• DARIAH EU
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2014-2023close
• Open Access close
• DARIAH EU close

In deze publicatie geeft het Rathenau Instituut feitelijke informatie over het belang en de betekenis van het Europese onderzoeksbeleid en met name de European Research Area (ERA) voor het wetenschappelijk onderzoek in Nederland.

This report was produced in the context of the project Data Service Infrastructure for the Social Sciences and Humanities (DASISH) work package 4.3 Convergence of Data Services. The goal has been to allow the selection and promotion of high-quality deposit services for researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and to make suggestions for service improvements.

Publishing research data as open data is not yet common practice for researchers in the arts and humanities, and lags behind other scientific fields, such as the natural sciences. Moreover, even when humanities researchers publish their data in repositories and archives, these data are often hard to find and use by other researchers in the field. This report gives an overview of the various aspects that are connected to open access publishing of research data in the humanities. After the introduction, where we give definitions of key concepts, we describe the research data life cycle. We present an overview of the different stakeholders involved and we look into advantages and obstacles for researchers to share research data. Furthermore, a description of the European data repositories is given, followed by certification standards of trusted digital data repositories. The possibility of data citation is important for sharing open data and is also described in this report. We also discuss the standards and use of metadata in the humanities. Finally, we discuss best practice example of open access research data system in the humanities: the French open research data ecosystem. With this report we provide information and guidance on open access publishing of humanities research data for researchers. It will also serve as input for the design and implementation of an open humanities data platform in DARIAH.

Straipsnyje aptarti tiriamojo projekto „Egodokumentinis Lietuvos palikimas“ (lietuviškas akronimas Legedok. angliškas – Legedoc), vykdyto Vilniaus universiteto 2010-2013 m. kartu su Mikalojaus Koperniko universiteto (Torunė, Lenkija) mokslininkais, rezultatai. tarp svarbiausiųjų paminėtini: problemų, kuriant Legedok duomenų bazę išaiškinimas, paieškos sistematizacija, egodokumentinio palikimo klasifikacija, darbas ruošiant ir išleidžiant fundamentalius šaltinius. Pati Legedok idėja gimė Bordo (Prancūzija), kur 2008 m. vyko konferencija „Asmeninė korespondencija Europos kontekste“. Egodokumentų paieška buvo sėkminga. Nustatyta, kad iš 84 valstybinių Lenkijos archyvų lituanistinė medžiaga yra 16 archyvų, juose peržvelgti ir giliau ištirti 84 [rankraščių] kompleksai. Egodokumentų Lietuvoje surasta ne tik giminių fonduose ir dokumentų kolekcijose, bet ir valstybinių institucijų (pvz. Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo knygose) fonduose. Vykdant šį projektą, išleisti 4 leidiniai: straipsnių rinkinys „Egodokumentai ir privati erdvė Lietuvoje XVI-XX amžiuje“, „Apaštališkas Juozapo Mikalojaus Karpio laiškas Žemaičių vyskupystės kunigams“, „Mykolo Butlerio kelionės į Italiją ir Vokietiją 1779-1780 m. dienoraštis“ ir „Juozapo Jurgio Hilzeno kelionės 1752-1754 m. dienoraštis“. Šios knygos leidžiamos kaip serija, kuri bus tęsiama. Ateities perspektyvoje yra galimybė prisijungti prie prie mokslo informacinių ir kultūrinio palikimo struktūrų ne tik Lietuvoje, bet ir Europoje.

This report addresses the ARIADNE project objectives and the framework of the impact evaluation, summarises the overall results, and gives recommendations for ARIADNE and other stakeholders with a focus on potential further advances.

If we want to share data, the long-term storage of those data in a trustworthy digital archive is an essential condition. Trust is the basis of storing and sharing data. That trust must be present in the various stakeholders involved. Certification of digital archives can make an important contribution to the confidence of these stakeholders in the digital archives. Ten years ago DANS was assigned the task of developing a Seal of Approval for digital data to ensure that archived data can still be found, understood and used in the future. In 2009 this Data Seal of Approval (DSA) was transferred to an international body, the DSA Board, which has managed and further developed the guidelines and the peer review process ever since. The objectives of the DSA are to safeguard data, ensure high quality and guide reliable management of data for the future without requiring implementation of new standards, regulations or heavy investments. The DSA contains 16 guidelines for applying and verifying quality aspects concerning the creation, storage, use and reuse of digital data. Based on feedback from data archives that applied for a DSA and different case studies we have gained some insight into the benefits of DSA. Still, the impact of having the Seal is not easy to measure. Seal holders usually refer to qualitative benefits in the form of increased awareness of the value of their repositories to their communities, funders and publishers. Ten years down the line we can safely state that the Data Seal of Approval has proven its added value. If we try to look five years into the future, what can we expect? There are different developments: a growing interest in DSA among European research infrastructures, the collaboration between DSA and the ISCU World Data System under the umbrella of the RDA (Research Data Alliance) and the European Commission is showing a growing interest in certification services. The success of DSA also provides the challenge to further professionalize the DSA organization in the coming years, this to enable its community to continue to grow.

The CENDARI project committed in its original description of work to the production of a Business Plan (Deliverable 2.4), outlining a method statement for ensuring that the outputs of the CENDARI project would be available to future users. The project team decided to rename this deliverable the CENDARI “Sustainability Plan” and this document sets out the plan which is based upon a multidimensional conceptualisation of what CENDARI is and the value of its assets, as well as on the fundamental understanding of a digital project as useless if it does not ‘evolve and involve.’ This document presents not only the actions that have been and will continue to be taken by the CENDARI team, but also interrogates the topic of sustainability of research infrastructures

The aim of this task was to analyse and compare the different metadata strategies of CLARIN, DARIAH and CESSDA, and to identify possibilities of cross-fertilization to take profit from each other solutions where possible. To have a better understanding in which stages of the research lifecycle metadata comes to the fore, we looked at several research data lifecycles and business process models. However the current research data lifecycle models have the ‘static’ data object as basis, whereas metadata design , redesign, creation and management can continue to be ‘live’ issues within the research lifecycle. We therefore developed a metadata lifecycle based closely on familiar lifecycle models but extended to support the more dynamic metadata issues. To describe the metadata management of the different infrastructures we took a double approach. We looked on a more general level and outlined the policies and strategies regarding metadata of the three infrastructures. We evaluated these strategies on metadata qua lity issues with the Bruce and Hillmann criteria. On the other hand we looked with more detail how the work on metadata management is done by the individual data repositories. The infrastructures of CESSDA, CLARIN and DARIAH differ in visions, strategies and initiatives regarding metadata issues; similarly there is a difference in metadata management among the various repositories. Despite these differences, cross fertilisation by coordination on common lists of metadata elements, sharing of knowledge, and linking resources would leverage the overall metadata quality. Evaluation of the prototype of the joint CLARIN, DARIAH and CESSDA metadata portal endorses the opinion that more coordination is needed. Metadata quality must be discussed in relation to the activities for which they are used. We suggest that the infrastructures DARIAH and CLARIN prioritise future collaboration about standardisation efforts, which have already been in itialised in dialogue between the CLARIN Standards Committee and the DARIAH representatives. Similar initiatives could be established with CESSDA.