• DARIAH EU
• Publicationsclose
• Research dataclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2017-2021close
• Conference object close
• FR close
• AT close
• English close
• Mémoires en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication close
• HAL Paris Nanterre close
• DARIAH EU close

International audience; After more than a decade online, the ArkeoGIS project illustrates the benefits of data sharing. Thanks to free software bricks, and with the precious help of the CNRS’s Huma-Num infrastructure, this spreadsheet sharing platform has shown its efficiency. Users can freely select their language, chronology and the data they wish to share. With over 100 database extracts from professionals, research grants and advanced students, the tool now offers more than 100,000 spatialized data units about the past - in the Upper Rhine valley and also worldwide depending on users’ needs. In this contribution, good practices, hindrances and accelerators of data sharing among archaeologists and (paleo-) environmentalists on the ArkeoGIS platform will be discussed, with the hope of generating more sharing in the digital humanities.

International audience

International audience; Several Research Infrastructures(RIs)exist in the Humanities and Social Sciences, some –such as CLARIN, DARIAH and CESSDA –which address specific areas of interest, i.e. linguistic studies, digital humanities and social science data archives. RIs are also unique in their scope and application, largely tailored to their specific community needs. However, commonalities do exist and it is recognised that benefits are to be gained from these such as efficient use of resources, enabling multi-disciplinary research and sharing good practices. As such,a bridging project PARTHENOS has worked closely with CLARIN and DARIAH as well as ARIADNE (archaeology), CENDARI (history), EHRI (holocaust studies) and E-RIHS (heritage science) to iden-tify, develop and promote these commonalities. In this paper, we present some specif-ic examples of cross-discipline and trans-border applications arising from joint RI collaboration, allowing for entirely new avenues of research

International audience; Digital Humanities is thriving in Belgium. As a Founding Member of DARIAH-EU, the Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities, our aim is to offer a sustainable portfolio of services enabling digital scholarship in the arts and humanities. To realise this DARIAH partner institutions are encouraged to establish Digital Humanities Research Centres which together form a humanities-specific digital ecosystem, offering services both within their own institutions and to other institutions in Belgium and beyond. This poster presents four DH centres in Belgium: three existing centres; the Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres (CIPL, Université de Liège), the University of Antwerp’s Platform for Digital Humanities (platform{DH}, UA) and the Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities (GhentCDH, Ghent University) plus the Leuven Centre for Digital Humanities (LCDH, KU Leuven) which is currently being established. Finally, we share our experiences and lessons learned from establishing digital humanities centres in our own institutions and interconnecting them via the DARIAH network.

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

International audience

International audience

International audience; This article presents an overview of approaches and results during our participation in the CLEF HIPE 2020 NERC-COARSE-LIT and EL-ONLY tasks for English and French. For these two tasks, we use two systems: 1) DeLFT, a Deep Learning framework for text processing; 2) entity-fishing, generic named entity recognition and disambiguation service deployed in the technical framework of INRIA.

International audience; We try to make the link between historical questions related to the concepts of centrality and periphery and certain uses of network analysis and visualization. In the field of global, intellectual or transnational history, the use of the 'network' metaphor to describe the organization of a group of individuals and/or institutions is relatively common. This image of the network, a concept that seems to describe any complex, intricate situation, is particularly suited to historical sciences, whose objects are often divided into several levels, deploy their ramifications in large numbers of clusters and mix different historical sources expressing interpersonal or inter-institutional relations. But can we go beyond the metaphor and put these networks at the center as formal objects? It turns out that graph theory, formal network analysis, is all about finding ways to calculate centrality in graphs. It's up to us to articulate this theory and our historical questions.