontology are largely derived
from their use in the ontologies INTRO is an extension of. (For definitions, see the
passages in the documentations of CIDOC CRM resp. LRMoo on the relevant classes.) INTRO is an extension of CIDOC CRM. It makes use of CIDOC CRM’s Conceptual Object
branch, modelling parts of texts, textual relations, types of textual relations, and
textual phenomena as sub(sub)classes of E28 Conceptual Object, like the E73 Information
Object and the E36 Visual Item. To include different ontological levels of texts,
INTRO's object properties relate extensively to central LRMoo classes: the F1 Work,
the F2 Expression, and the F3 Manifestation. INTRO’s classes for parts of texts (on
different levels) are subclasses of the E90 Symbolic Object. The INT3 Interrelation
is a E28 Conceptual Object. Types for closer description of interrelations (intertextual,
intermedial, interpictorial relations) are sub(sub)classes of CIDOC CRM’s E55 Type. With the class INT4 Feature, also a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object, INTRO provides
a rough classification of textual / pictorial features that quickly comes into play
when modelling interrelations and that covers everything from formal to semantic or
rhetorical features. Figure 1: INTRO’s class hierarchy, abbreviated (omitted classes with dashed borders).
Notions and Granularities of 'Text' Depending on the theoretical framework, the notion of 'text' can be understood very
broadly: It can cover texts as distinct entities on different ontological levels (as
provided by LRMoo), but also large corpora of such texts. Regarding the latter, INTRO
makes use the notion of 'Architexts' as introduced by Gérard Genette, referring to
sets of texts (or images) seen as a unit (by reference to certain, e. g., national
contexts, timeframes, semantic features etc.). One differentiation INTRO is built on is the one between a 'passage' and a 'segment'.
This differentiation runs parallel to the one between LRM's F2 Expression (resp. CIDOC
CRM's E36 Visual Item) and the F3 Manifestation on the other hand, where the former
embody an abstract (yet already structured) concept of the text/image, while the latter
refers to the form a text/an image take when they are manifested in a specific way
or version, e. g., at the stage of a certain published edition. Figure 2: Texts and parts of texts on the level of the expression and the manifestation. In INTRO, this differentiation is re-introduced on the level of text or image passages:
The INT1 Passage of a text corresponds to the more abstract F2 Expression it is a
part of; the INT16 Segment corresponds to the F3 Manifestation it is a part of. Like
the F3 Manifestation carries (R4 embodies) the F2 Expression, the INT16 Segment carries
(R16 incorporates) the INT1 Passage. Figure 2a illustrates this (with a text passage).
Figure 2b shows a modelling of the common case that one needs to address a part of
an F3 Manifestation that contains a whole text (a whole F2 expression) – like a poem
in a collection of poems. Here, an INT16 Segment is used to carry the complete F2
Expression. For example: An INT1 Passage from Goethe's "Faust", Act V, is on the level
of the expression; it corresponds to the same text passage, now modelled on the level
of the manifestation – as an INT16 Segment of Act V from the F3 Manifestation represented
by a specific edition of Goethe's "Faust". Introducing the INT16 Segment provides
an entity with more precise (and citeable) metadata in the sense that it has a place
and a date of publication, a publisher, and a page number attached to it.
Textual 'Features' The differentiations mentioned so far suffice for modelling expressions / manifestations
and their parts. When confronted with form and contents and the like – here combined
in the notion of 'feature' –, another level comes into play: The interaction of two
classes of INTRO – the INT4 Feature and the INT2 Actualization of Feature – provides
a way to model what is 'in' an image or text, what can be 'seen on' resp. 'read out'
of it, etc. The 'feature' is the more abstract concept separate from the specific
actualization of the feature in the text/image. One and the same feature (e. g., chiaroscuro
painting, a hero character, a plotline, etc.) can be identified in multiple texts/images,
while the actualization of a feature is specific to the respective text/image. The
way these actualized features are modelled in INTRO bears some resemblance to the
use of an E55 Type. INTRO does not intend to prescribe this; however, classifying
instances of these classes as E55 Types as well is reasonable in many cases. Figure 3a shows the basic modelling of a text ‘having’ a certain feature (a specific
semantic ‘content’, a textual structure or form, rhetorical features, etc.; features
for images are to be modelled analogously). In figure 3b, this feature’s actualization
is linked not to the whole text, but only to a part of it. INTRO’s properties also
allow the chaining of actualizations (figure 3c): This way, one can express the fact
that, e. g., an image shows the depiction of a figure as a semantic feature, which
on a second level has another, e. g., allegorical meaning as a second actualization
of a semantic feature. Referentiality in INTRO is also covered via the INT2 Actualization of Feature and
the INT4 Feature in combination with CIDOC CRM’s property P67 refers to. This property
links the INT2 Actualization of Feature to the real-world referent. (INTRO suggests
this modelling as opposed to using P67 on the INT4 Feature: The domain of P67 refers
to is E89 Propositional Object; using it on the INT4 Feature would conflict with the
aforementioned closeness of this class to the E55 Type.) Figure 3: The feature and its actualization.
The Interrelation Throughout the ontology, the term 'relation' or 'interrelation' is to be understood
in the broadest sense. The ontology instantiates relations between (textual, pictorial)
entities or features thereof in the class INT3 Relation. While INTRO does not pose
any theoretical or methodological restrictions on the notion of 'relation', it provides
subclasses for expressing the medial aspect (intertextual, interpictorial, intermedial)
and links to typologies of interrelations modelled as INT11 Type of Interrelation. Figure 4 shows different granularities of the modelling of the interrelation (by example
of an intertextual relation) as well as different ways to specify the relation itself:
In 4a, the link is located at its most granular level, linking not texts or passages,
but actualized features on passages. This represents the case when an, e. g., semantic
feature (like a character, a motif, etc.) is ‘carrying’ the relation to another text
(where the character, the motif, etc., originated, for instance). This relation is
additionally defined by a link to an instance of the class INT11 Type of Interrelation.
In 4b, the relation is directly linking text passages from different texts, which
can, for example, indicate a verbatim identity. In 4c, the INT31 Intertextual Relation
connects two texts, but additionally clarifies on which common INT4 Feature the relation
is based on. Additionally, while the other two INT3 Intertextual Relations are modelled
symmetrically, as undirected relations via the property R24 has related entity, in
4c, its sub-properties R12 has referred to entity and R13 has referring entity express
a direction of the intertextual relation (like in the case when one text quotes the
other). Figure 4: Modelling the interrelation (here as an intertextual relation).
Representing the Scholarly Discourse When representing interrelations between texts and images and features ascribed to
them, INTRO is focussed on, but in no way limited to the sphere of literature and
art. INTRO can also be used to represent discourse outside this sphere, most notably:
the scholarly discourse about these texts/images, relations, and features. Some of
the subclasses of INT9 Semantic Feature in combination with object properties linking
actualizations of these features allow for the reconstruction of the argumentative
structure of, e. g., research papers. This way, just like representing features ('contents')
of literary works and visual art, INTRO can model the scholarly discourse about them
through properties like R4 defines, R21 identifies, or R20 discusses. (In some cases,
these are shorthands that can also be modelled as intertextual relations – e. g.,
between a scholarly text and the actualized feature in a literary text it discusses.) The modelling of the scholarly text itself and its 'contents' follows the same basic
principles as the modelling of its primary domain – allowing to represent object domain
and meta discourse on the same level. Figure 5a shows a scholarly text (like a research
paper) which in one of its text passages R21 identifies an intertextual relation between
two other texts. Figure 5b shows a scholarly text that R20 discusses an actualization
on another text. Figure 5: The scholarly discourse and its object domain.
Bibliography (selection) – Trond Aalberg, Pat Riva, Maja Žumer (maintainers, 2024), LRMoo. Object-oriented
definition and mapping from the IFLA Library Reference Model. Version 1.0. URL: https://cidoc-crm.org/lrmoo/sites/default/files/LRMoo_V1.0.pdf – Moritz Baßler (2005), Die kulturpoetische Funktion und das Archiv. Eine literaturwissenschaftliche
Text-Kontext-Theorie. Tübingen: Francke. – Chryssoula Bekiari et al. (eds., 2024), Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference
Model. Version 7.1.3. URL: https://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/cidoc_crm_version_7.1.3.pdf – Ulrich Broich, Manfred Pfister (1985), Intertextualität. Formen, Funktionen, anglistische
Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, de Gruyter. – Gérard Genette (1993), Palimpseste. Die Literatur auf zweiter Stufe. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp. – Nelson Goodman (1976), Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. 2nd
edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. – Edmund Husserl (1980 [1904/1905]), Phantasie und Bildbewusstsein. In: Eduard Marbach
(ed.), Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung. Zur Phänomenologie der anschaulichen
Vergegenwärtigungen. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1898-1925). Den Haag, Boston, and London:
Martinus Nijhoff (= Husserliana. Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 23), pp. 1-169. – Wolfram Pichler, Ralph Ubl (2014), Bildtheorie zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius. – Irina Rajewsky (2002), Intermedialität. Tübingen: Francke. – Ralf Simon (2009), Der poetische Text als Bildkritik. München: Wilhelm Fink. – Werner Wolf (2018), Intermedialität: Konzept, literaturwissenschaftliche Relevanz,
Typologie intermedialer Formen [2014]. In: Walter Bernhardt (ed.), Selected Essays
on Intermediality by Werner Wolf (1992–2014). Theory and Typology, Literature-Music
Relations, Transmedial Narratology, Miscellaneous Transmedial Phenomena. Leiden and
Boston: Brill/Rodopi, pp. 173–210.
The INT1 Passage is a means of modelling an identifiable part of an E73 Information
Object or its subclasses – without that part being removed from its source Information
Object. While INTRO focusses on textual and pictorial phenomena and relations as well
as, correspondingly, on text and image passages, the scope of INT1 Passage does not
necessarily exclude passages from expressions in other media. For examples, see subclass comments. The skos:broadMatch states that the INT1 Passage can be regarded as an oa:SpecificResource
in the sense that it is a section of a resource. The skos:broadMatch between R41 hasLocation and oa:hasSelector indicates that by replacing
R41 hasLocation with oa:hasSelector, multiple selector options from the Web Annotation
Ontology can be utilized to specify the INT1 Passage's location.
The fact that a text or an image shows – in its own specific way – a certain feature
(which itself is an abstract concept and takes form in many texts/images), e. g.,
a motif, an atmosphere, a theme, a figure of speech. Examples: – the specific actualization of the motif of patricide in Sophokles' "Ödipus Rex". – the specific actualization of the Faust-subject in Goethe's "Faust". – the specific actualization of the iambic pentameter in Rilke's "Archaischer Torso
Apollos". – the specific actualization of the Ophelia-character in John Everett Millais' painting
"Ophelia". Notes: The INT2 Actualization of Feature can be subject to a I2 Belief as modelled in CRMinf,
used like the CRMinf class I4 Proposition Set.
This class comprises the abstract notion of a relationship between texts and/or images
resp. parts thereof. It is the reification of an intertextual, interpictorial, or
intermedial relation. It is not identical to, e. g., a quote, but a quote can be considered
a typical case. However, the class does not demand any specific theoretical prerequisites
for the relation (like the author's intention, identical wording, etc.), but encompasses
relations based on all kinds of theoretical framework, including scholarly ('pastiche'),
legal ('plagiarism'), or very general notions ('quote'). While the scope of INTRO
currently involves images and texts resp. relations between these two media, the scope
of the INT3 Interrelation does not exclude relations between other media. Every INT3 Interrelation has at least 2 related entities, which are texts/images (on
any ontological level, including parts thereof) or INT2 Actualizations of Features
on these texts/images. An INT3 Interrelation is possibly identified in an INT2 Actualization
of an INT Interpretation and further defined by an INT11 TypeOfInterrelation.
The skos:broadMatch to oa:Annotation indicates that stating the existence of an intertextual
relation can be seen as a kind of annotation made to resources, in this case: at least
two, the related entities (texts and/or images).
This class comprises features that 'are in' or 'can be found in' or 'can be read out
of' a text or an image. The INT4 Feature is a distinct abstract concept, itself separate
from the text or image. INT2 Actualizations of an INT4 Feature are the individual
form they have when they occur on an, e. g., expression: a text or an image, or a
part thereof. An ontological framework for the relation between the feature and its actualization
is not implied: INTRO is agnostic regarding the question if the existence of a feature
is a condition for its identification in an expression or if, the other way around,
a feature is the subsequent abstraction of similar phenomena on different expressions.
Both of these understandings (like all others) are compatible with INTRO. This class has a wide scope. Its domain could be divided into subclasses following
any number of different ratios; to avoid the resulting restrictions and/or complex
hierarchies, the actual subclasses of the INT4 Feature represent diverse approaches
to its subject matter, covering medial aspects as well as aspect of form and semantics.
They can be populated resp. extended with custom subclasses based, e. g., on relevant
reference works: The class INT8 Rhetorical Feature could contain concepts based on
classical rhetoric like allegory or personification, but would of course also include
the pictorial pendants of these tropes. Lemmata from handbooks of poetic terms as
well as concepts of pictorial composition could populate the INT10 Formal Feature
resp. its subclasses. Subclasses of INT9 Semantic Feature could be extended using
art thesauri as well as handbooks on literary motives. For external thesauri and vocabularies see, e. g., ICONCLASS, the Getty Art and Architecture
Thesaurus, the Getty Cultural Objects Name Authority, the Getty Union List of Artist
Names, the Literary Theme Ontology (LTO), the Document Components Ontology, the OntoPoetry
Ontology, the Taxonomy of Themes and Motifs (TTM2) ... In principle, there is no reason not to declare the instances of this class E55 Types
as well. In fact, the INT4 Feature can be seen as a way of 'typing' the INT2 Actualization.
An INT6 Architext consists in a number of texts/images which in some way give reason
to see them as connected, related, sharing a common feature. The class is inspired
by and closely related to the term of the same name coined by Gerard Génette. Examples for INT6 Architexts are – discourses (members sharing a discoursive element, a topic etc.) – genres (members sharing genre conventions) – a discipline (members deriving from the same disciplinary background) – an oeuvre (members created by the same person) – national literatures/arts (members whose creators share a nationality) etc.
This class comprises every aspect of a text or an image that can be described in terms
of rhetorics, meaning its "How?" and "To what end?". This includes features ranging
from the occurrence of rhetorical tropes to aspects of composition in visual arts
to aspects of the narrative act such as 'voice' or 'narrating time' (figurative or
narratological entities, covering the "How") to parts of an, e. g., research paper
like 'introduction' or 'quotation', or, for example, the donor portrait in an altar
piece (covering pragmatic aspects, the "To what end").
This class comprises every semantic aspect of a text or image, like the common notions
of 'plot', 'sujet', or 'character'. While most subclasses are still object to refinement
and addition – to indicate their provisional status they are not yet numbered in this
version of INTRO –, INT18 Reference has been numbered to indicate its consolidated
status.
This class comprises subclasses for every formal aspect of a text or image. It is
divided into the subclasses INT Part and INT Composition, the former containing elements
possibly structured according to the latter. Instances or subclasses of these two
classes are likely also instances / subclasses of other subclasses of INT4 Feature:
An INT Part can at the same time be an INT Object (formal and semantic) or an INT
Dramatic Entity (formal and rhetorical); questions of perspective and vanishing point
can be considered in a formal as well as a rhetorical respect. As a consequence of
the ontology's origin, INT Part is currently dominated by literary terms which makes
the addition of custom subclasses for pictorial features necessary.
This class provides the possibility to type interrelations. Instances of the class
or its subclasses represent the many types interrelations can be assigned and that
are identified, for example, in research literature, but also in greek rhetoric, in
genre theory and so on. It can be linked to, e. g., a definition in a scholarly classification of interrelations.
This definition could be modelled as INT4 Actualization of the feature INT Definition,
and linked to the INT11 Type of Interrelation via R4 defines.
This class comprises expressions (e. g., texts represented as F2 Expressions) or parts
thereof as they are represented in F3 Manifestations. INT16 Segments can be located
inside the F3 Manifestation by means of page numbers etc. and are thus identifiable
(and citable). They are not identical to/subclasses of F3 Manifestations, since they
only make a part of it; they are not identical to F2 Expressions, since they have
distinct metadata linking them to, e. g., a certain edition of a work. The INT16 Segment
can be linked to an F2 Expression (resp. a E36 Visual Item) or an INT1 Passage through
R16 incorporates. It can be linked to a physical carrier (like LRMs "F5_Item") through
P128 is carried by.
This class comprises types of interrelations between a text or an image on any ontological
level and an architext that have merely classificatory or typological function, including
a text/an image being a part of an architext (an epoch, a movement etc.), its initial
or final text/image, etc.
This class comprises references to – usually: real – identifiable objects of any kind.
It is not restricted to non-fictional texts resp. images depicting real life objects
or events, but can be most easily applied there. The CIDOC CRM property P67 refers
to is recommended to establish the link to the entity referred to. However, there
are two options: P67 can link this INT18 Reference (or any other feature) to the external
entity, but it can also link the corresponding actualization of said feature to the
external entity. This depends on the respective theoretical framework and is not specified
in the context of this ontology. The scope of this class also includes references
to other images/texts, if one wants to model an interrelation this way.
The INT21 TextPassage is a means of modelling an identifiable part of an E73 Information
Object or its subclasses – without that part being removed from its source Information
Object. Examples: – The words 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' from Canto III of Dante's Inferno. – The first four lines of Rilke's poem "Archaischer Torso Apollos" – The last item on a shopping list. The skos:broadMatch states that the INT21 TextPassage can be regarded as an oa:SpecificResource
in the sense that it is a section of a resource. The skos:broadMatch between R41 hasLocation and oa:hasSelector indicates that by replacing
R41 hasLocation with oa:hasSelector, multiple selector options from the Web Annotation
Ontology can be utilized to specify the INT21 TextPassage's location.
The INT22 ImageArea is a means of modelling an identifiable part of an image (itself
modelled as an E73 Information Object or one of its subclasses) – without that part
being removed from its source Information Object. It is not an 'image fragment'. Examples: – The part of Leonardo's Mona Lisa showing Mona Lisa's smile. – The bottom 3/5 of Rothko's painting "Orange And Yellow", dominated by the fuzzy
orange rectangle. – The part of the "Smiley Face" originally invented by Harvey Ball that shows the
Smiley's left eye. – The part of Piranesi's The Drawbridge, 2nd version, showing a drawbridge.
The skos:broadMatch states that the INT22 ImageArea can be regarded as an oa:SpecificResource
in the sense that it is a section of a resource. The skos:broadMatch between R41 hasLocation and oa:hasSelector indicates that by replacing
R41 hasLocation with oa:hasSelector, multiple selector options from the Web Annotation
Ontology can be utilized to specify the INT22 ImageArea's location.
This class contains visual features of images – but possibly also of texts. Its subclasses
are rudimentary, it is very likely that instances of other INT4 Feature subclasses
can be classified as visual features at the same time. This might be the case for,
e. g., INT Composition (although for these instances classification as an INT26 Shape
should also be considered). Examples: – The visual representation of a human figure on a painting (can be classified simultaneously
as an INT9 Semantic Feature). – The color orange (as shown, e. g., on Rothko's painting "Orange And Yellow"). – A certain kind of organic texture (as shown, e. g., on the trees on Max Ernst's
painting "Solitary and Conjugal Trees"; can be classified more precisely as an INT27
Texture). – A circular area (oftentimes representing, e. g., the sun; can be classified more
precisely as an INT26 Shape). – The division of the image area according to the 'golden ratio' (can be classified
simultaneously as an INT10 Formal Feature).
This class contains textual features, usually found on texts – but possibly also on
images. It is very likely that instances of other INT4 Feature subclasses can be classified
as textual features at the same time. Examples: – A poetic stanza or certain type thereof. – A poetic verse or certain type thereof. – A book chapter. – A dramatic scene. – A rhyme or certain type thereof. INT24 TextualFeature's subclasses can in many cases be mapped to or supplemented by
classes from DoCO, the Document Components Ontology.
This class comprises the abstract notion of a relationship between texts resp. parts
thereof. It is not identical to, e. g., a quote, but a quote can be considered a typical
case. However, the class does not demand any specific theoretical prerequisites for
the relation (like the author's intention, identical wording, etc.), but encompasses
relations based on all kinds of theoretical frameworks, including scholarly ('pastiche'),
legal ('plagiarism'), or very general notions ('quote', 'allusion'). Every INT31 Intertextual Relation has at least two related entities, which are modelled
as texts (on any ontological level, including parts thereof) or INT2 Actualizations
of Features on these texts. An INT3 Interrelation is possibly identified in an INT2
Actualization of an INT Interpretation and further defined by an INT11 TypeOfInterrelation,
or maybe, more precisely, an INT15 Intertextuality in Intertextuality Theories. The skos:broadMatch to oa:Annotation indicates that stating the existence of an intertextual
relation can be seen as a kind of annotation made to resources, in this case: at least
two, the related entities texts (on any ontological level, including parts thereof).
This class comprises the abstract notion of a relationship between images resp. parts
thereof. It is not identical to, e. g., an interpictorial quote, but such a quote
can be considered a typical case. However, the class does not demand any specific
theoretical prerequisites for the relation (like any notion of the painter's intention,
the viewer's perception, pictorial semiotics, etc.), but encompasses relations based
on all kinds of theoretical framework, including scholarly ('pastiche'), legal ('plagiarism'),
or very general notions ('image quote', 'allusion'). Every INT32 Interpictorial Relation has at least two related entities, which are modelled
as images (on any ontological level, including parts thereof) or INT2 Actualizations
of Features on these images. An INT32 Interpictorial Relation is possibly identified
in an INT2 Actualization of an INT Interpretation and further defined by an INT11
TypeOfInterrelation, or maybe, more precisely, an INT35 Interpictoriality in Interpictoriality
Theories. The skos:broadMatch to oa:Annotation indicates that stating the existence of an intertextual
relation can be seen as a kind of annotation made to resources, in this case: at least
two, the related entities texts (on any ontological level, including parts thereof).
This class comprises the abstract notion of a relationship between images and texts,
resp. parts thereof. It is the reification of an intermedial relation. The class does
not demand any specific theoretical prerequisites for the relation (like any notion
of the author's intention, the viewer's perception, semiotic relations, etc.) or domains
of application, but encompasses relations based on all kinds of theoretical framework,
including scholarly, legal, or very general notions, and covers numerous domains:
art quotations in literature, illustrations of texts, transpositions from one medium
to the other (e. g., literature to comic), images with contents that are in any way
'textual' or 'literary', texts that in any way allude to image contents or structures
(like a poetic 'tryptich'), etc. While the scope of INTRO currently involves images
and texts resp. relations between these two media, the scope of the INT33 Intermedial
Relation (like the scope of the INT3 Interrelation) does not exclude relations between
other media. Every INT33 Intermedial Relation has at least 2 related entities, which are modelled
as texts/images (on any ontological level, including parts thereof) or INT2 Actualizations
of Features on these texts/images. An INT33 Intermedial Relation is possibly identified
in an INT2 Actualization of an INT Interpretation and further defined by an INT11
TypeOfInterrelation, or maybe, more precisely, an INT34 Intermediality in Intermediality
Theories. The skos:broadMatch to oa:Annotation indicates that stating the existence of an intertextual
relation can be seen as a kind of annotation made to resources, in this case: at least
two, the related entities texts (on any ontological level, including parts thereof).
The class comprises figures of speech. Since there are countless classification systems
(the most common dividing figures into tropoi – metaphor, metonymy ... – and schemata/figurae,
further dividing the latter into figures of thought and figures of word, further dividing
the latter into grammatical and rhetorical figures of word), no subclasses will be
provided.
INT Genre Specifics comprises all features that are used to assign a certain genre
– whether textual or visual -, are typical of such a genre, or occur frequently in
it. Instances might often be also instances of the other subclasses of INT4 Feature.
INT Genre Specifics' two subclasses – INT Visual Genre Specifics and INT Textual Genre
Specifics – do not imply that each feature must be either–or, in some cases features
will be assignable to both classes.
The result of a interpretative act, possibly: as perceived in research literature.
An interpretation can identify references or actualizations or the like. A number
of interpretations can together recreate the structure of, e. g., a research paper.
Accordingly, apart from linking INT Interpretations to the subjects of the interpretation,
like intertextual relations or textual features, they can be linked to each other
via R9 has subsequent feature resp. R9i has preceding feature. Examples: – the statement that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' features a detective character. – the statement that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' contains references to Arthur
Conan Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes'. – the statement that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' is set in the 14th century. – the conclusion that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' belongs to the genre 'postmodern
crime novel'.
This class comprises narratological concepts insofar as they correlate with rhetorical
concepts (like 'speech', 'distance', 'perspective' etc.). Due to the plurality of
narratological frameworks, no subclasses are provided.
The class includes all features that can be attributed to a text or image with regard
to the role that these works play in a plot, for example in a social, political or
religious context. These characteristics take account of the fact that the works in
question pursue a specific purpose that goes beyond content and form and that is apparent
'on the surface‘ or by application of certain conventions or handed-down standards.
While INTRO-subclasses of this class are limited to those close to the functionality
of INTRO and which are to be applied to the relation between primary and secondary
(textual) sources, subclasses can of course also include concepts from visual art.
A pragmatic feature of a painting might be a donor portrait expressing gratitude,
the portrait of a ruler serving propaganda purposes, a bible scene serving as guide
for pious action. Pragmatic features of texts include bibliographic references, acknowledgments,
and the like.
Links a text or an image – usually: a work or an expression – to an INT1 Passage from
that text or image, e. g., a book to a passage on page three of this book, or a painting
to an area on this paining.
Links an INT3 Interrelation to the entity referred to in the relationship (a text
or image on any ontological level or a feature actualized in the text resp. image
in question).
Links an INT3 Interrelation to a referring entity (a text or image on any ontological
level or a feature actualized in the text resp. image in question).
Links a text or an image (on any ontological level) or an INT2 Actualization of Feature
to an INT2 Actualization of Feature found on it. (Actualizations found on actualizations
– this occurs in cases where, e. g., the actualization of the feature INT Individual
Character can be read as the actualization of the feature INT Character Type or INT18
Reference.)
Links an INT2 Actualization of Feature (that is possibly, but not necessarily, specified
by a link to the feature INT Interpretation) or a text on different levels of granularity
to the instance of text or image (on any ontological level) it discusses.
Links an INT2 Actualization of Feature (that is possibly, but not necessarily, specified
by a link to the features INT Identification or INT Interpretation) or a text on different
levels of granularity to the INT3 Interrelation or the INT2 Actualization of Feature
it identifies.
Links an INT4 Feature to an INT3 Interrelation it provides the similarity for, the
similarity being the basis for the detection of the INT3 Interrelation. The property
states that an INT3 Interrelation is based on a similarity, i. e. the actualization
of the same INT4 Feature in two different texts/images; it constitutes an abbreviation
of the modelling of two INT2 Actualizations of Feature of the same F4 Feature in the
respective texts/images. The term 'similarity' is to be understood in the widest possible way.
Relates a source (a text on any ontological level or an actualization of a feature
on said source) to the outcome of a receptional or interpretative act (an INT2 Actualization
of Feature, an INT4 Feature like an INT Interpretation, an INT3 Interrelation) to
support it.
Links any INT3 Interrelation to a text or image (on any ontological level) or INT2
Actualization of Feature that is part of the INT3 Interrelation. The skos:broadMatch
states that this property is a more specific version of oa:hasTarget in the sense
that the INT3 Interrelation can be seen as an annotation, the texts/images linked
by this relationship as their targets.
Links a F3 Manifestation or an INT16 Segment to an INT16 Segment it contains (the
segment in turn R16 incorporates an INT1 Passage or an F2 Expression).
Links an INT2 Actualization of Feature of the feature INT Constellation to the elements
(INT2 Actualizations of Feature) that together form that constellation.
Relates an actualization (usually: of the semantic feature 'INT Definition') or a
text on any level of granularity to an INT11 Type of Interrelation, to INT4 Features,
or to INT6 Architexts to provide them with a definition. It could, e. g., link a definition
in Foucault's writings to the concept 'discourse' as it is represented by an instance
of INT6 Architext.
Links an INT2 Actualization of Feature that is possibly, but not necessarily, linked
to the feature INT Opinion, to an opinion object – for example an opinion with the
theme fashion (to make it an opinion about fashion).
Links an INT2 Actualization of Feature to another INT4 following it (logically or
chronologically); this object property was mostly designed for the representation
of the structure of research papers, where one definition, interpretation, etc., follows
another.
Links (usually, exceptions are easily conceivable) a text, like a work or an expression,
to an INT21 Text Passage from that text, e. g., a book to a passage on page three
of this book.
Links (usually, eceptions are easily conceivable) an image, like a work or an expression,
to an INT22 Image Area from that image, e. g., a painting to an area on this paining.
Links a text or image (work, expression, ...) to its bibliographical data, represented
as a data string. (A shortcut for the actual modelling of bibliographical data.)
Defines the location of an INT16 Segment in, e. g., a F3 Manifestation, e. g., by
giving page or paragraph numbers. Can be replaced by oa:hasSelector to specify the
location utilizing the multiple options provided by the Web Annotation Ontology (https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#web-annotation-ontology).
Links pretty much everything to a data string providing a definition for it. (A shortcut
for modelling the definition as an INT2 Actualization of Feature.)
Changes from version beta202408 to version beta202506: dc:description extended, added figures 1-4
R20 discusses – changed domain from INT Interpretation to INT1 Passage, INT2 ActualizationOfFeature,
INT6 Architext, F1 Work, and E73 Information Object; adapted rdfs:comment accordingly
(corresponding change to R20i is discussed in) R21 identifies – changed domain to INT1 Passage, INT2 ActualizationOfFeature, INT6
Architext, F1 Work, and E73 Information Object; adapted rdfs:comment accordingly (corresponding
change to R21i is identified by) R22 provides similarity for relation – updated rdfs:comment R25 has segment – changed domain to now include INT16 Segment, meaning an INT16 Segment
can now contain an INT16 Segment (corresponding change to R25i is segment of) R3 constellates – changed domain from INT Constellation to INT2 ActualizationOfFeature,
adapted rdfs:comment accordingly (corresponding change to R3i is constellated by) R4 defines – changed domain to INT1 Passage, INT2 ActualizationOfFeature, INT6 Architext,
F1 Work, and E73 Information Object; adapted rdfs:comment accordingly (corresponding
change to R4i is defined in) R8 has opinion object – changed domain from INT Opinion to INT2 Actualization of Feature,
adapted rdfs:comment accordingly (corresponding change to R8i is opinion object of)
INT1 Passage – updated rdfs:comment INT2 Actualization of Feature – updated rdfs:comment INT3 Interrelation – updated rdfs:comment INT4 Feature – updated rdfs:comment INT6 Architext – updated rdfs:comment INT11 Type of Interrelation – updated rdfs:comment INT14 Interrelation in Rhetoric – updated rdfs:comment INT15 Intertextuality in Intertextuality Theories – expanded URI (no abbreviation
now), updated rdfs:comment INT18 Reference – removed the E89 Propositional Obect as superclass INT22 Image Area – updated rdfs:comment INT23 Visual Feature – updated rdfs:comment INT24 Textual Feature – updated rdfs:comment INT25 Color – updated rdfs:comment INT26 Shape – updated rdfs:comment INT27 Texture – updated rdfs:comment INT28 Ratio – updated rdfs:comment INT31 IntertextualRelation – updated rdfs:comment, added skos:broadmatch oa:Annotation INT32 InterpictorialRelation – updated rdfs:comment, added skos:broadmatch oa:Annotation INT33 IntermedialRelation – updated rdfs:comment INT34 IntermedialityInIntermedialityTheories – updated rdfs:comment INT35 InterpictorialityInInterpictorialityTheories – updated rdfs:comment INT Interpretation – removed the E89 Propositional Obect as superclass INT Narratological Entity – changed superclass from INT Textual Genre Specifics to
INT Genre Specifics
Changes from version beta202304 to version beta202408: Expanded to an Intertextual, Interpictorial, and Intermedial Relations Ontology – Changed class INT3 Intertextual Relationship to INT3 Interrelation with subclasses
intertextual, intermedial, and interpictorial relation (INT31-33). – Renamed class INT4 ReceptionalEntity to INT4 Feature. – Added INT23 Visual Feature and INT24 Textual Feature as subclasses of INT4 Feature. – Drastically decluttered INT10 Formal Feature. – Added subclass INT Textual Genre Specifics and INT Visual Genre Specifics to INT
Genre Specifics; previous direct subclasses INT Dramatic Entity, INT Lyrical Entity,
and INT Narratological Entity are now subclasses of INT Textual Genre Specifics. – Decluttered INT Pragmatic Feature, added subclass INT18 Reference. – Added INT Identification and INT Situation as subclasses of INT9 Semantic Feature. – Renamed INT6 Architextual Entity to INT6 Architext. Reduced subclasses. – Renamed INT11 Type of Intertextual Relationship to INT11 Type of Interrelation. – Renamed subclasses of INT11 Type of Interrelation, added subclasses INT34 Intermediality
in Intermediality Theories and INT35 Interpictoriality in Interpictoriality Theories. – Renamed INT1 Text Passage to INT1 Passage; changed superclass from F2 Expression
to E90 Symbolic Object. – Added INT21 Text Passage and INT22 Image Area as subclasses of INT1 Passage. Changed
object property R10 has Text Passage to R10 has Passage, added subproperties R30 has
text passage and R31 has image area. – Changed property domains/ranges accordingly.
– Renamed INT Interpretament to INT Interpretation. – Changed R9 has preceding interpretament and inverse to R9 hasPrecedingActualization
and R9 hasSubsequentActualization, changed domain/range to INT2 Actualization of Feature.
Web Annotation Ontology Alignment: – Added skos:broadMatch to Properties R24 has related entity and R41 has location. – Added skos:broadMatch to Classes INT1 Passage, INT3 Interrelation, INT16 Segment,
INT21 TextPassage, and INT22 Image Area.
LRMoo Alignment: – Changed former FRBRoo classes F1 Work, F2 Expression, F22 Self-Contained Expression
and F24 Publication Expression to LRMoo F1 Work, F2 Expression, and F3 Manifestation
(according to mapping in LRMoo's documentation under https://cidoc-crm.org/lrmoo/sites/default/files/LRMoo_V1.0.pdf).
Changes from version beta202210 to version beta202304: – A new property R16_incorporates and its inverse have been added to link the INT16_Segment
– an E90_Symbolic_Object – to an E73_Information_Object it incorporates; a similar
property already exists in CIDOC – P165_incorporates – but is limited to E73_Information_Object
as a domain. A INT16_Segment can't be clearly classified as an E73_Information_Object.
(2023-01) – A new subclass of INT9 Semantic Feature has been created: INT18 Reference. – "INT_Event" and "INT_State" are no longer subclasses of "INT_Plot" but sibling classes
(and subclasses of "INT9_SemanticFeature") – since they are actually not a kind of
plot, but rather an element in a plot. (2022-11)
Changes from version beta202001 to version beta202210: – A necessary modification was made on INT16: It was renamed "Segment" and its description
was altered: The now more flexible INT16 can incorporate portions of, e. g., F22 Self-contained
Expressions of any size, meaning not only whole texts, but also INT1 Text Passages. – The INT16 is now also a direct subclass of E90 Symbolic Object. – Properties indicating position inside a document, that before related to INT1 Text
Passage now also relate to INT16 Segment – since a Text Passage as taken from a F22
Self-contained Expression does not yet have the form of a published work and because
of that can not be identified via, e. g., page numbers (but only by indication of
verse, act, chapter etc.). A INT16 as a part of a published text can. – After close examination it became clear that "r10 has text passage" (as well as
the inversion) cannot be meaningfully related to "F1 Work", since "Work" cannot have
text passages. As a result, "Work" was deleted from the domain of "r10 has text passage". – "r10" is now also no longer related to "F2 Expression", but to the parent class
"E73 Information Object". This allows the modeling of text passages assigned to entities
outside the narrow definition of the class "Expression" – since " Expression" by no
means covers all written documents. – In domains/ranges throughout the model, "F2 Expression" was replaced with "E73 Information
Object". – Erlangen-CRM and the related serialization of FRBRoo were replaced. – "INT0" in labels was replaced with "INT". – owl:import was deleted. – All named individuals were deleted. (2022-10)
Changes from version beta201901 to version beta202001: Some classes and relations
could be resolved into types of intertextual relations; this concerned in particular
the class INT5 Characteristic and adherent object relations. – Deleted class INT5 Characteristic, accordingly: deleted relations R1, R2, R14-16;
changes on relations: R21, R23, R24 – Deleted relations R5, R6, R7 – Added class INT17 Functional Relation as a subclass of INT11 Type of Intertextual
Relation. (2020-01)
Special Thanks to: Ingo Börner