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.
Adeline Joffres; Mike Priddy; Francesca Morselli; Thomas Lebarbé; Xavier Granier; Paul Bertrand; Xavier Rodier; Fabrice Melka; Jason Camlot; Stéfan Sinclair; +17 more
Adeline Joffres; Mike Priddy; Francesca Morselli; Thomas Lebarbé; Xavier Granier; Paul Bertrand; Xavier Rodier; Fabrice Melka; Jason Camlot; Stéfan Sinclair; Idmhand Fatiha; Caroline Abela; Mehdi Chayani; Christophe Parisse; Céline Poudat; Véronique Ginouvès; Sinatra, Michael E.; Emmanuel Chateau Dutier; Gimena del Rio Riande; Paula Ricaurte; Isabel Galina Russel; José Francisco Barron Tovar; Ernesto Priani Saiso; Martin Grandjean; Aurélien Berra; Olivier Baude; Stéphane Pouyllau;
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; The paper provides an overview of recent research and publications on the integration of research data in Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) and addresses three related issues, i.e. the object of evaluation, identifier schemes and conservation. Our focus is on social sciences and humanities. As research data gradually become a crucial topic of scientific communication and evaluation, current research information systems must be able to consider and manage the great variety and granularity levels of data as sources and results of scientific research. More empirical and moreover conceptual work is needed to increase our understanding of the reality of research data and the way they can and should be used for the needs and objectives of research evaluation. The paper contributes to the debate on the evaluation of research data, especially in the environment of open science and open data, and will be helpful in implementing CRIS and research data policies.; La communication propose une synthèse des recherches et publications récentes sur l'intégration des données de recherche dans les systèmes d'information recherche (CRIS) et aborde trois questions connexes, à savoir l'objet de l'évaluation, les identifiants et la conservation. Nous mettons l'accent sur les sciences sociales et humaines. Les données de recherche devenant progressivement un sujet crucial de la communication et de l'évaluation scientifiques, les systèmes d'information recherche doivent être en mesure de prendre en compte et de gérer la grande variété et la granularité des données comme sources et résultats de la recherche scientifique. D'autres travaux empiriques et conceptuels sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre la réalité des données de recherche et la façon dont elles peuvent et devraient être utilisées pour les besoins et les objectifs de l'évaluation de la recherche. La communication contribue au débat sur l'évaluation des données de recherche, en particulier dans le contexte de l'open science et des données ouvertes, et sera utile pour la mise en œuvre des politiques CRIS et des données de recherche.