• DARIAH EU
• Publicationsclose
• 2017-2021close
• FR close
• AT close
• CA close
• Hyper Article en Ligne close
• HAL Paris Nanterre close

International audience; The aim of the talk is to present the methodology used to reorganise the PACTOLS thesaurus of Frantiq, launched within the framework of the MASA consortium. PACTOLS is a multilingual and open repository about archaeology from Prehistory to the present and for Classics. It is organized into six micro-thesaurus at the root of its name (Peuples, Anthroponymes,Chronologie, Toponymes, Oeuvres, Lieux, Sujets). The goal is to turn it into a tool interoperable with information systems beyond its original documentary purpose, and usable by archaeologists as a repository for managing scientific data. During the talk, we will describe the choice of tools, the organisation of work within the steering group and the collaborations with specialists for the upgrading and development of the vocabulary while showing the strengths and limitations of some experiments. Above allit will show how the introduction of the conceptual categories of the BackBone Thesaurus of DARIAH, modelled on the CIDOC-CRM ontology, through a progressive deconstruction/reconstruction process, eventually had an impact on all micro thesauri and questioned the organisation of knowledge so far proposed.

International audience; Navigating through the rich and dynamically evolving (Wouters et al., 2013) Digital Humanities (henceforth DH) landscape can be a time-consuming task and difficult to integrate into researchers' everyday routines. Yet primary goals of the DH paradigm such as 1. broadening and deepening the adoption of digital methods amongst humanities scholars and 2. facilitating the culture of reuse of already existing resources requires sufficient tools that make DH resources, methods and best practices visible, easily discoverable and freely accessible for researchers in all levels of expertise. The OpenMethods metablog aims to fulfil this need and provides a platform to bring together all formats of Open Access publications in different languages about methods in DH to spread the knowledge and raise peer recognition for them.

This article shows that metadata plays a central role in our society and concludes that through collaborative work, it is possible to pool solutions and to establish relationships of cooperation, both at the level of practical tool development and with regard to sharing and creating knowledge and know-how. ispartof: ABB: Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique - Archief- en Bibliotheekwezen in België vol:106 pages:135-144 status: published

International audience

International audience; With this White Paper, which gathers contributions from more than 25 experts of 3D imaging, modellng and processing, as well as professionals concerned with the interoperability and sustainability of research data, the PARTHENOS project aims at laying the foundations of a comprehensive environment centered on the researchers' practices concerning 3D digital objects.The topics addressed in the document are meant to help to ensure the development of standardized good practices relating to the production, the handling, the long-term conservation and the reuse of 3D objects. Therefore, even if the focus is put on technical questions (formats, processing, and annotation), the White Paper also identifies the need to clarify the legal status of 3D objects, in order to facilitate their reuse(s) in non-research contexts, in particular in Museums.

International audience; Knowledge production has always act globally, and when it comes to the humanities early networks of scholars can still be traced in their letter correspondence. With the emergence of digital humanities more prominently in the 1970s, research communities have organized themselves in many different ways. The enthusiasm generated by the promises of what was sometimes perceived as a "new field" were to some extent echoed in new forms of institutionalization, to the point of defining a discipline in its own right. But the enthusiasms was also accompanied by a certain resistance of communities reluctant to introduce digital technology into their field.The term of "digital humanities" in these earlier days of adopting digital methods into the humanities created an area, a niche, inside which pioneers in Digital Humanities could gain critical mass. Today, where digital methods are far more widely applied, one can observe an almost opposite trend, the abandoning of a ‘specific label’ and a much broader advocacy concerning all humanities.What remains specific for DH communities is the close alliance between content providers (which themselves are in a process of digitisation content and access), humanities scholars applying digital methods, and computer scientists linking to new methodological achievements in their field. However, this alliance can express itself in very different forms of national and international organisation, and is far from following a specific model.This panel examines different ways of "forming a community" among digital humanities scholars and scholars in other fields, and other actors in DH. The contributions span a range from generic ways to design digital research infrastructures in the SSH, over national solutions to supranational coordination.The purpose of this panel is to unfold the diversity of the current "digital humanist movement”, not only to compare, but also to understand what is at stake for the actors involved and what impact the different forms of organisation have on creation and evolution of research communities. We further discuss issues of cohesion and durability. Through the papers presented, we will examine the impact of bottom-up, top-down and horizontal strategies as well as the adoption of hybrid solutions (organizational, disciplinary, methodological, scalar) in the design of research communities. This approach will allow us to put convergences and challenges into perspective and to question the re- compositions at work within SSH communities.This panel will highlight the experiences of SSH research communities from different cultures and organizations rooted at different levels of governance, such as some French communities structured around institutional nodes such as Maisons des Sciences de l'Homme (MSH), or research infrastructures at the national (TGIR Huma-Num) or European level (DARIAH ERIC); project based collaboration of research infrastructures (DANS, The Netherlands) and Canada (CRIHN); and professional networks and transnational associations related to digital humanities (e.g. Humanistica, the French-speaking association of digital humanities, or the Latin American network for digital humanities under construction). The comparison of the experiences presented will not produce a homogeneous and smooth image but will highlight differences in approaches and organisation. Even it seems nearly impossible to give account of every association that could be representative on a way to build community in DH, the chair of the session will make an introduction with a brief summary of this landscape. That said, besides the geographical aspect that we try to include, another is that we are giving voice to formal and informal associations such as the LatamHD network, that is just at an early stage and that is not yet defined in its goals. We decided to propose several solutions to deal with the diversity of needs and practises inside our communities and we wanted to present some of them to share our experiences and initiate discussions during this panel in order to develop collaborations with colleagues sharing the same kind of constraints.Thus, the objective is to have a broad discussion with the audience to broaden the perspectives to other experiences.This panel aims to contribute to the reflective work in the wider DH context about factors of constitution, consolidation and evolution of its research communities.

International audience

This webinar is dedicated to the phase of the research life cycle “Develop Research Questions”. It will dive into details of the topic of developing research questions with RIs, especially on finding, working with and contributing data to RI collections, using Virtual Research Environments, and tools. It will show successful examples of how Digital Humanities and eHeritage approaches, in cooperation with relevant Research Infrastructures, lead to innovative research methods and questions. It will also exemplify how to successfully involve the broader public in Digital Humanities and eHeritage research (citizen science). This webinar will cross-link to materials developed within PARTHENOS and by the PARTHENOS Cluster Partners and features “teasers” from several research infrastructures as well as an introduction of the Cultural Heritage Data Reuse Charter.

In order to anchor international or multinational lexicographic projects on existing Turkish dictionaries, we should have a common understanding of the way we make reference resources available, as is the case for the digital version of our Turkish dictionary project. Although our work has been done on digitizing Turkish dictionaries, both old Turkish dictionaries and current versions of it, these few examples do not follow a standard way of encoding the source file. In order to overcome this obstacle, during the Lexical Data Masterclass in Berlin, on December 4-8, 2017, I worked on an XSLT transformation document to process an existing dictionary into an output conformant to the TEI standard. Seeing that almost all current Turkish dictionaries give the same category of lexical information in a very similar page layout, this XSLT could work on other digitalized or OCRized Turkish dictionaries. Even if they do not have a digital version, GROBID based projects can easily transform OCRized PDFs into digital file format like the works of GROBID-Dictionaries (Khemakhem et al. 2017). The entry structure that I have been using is taken from the Turkish Dictionary published by the Turkish Language Institute (abbreviated as " TDK " in Turkish) which acts as the official authority on the Turkish language (without any enforcement power) and it contributes to linguistic research on Turkish. Almost all mainstream Turkish dictionaries, such as the ones published by Dil Derneği – Language Foundation (Dil Derneği Türkçe Sözlük, 2005) and Arkadaş Publishing (Püsküllüoğlu, 2004), share similarities by means of the lexical information given in the dictionary and also the page layout. The only difference is the order of information given in the microstructure. For example, the order of the etymological and phonological information is different; TDK (Turkish Language Institution) dictionary gives phonological information before the etymological information and the other dictionaries do the opposite; they first give the etymological information and then the phonological information. The rest of the page layout gives the same lexical information in the same order. Therefore, the same XSLT file could handle all Turkish dictionaries to do such a transformation for an appropriate TEI standard.