• DARIAH EU
• Publicationsclose
• Research dataclose
• Research softwareclose
• Other literature type close
• Preprint close
• FR close
• English close
• Hyper Article en Ligne close
• Hyper Article en Ligne - Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société close

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.

International audience

Submission for Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative - Issue 14; The TEI Guidelines are developed and curated by a community whose main purpose is to standardize the encoding of primary sources relevant for Humanities research and teaching. But there are other communities working with TEI-based publication formats. The first goal of this paper is to raise awareness for the importance of TEI-based scholarly publishing as we know it today. The second goal is to contribute to a reflection on the development of a TEI customization that would cover the whole authoring-reviewing-publishing workflow and guarantee archiving options as solid for journal publications as we now have them for primary sources published in TEI.

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.

How can researchers identify suitable research data repositories for the deposit of their research data? Which repository matches best the technical and legal requirements of a specific research project? For this end and with a humanities perspective the Data Deposit Recommendation Service (DDRS) has been developed as a prototype. It not only serves as a functional service for selecting humanities research data repositories but it is particularly a technical demonstrator illustrating the potential of re-using an already existing infrastructure - in this case re3data - and the feasibility to set up this kind of service for other research disciplines. The documentation and the code of this project can be found in the DARIAH GitHub repository: ​https://dariah-eric.github.io/ddrs/​.

A defining feature of data and data workflows in the arts and humanities domain is their dependence on cultural heritage sources hosted and curated in museums, libraries, galleries and archives. A major difficulty when scholars interact with heritage data is that the nature of the cooperation between researchers and Cultural Heritage Institutions and the researchers working in CHIs (henceforth CHIs) is often constrained by structural and legal challenges but even more by uncertainties as to the expectations of both parties.This recognition led several European organizations such as APEF, CLARIN, Europeana, E-RIHS to come together and join forces under the governance of DARIAH to set up principles and mechanisms for improving the conditions for the use and re-use of cultural heritage data issued by cultural heritage institutions and studied and enriched by researchers. As a first step of this joint effort is the Heritage Data Reuse Charter (https://datacharter.hypotheses.org/) establishes 6 basic principles for improving the use and re-use of cultural heritage resources by researchers and , to help all the relevant actors to work together to connect and improve access to heritage data. These are: Reciprocity, Interoperability, Citability, Openness, Stewardship and Trustworthiness.As a further step in translating these principles to actual data workflows the survey below serves as a template to frame exchanges around cultural heritage data by enabling both Cultural Heritage Institutions, infrastructure providers and researchers and to clarify their goals at the beginning and the project, to specify access to data, provenance information, preferred citation standards, hosting responsibilities etc. on the basis of which the parties can arrive at mutual reuse agreements that could serve as a starting point for a FAIR-by-construction data management, right from the project planning/application phase. In practice, the survey below can be flexibly applied in platform-independent ways in exchange protocols between Cultural Heritage Institutions and researchers, Institutions who sign the Charter could use it (and expect to use such surveys) in their own exchange protocols. Another direction of future developments is to set up a platform dedicated to such exchanges. On the other hand, researchers are encouraged to contact the CHIs during the initial stages of their project in order to explain their plans and figure details of transaction together. This mutual declaration can later be a powerful component in their Data Management Plans as it shows evidence for responsible and fair conduct of cultural heritage data, and fair (but also FAIR) research data management practices that are based on partnership with the holding institution. As enclosing a Research Data Management Plan to grant applications is becoming a more and more common requirement among research funders, we need to raise the funders’ awareness to the fact that such bi- or trilateral agreements and data reuse declarations among researchers, CHIs and infrastructure providers are crucial domain-specific components of FAIR data management.

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.