• DARIAH EU
• 2013-2022close
• Open Access close
• Publications close
• Article close
• Preprint close
• English close
• DARIAH EU close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Her... close

Storytelling tools aim to leverage the technological restraints of creating and sharing digital narratives, allowing non-expert users to deploy projects and populate them with custom-made content. In other words, storytelling tools aim at giving space for diverse narratives to emerge and spread in the digital sphere. As facilitators of imagining and communicating ideas, they may also be considered incubators of rethinking societal challenges. The three storytelling tools developed in the framework of the HORIZON2020 SO-CLOSE project allow users to create and publish multimedia, multilingual and accessible digital cultural heritage projects. In this demonstration, we present the three tools: the interactive story map, the immersive web doc and the participatory virtual exhibition. We showcase the publishing interfaces (front-end), the authoring and content management system (back-end) and a use-case application (project). The present prototypes will be publicly released by the end of the project (December 2022). SO-CLOSE is a three-year project that aims at enhancing social cohesion through sharing the cultural heritage of forced migrations. Based on theories of cultural heritage-making, the project works towards exposing the commonalities of past and present experiences with the mediation of innovative digital tools and collaborative approaches. The act of storytelling becomes a premise for the potential of a better understanding between local communities and newcomers. In this context, the three tools are conceived and developed to empower cultural institutions and communities in building and publishing their digital stories. To achieve this, end-users were intensively involved in the design process, through participatory methodologies. Starting from a state-of-the-art tools analysis, the project collaborated with cultural institutions, NGOs, refugees and asylum seekers, local communities, researchers and policy makers in the requirements elicitation process (interviews and focus groups), co-design workshops and validation surveys. Overall, the users of the storytelling tools can create projects based on journeys, chapters or exhibitions, use modules that can be selected, shuffled and repeated, populate them with their own content – including 360 videos and images and 3D models – and carry out crowdsourcing calls. The projects are published online, with integrated features for accessibility, interactivity and data interoperability with other repositories. The use-case that will illustrate the tools application will be a pilot project of Greek Forum of Refugees, co-created together with three different refugee communities living in Greece and the Contemporary Social History Archives. posters & demos: 142

John Unsworth (2000) proposed a tentative list of scholarly primitives, and although he made a reservation that it was not meant to be exhaustive, one omission is striking, namely the exclusion of communicating. It is even more visible once one realises that all the examples he provides in the paper of comparison IBabble), linking (Blake Archive), or sampling (VRML visualisation of Dante’s Inferno) have the indispensable communication component attached to them. The aim of this presentation is two-fold. First of all, we will reclaim the role of communication as one of the fundamental functional primitives, crucial in all stages of the research workflow. To use Unsworth’s nomenclature, communication takes advantage of the additive characteristics of scholarly primitives and enters into combinations with all other scholarly primitives. Secondly, right after reestablishing the communication as a scholarly primitive we will swiftly proceed to problematise the notion of its universality for all disciplines through exploration of the specificity of scholarly communication in the humanities. We will achieve that using New Panorama of Polish Literature (NPLP.pl) as a case-study, outlining the relevant digital infrastructure for the humanities. It has long been suggested that communication should be seen as a fundamental element of the research workflow, rather than an activity running somewhat separate to the research practice (Latour and Woolgar 1986; Garvey 1979; Galison and Galison 1997; Nielsen 2011). Recently this idea wass reinforced by Hillyer et al. (2017) who describe open science as “opening of the entire research cycle” and include communication as one of its key elements. It means that dissemination is no longer perceived as the final stage of a research process but becomes an integral part of all scholarly activities. New digital methods and tools (Dallas et al. 2017), including electronic communication and social media (Kjellberg 2010), facilitate this process. allowing scholars to communicate and collaborate with each other and the wider audience quickly and efficiently at all stages of their work. This also includes intermediary results of the work, including raw and secondary data (Castelli, Manghi, and Thanos 2013). The incorporation of communication into all stages of the research workflow also means that choosing a certain communication strategy is obviously influenced by the perceived goal, but also the goal influences other phases of the research process. This feedback loop more precisely on the example of NPLP, a research infrastructure for literary scholars enabling the creation of extended, multimedia monographs and presenting scholarly arguments through linking text with image, visualisation, map and video content. Yet, Creating a new digital collection forces researchers to rethink how their work is presented, categorised and displayed . For instance in "Postmodern Sienkiewicz" collection (http://nplp.pl/en/kolekcja/postmodern-sienkiewicz/) authors divided their articles into shorter fragments with additional iconography allowing for non-linear reading and access through image-interface. These activities required additional work on the stage of data collection, analysis and interpretation. In conclusion we will tackle upon the question remains to what extent such communication practices are universal for all sciences and what could be treated as reserved for the humanities in the spirit of Diltheyan disctinction between explaining (in sciences) and understanding (in the humanities). {"references": ["Castelli, D., P. Manghi, and C. Thanos. 2013. 'A Vision towards Scientific Communication Infrastructures: On Bridging the Realms of Research Digital Libraries and Scientific Data Centers'. International Journal on Digital Libraries 13 (3\u20134): 155\u201369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-013-0106-7.", "Dallas, Costis, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou, Michael Bender, Aur\u00e9lien Berra, Claire Clivaz, John Cunningham, et al. 2017. 'European Survey on Scholarly Practices and Digital Needs in the Arts and Humanities - Highlights Report'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.260101.", "Galison, Peter, and Joseph Pellegrino University Professor Peter Galison. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press.", "Garvey, WILLIAM D. 1979. 'CHAPTER 1 - The Role of Scientific Communication in the Conduct of Research and the Creation of Scientific Knowledge'. In Communication: The Essence of Science, edited by WILLIAM D. Garvey, 1\u201339. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023344-4.50006-4.", "Hillyer, Rebecca, Alejandro Posada, Denisse Albornoz, Leslie Chan, and Angela Okune. 2017. 'Framing a Situated and Inclusive Open Science: Emerging Lessons from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network'. 2017.", "Kjellberg, Sara. 2010. 'I Am a Blogging Researcher: Motivations for Blogging in a Scholarly Context'. First Monday 15 (8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i8.2962.", "Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.", "Nielsen, Michael A. 2011. Reinventing Discovery\u202f: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9517.html.", "Unsworth, John. 2000. 'Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?' In . King's College London. http://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html."]}

We consider a (4+D)–dimensional Friedmann–Robertson–Walker type universe having complex scale factor R + iRI, where R is the scale factor corresponding to the usual 4–dimensional Universe while iRI is that of D–dimensional space. It is then compared with (4+D)–dimensional Kaluza–Klein Cosmology having two scale factors R and a(= iRI). It is shown that the rate of compactification of higher dimension depends on extra dimension ‘D’. The Wheeler–DeWitt equation is constructed and general solution is obtained. It is found that for D = 6 (i.e. in 10 dimension), the Wheeler–DeWitt equation is symmetric under the exchange of RI« R.

The European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) portal website aims to aggregate digitally available archival descriptions concerning the Holocaust. This portal is actually a meta-catalogue, or an information aggregator, whose biggest goal is to have up-to-date information by means of building sustainable data pipelines between EHRI and its content providers. Just like in similar archival information aggregators (e.g. Archives Portal Europe or Monasterium), the XML-based metadata standard Encoded Archival Description (EAD) plays a key role. The article presents how EADs are imported into the portal, mainly thanks to the Open Archive Initiative protocols.

info:eu-repo/semantics/inPress

International audience

International audience; The technicality of network visualization applied to history and its relative novelty often result in a superficial use of a software, limited to describing a situation immediately extracted from a data set. This approach is justified in the exploratory phase of an analysis in most cases where the network is very explicitly present in the object studied. But the complexity of the entanglement of historical actors, places, institutions or temporal sequences makes finer modeling necessary if we want to go beyond a simplistic "datafication". To encourage curiosity towards other modes of analysis and put the data modeling (and therefore the historical sources) at the center of the research process, this article proposes a short introduction on how to discuss what makes a specific historical network, its components, its relationships, its layers and its different facets. It offers a kind of visual guide to help historians follow a multilayer framework to think their research object from another (multidimensional) angle and to combine them.

The Archaeology Data Service (ADS) is an archive working at a national level in the UK, ensuring that archaeologists have access to high quality and dependable digital resources, including openly licensed legacy data for reuse. The ADS acts as a metadata aggregator for archaeological data held by larger heritage agencies and smaller regional organizations and participates in international aggregation infrastructure projects such as ARIADNE, which allows users to access archaeological resources held in many countries from a single interface. Large-scale infrastructures can facilitate the building of long-term, complex relationships and active collaborations, not just technical solutions. This paper reflects on the roles of stewardship and equity within ARIADNE and the ADS, two large-scale online research infrastructures, and how these types of infrastructures may help to create a more collaborative archaeology, including lessons learned, challenges and opportunities, and thoughts for the future.

International audience