Auditable Documentation for Guizhou Miao Batik-Inspired Design: A Provenance- and Context-Constrained Application Profile

Digital resources make Guizhou Miao batik materials easier to locate and recombine, but downstream records may collapse source, attributed interpretation, transformation, review and intended-use scope into a single “inspired by” relation. This study treats that collapse as a record-structure problem and develops the Provenance- and Context-Constrained Translation Model (PCCTM), a design-technology and digital-heritage application profile implemented with executable Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) rules. “Guizhou” denotes the provincial setting, “Miao” follows cited-source terminology, Danzhai identifies one county context, and “batik” denotes wax-resist textile practice rather than a generic printed aesthetic. Literature was used for requirements elicitation and comparative positioning, not as an empirical sample; all evaluation units were author-constructed Resource Description Framework (RDF) graphs. PCCTM separates seven record responsibilities, records six transformation dimensions, represents intended-use scope through five controlled identifier fields and a date interval, and uses property-driven targets to resist type evasion. Its non-amplification rules keep source, interpretation, transformation, review and scope evidence as distinct record objects so that later derivation does not silently broaden attributed claims or use scope. Evaluation was limited to implementation-level technical validity. Expected diagnostic-code sets matched validator outputs in 97/97 regression cases and 288/288 generated challenge cases. Within the specified 26-family coverage, a same-team procedural checker also matched all 288 expected sets; signatures remained unchanged in 864/864 non-reference inference comparisons and 864/864 serialisation round trips. These fractions describe authored cases and do not establish rule completeness, domain adequacy, usability, cultural and community validity or real-world effectiveness. PCCTM is therefore presented as a bounded, testable record architecture for documenting Guizhou Miao batik-inspired design. Adaptation to other craft domains requires new requirements and independent participant-led evaluation.

design documentation, digital heritage, Guizhou Miao batik, provenance, SHACL

1. Andrews, T. L. (2026). Graph schema validation at last? Work towards a StemmaREST ontology with Neo4J, RDF-STAR, and SHACL. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 41(Supplement 1), i3–i12. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaf067 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barzaghi, S., Heibi, I., Moretti, A., & Peroni, S. (2025). Developing application profiles for enhancing data and workflows in cultural heritage digitisation processes. In G. Demartini, K. Hose, M. Acosta, M. Palmonari, G. Cheng, H. Skaf-Molli, N. Ferranti, D. Hernández, & A. Hogan (Eds.), The Semantic Web—ISWC 2024 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 15233, pp. 197–217). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77847-6_11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bekiari, C., Bruseker, G., Canning, E., Doerr, M., Michon, P., Ore, C.-E., Stead, S., & Velios, A. (Eds.). (2024). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (Version 7.1.3). CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. https://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-7.1.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Carriero, V. A., Gangemi, A., Mancinelli, M. L., Nuzzolese, A. G., Presutti, V., & Veninata, C. (2021). Pattern-based design applied to cultural heritage knowledge graphs: ArCo: The knowledge graph of Italian Cultural Heritage. Semantic Web, 12(2), 313–357. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-200422 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal, 19(1), Article 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chen, Z., Ren, X., & Zhang, Z. (2021). Cultural heritage as rural economic development: Batik production amongst China’s Miao population. Journal of Rural Studies, 81, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. China Intangible Cultural Heritage Network and Digital Museum. (n.d.). Miaozu laran jiyi [Miao batik technique; in Chinese]. Retrieved August 6, 2026, from https://www.ihchina.cn/project_details/14300/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Debruyne, C., Munnelly, G., Kilgallon, L., O’Sullivan, D., & Crooks, P. (2022). Creating a knowledge graph for Ireland’s lost history: Knowledge engineering and curation in the Beyond 2022 project. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 15(2), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474829 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Diulio, M. de la P., Gardey, J. C., Gomez, A. F., & Garrido, A. (2023). Usability of data-oriented user interfaces for cultural heritage: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Information Science, 49(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211001787 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Faraj, G., & Micsik, A. (2021). Representing and validating cultural heritage knowledge graphs in CIDOC-CRM ontology. Future Internet, 13(11), Article 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13110277 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Grüninger, M., & Fox, M. S. (1995). Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In D. Skuce (Ed.), Proceedings of the IJCAI’95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing (pp. 6.1–6.10). AAAI Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kang, X., You, W., & Xie, H. (2025). An innovative and sustainable design of intangible Miao wax printing patterns in combination of diffusion model and fuzzy TOPSIS. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), Article 1365. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05724-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Karana, E., Barati, B., Rognoli, V., & Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (2015). Material driven design (MDD): A method to design for material experiences. International Journal of Design, 9(2), 35–54. https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1965/693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Knublauch, H., & Kontokostas, D. (Eds.). (2017, July 20). Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) (W3C Recommendation). World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-shacl-20170720/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lebo, T., Sahoo, S., & McGuinness, D. (Eds.). (2013, April 30). PROV-O: The PROV ontology (W3C Recommendation). World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Local Contexts. (n.d.). Working with labels. Retrieved August 21, 2026, from https://localcontexts.org/support/working-with-labels/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lyu, Z. N., Yahaya, S. R., & Guo, X. H. (2025). A mathematical inquiry into the structure complexity of Miao batik patterns: A frieze group analysis. PaperASIA, 41(1b), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.59953/paperasia.v41i1b.159 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Matusiak, K. K. (2022). Evaluating a digital community archive from the user perspective: The case of formative multifaceted evaluation. Library & Information Science Research, 44(3), Article 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101159 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Partarakis, N., Doulgeraki, V., Karuzaki, E., Galanakis, G., Zabulis, X., Meghini, C., Bartalesi, V., & Metilli, D. (2022). A web-based platform for traditional craft documentation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(5), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6050037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Pattuelli, M. C. (2011). Modeling a domain ontology for cultural heritage resources: A user-centered approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Quan, H., Li, Y., Liu, D., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Protection of Guizhou Miao batik culture based on knowledge graph and deep learning. Heritage Science, 12(1), Article 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01317-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Shoilee, S. B. A., de Boer, V., & van Ossenbruggen, J. (2023). Polyvocal knowledge modelling for ethnographic heritage object provenance. In M. Acosta, S. Peroni, S. Vahdati, A.-L. Gentile, T. Pellegrini, & J.-C. Kalo (Eds.), Knowledge graphs: Semantics, machine learning, and languages: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Semantic Systems, 20–22 September 2023, Leipzig, Germany (pp. 127–143). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/SSW230010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 7(3), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1068/b070343 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Ethical principles for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Uschold, M., & Grüninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 93–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888900007797 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). Traditional cultural expressions. Retrieved August 6, 2026, from https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/traditional-cultural-expressions/index [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wu, X., Yuan, Q., Qu, P., & Su, M. (2025). Image-driven batik product knowledge graph construction. npj Heritage Science, 13(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-01586-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Zabulis, X., Partarakis, N., Meghini, C., Dubois, A., Manitsaris, S., Hauser, H., Magnenat Thalmann, N., Ringas, C., Panesse, L., Cadi, N., Baka, E., Beisswenger, C., Makrygiannis, D., Glushkova, A., Padilla, B. E. O., Kaplanidi, D., Tasiopoulou, E., Cuenca, C., Carre, A.-L., . . . Metilli, D. (2022). A representation protocol for traditional crafts. Heritage, 5(2), 716–741. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5020040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Smart Iot Device for Weather And Health
• Merlarchive: A Web-Based Academic Hub for UDM With AI-Powered Natural Language Processing
• Enhanced Social Network Security System: Integrating Biometric Authentication for Improved User Verification and Privacy Protection
• Smart Budget Allocation in Public Policy: A Data-Driven Approach for Equitable Resource Distribution
• Decision Support System for Faculty Selection, Promotion, and Reclassification Using Predictive Analytics