Architectural heritage – including historic buildings, monuments, landscapes, and traditional urban fabric – constitutes a vital repository of cultural, aesthetic, and scientific values. Digital archiving such heritage is increasingly necessary for preservation, research, documentation, education, and public engagement. However, the effectiveness of digital archives depends vitally on the metadata standards used: the structure, semantics, interoperability, and preservation of metadata can enable or hinder access, reuse, long‐term sustainability, and meaningful comparisons across collections. This comparative review examines leading metadata standards, schemas, and application profiles currently applied or proposed for architectural heritage, including MIDAS‑Heritage, CARARE, CIDOC‑CRM and its extensions, European Data Model (EDM), Encoded Archival Description (EAD/EAD3), and ontology‑driven approaches such as RiC‑O extensions and the ITDT ontology. Through analysis of published case studies, technical documents, and recent research, we compare these in terms of (i) scope (what kinds of heritage assets, what digital resources), (ii) descriptive richness (what elements, properties, semantics), (iii) interoperability (how easily data can be shared, aggregated, linked), (iv) scalability and granularity (levels from monument to component, 2D/3D, geometry, Para data), (v) implementation complexity and costs, (vi) compliance with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles, and (vii) challenges – both technical (e.g., handling 3D, temporal changes, geometry) and organizational (skills, workflows, institutional inertia). The review finds that no single standard covers all needs: standards like CARARE built on MIDAS serve well for aggregation and heritage‑asset centric digital resources; CIDOC‑CRM and linked data models provide strong semantic interoperability; EAD/EAD3 excels for archival and documentary collections; ontology extensions are promising for modelling complex project processes. The article concludes with recommendations for hybrid and modular metadata frameworks, best practices in implementation, and directions for future research, particularly in automated metadata enrichment, handling of 3D/temporal data, and community‑driven vocabularies.

Keywords: Architectural heritage, digital archives, metadata standards, cultural heritage documentation, semantic interoperability

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. England Historic. MIDAS Heritage: The UK Historic Environment Data Standard v1.1. Historic England; 2012.
2. Chan LM, Zeng ML. Metadata Interoperability and Standardization – A Study of Methodology Part I: Achieving Interoperability at the Schema Level. D-Lib Mag. 2006;12(6).
3. Silva AL, Terra AL. Cultural heritage on the Semantic Web: The European Data Model. J Doc. 2024;80(5).
4. Society of American Archivists, Library of Congress. Encoded Archival Description (EAD3) Tag Library and Schema. Washington & Chicago; 2019.
5. Chen Y, Wu Y, Sun X, Ali N, Zhou Q. Digital Documentation and Conservation of Architectural Heritage Information: An Application in Modern Chinese Architecture. Sustainability. 2023;15(9):7276.
6. Li X, Teppati Losè L, Rinaudo F. Documentation for Architectural Heritage: A Historical Building Information Modeling Data Modeling Approach for the Valentino Castle North Wing. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf. 2025;14(4):139.
7. Barzaghi S, Moretti A, Heibi I, et al. CHAD KG: A Knowledge Graph for Representing Cultural Heritage Objects and Digitisation Paradata. arXiv. 2025.
8. Mulush A, Baik A. Digital Architectural Heritage in Saudi Arabia: An Integrated Model for Documentation and Preservation. ISPRS Arch. 2025;XLVIII G:1085.
9. Quintilla Castán M, Martínez Aranda S, Agustín Hernández L. Digital 3D Inventory for the Promotion and Conservation of the Architectural Heritage. ISPRS Arch. 2022;XLVIII 4/W1:379–385.
10. Deligiorgi M, Vassallo V, Tsagka A, Artopoulos G. A new metadata schema about “Architectural Heritage in the Built Environment”. The Cyprus Institute; 2023. Zenodo.
11. Zheng H, Zhang L, Li J. Research on the Digital Preservation of Architectural Heritage Based on Virtual Reality Technology. J Build Eng. 2024;14:1436. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.1436.
12. Salagean-Mohora I, Dobre C, Popescu D. Photogrammetry as a Digital Tool for Joining Heritage Documentation and Restoration Practice. J Facade Des Eng. 2023;13(2):319–329. doi: 10.1007/s40940-023-00235-3.
13. Kepczynska-Walczak A, Szymanski M. Application of Analogue and Digital Methods in Cultural Heritage Documentation. J Cult Herit. 2025;45:102–112. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2024.11.005.
14. Penjor T, Tshering K, Wangchuk K. Heritage Building Information Modeling (HBIM) for Conservation of Cultural Heritage Buildings. J Cult Herit. 2024;51:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2023.12.003.
15. Argasiński K, Kaczmarek M, Kowalski J. Preservation Through Digitization: Building a Digital Archive of National Heritage. ISPRS Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci. 2023;XLVIII-M-2-2023:87–94. doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-M-2-2023-87-2023.
16. Ling J, Zhang Y, Liu S. Augmented Reality in the Digital Preservation of Architectural Heritage. J Cult Herit. 2025;55:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2025.01.002.
17. Hong L, Tan Y, Zhang X. Studying Tian Hock Keng’s Architectural Heritage Through Digital Preservation. In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Cultural Heritage and Digital Preservation. Singapore: Springer; 2023. p. 50–58.

Architectural heritage – including historic buildings, monuments, landscapes, and traditional urban fabric – constitutes a vital repository of cultural, aesthetic, and scientific values. Digital archiving such heritage is increasingly necessary for preservation, research, documentation, education, and public engagement. However, the effectiveness of digital archives depends vitally on the metadata standards used: the structure, semantics, interoperability, and preservation of metadata can enable or hinder access, reuse, long‐term sustainability, and meaningful comparisons across collections. This comparative review examines leading metadata standards, schemas, and application profiles currently applied or proposed for architectural heritage, including MIDAS‑Heritage, CARARE, CIDOC‑CRM and its extensions, European Data Model (EDM), Encoded Archival Description (EAD/EAD3), and ontology‑driven approaches such as RiC‑O extensions and the ITDT ontology. Through analysis of published case studies, technical documents, and recent research, we compare these in terms of (i) scope (what kinds of heritage assets, what digital resources), (ii) descriptive richness (what elements, properties, semantics), (iii) interoperability (how easily data can be shared, aggregated, linked), (iv) scalability and granularity (levels from monument to component, 2D/3D, geometry, Para data), (v) implementation complexity and costs, (vi) compliance with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles, and (vii) challenges – both technical (e.g., handling 3D, temporal changes, geometry) and organizational (skills, workflows, institutional inertia). The review finds that no single standard covers all needs: standards like CARARE built on MIDAS serve well for aggregation and heritage‑asset centric digital resources; CIDOC‑CRM and linked data models provide strong semantic interoperability; EAD/EAD3 excels for archival and documentary collections; ontology extensions are promising for modelling complex project processes. The article concludes with recommendations for hybrid and modular metadata frameworks, best practices in implementation, and directions for future research, particularly in automated metadata enrichment, handling of 3D/temporal data, and community‑driven vocabularies.

Keywords: Architectural heritage, digital archives, metadata standards, cultural heritage documentation, semantic interoperability

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. England Historic. MIDAS Heritage: The UK Historic Environment Data Standard v1.1. Historic England; 2012.
2. Chan LM, Zeng ML. Metadata Interoperability and Standardization – A Study of Methodology Part I: Achieving Interoperability at the Schema Level. D-Lib Mag. 2006;12(6).
3. Silva AL, Terra AL. Cultural heritage on the Semantic Web: The European Data Model. J Doc. 2024;80(5).
4. Society of American Archivists, Library of Congress. Encoded Archival Description (EAD3) Tag Library and Schema. Washington & Chicago; 2019.
5. Chen Y, Wu Y, Sun X, Ali N, Zhou Q. Digital Documentation and Conservation of Architectural Heritage Information: An Application in Modern Chinese Architecture. Sustainability. 2023;15(9):7276.
6. Li X, Teppati Losè L, Rinaudo F. Documentation for Architectural Heritage: A Historical Building Information Modeling Data Modeling Approach for the Valentino Castle North Wing. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf. 2025;14(4):139.
7. Barzaghi S, Moretti A, Heibi I, et al. CHAD KG: A Knowledge Graph for Representing Cultural Heritage Objects and Digitisation Paradata. arXiv. 2025.
8. Mulush A, Baik A. Digital Architectural Heritage in Saudi Arabia: An Integrated Model for Documentation and Preservation. ISPRS Arch. 2025;XLVIII G:1085.
9. Quintilla Castán M, Martínez Aranda S, Agustín Hernández L. Digital 3D Inventory for the Promotion and Conservation of the Architectural Heritage. ISPRS Arch. 2022;XLVIII 4/W1:379–385.
10. Deligiorgi M, Vassallo V, Tsagka A, Artopoulos G. A new metadata schema about “Architectural Heritage in the Built Environment”. The Cyprus Institute; 2023. Zenodo.
11. Zheng H, Zhang L, Li J. Research on the Digital Preservation of Architectural Heritage Based on Virtual Reality Technology. J Build Eng. 2024;14:1436. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.1436.
12. Salagean-Mohora I, Dobre C, Popescu D. Photogrammetry as a Digital Tool for Joining Heritage Documentation and Restoration Practice. J Facade Des Eng. 2023;13(2):319–329. doi: 10.1007/s40940-023-00235-3.
13. Kepczynska-Walczak A, Szymanski M. Application of Analogue and Digital Methods in Cultural Heritage Documentation. J Cult Herit. 2025;45:102–112. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2024.11.005.
14. Penjor T, Tshering K, Wangchuk K. Heritage Building Information Modeling (HBIM) for Conservation of Cultural Heritage Buildings. J Cult Herit. 2024;51:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2023.12.003.
15. Argasiński K, Kaczmarek M, Kowalski J. Preservation Through Digitization: Building a Digital Archive of National Heritage. ISPRS Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci. 2023;XLVIII-M-2-2023:87–94. doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-M-2-2023-87-2023.
16. Ling J, Zhang Y, Liu S. Augmented Reality in the Digital Preservation of Architectural Heritage. J Cult Herit. 2025;55:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2025.01.002.
17. Hong L, Tan Y, Zhang X. Studying Tian Hock Keng’s Architectural Heritage Through Digital Preservation. In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Cultural Heritage and Digital Preservation. Singapore: Springer; 2023. p. 50–58.