• DARIAH EU
• 2017-2021close
• Open Access close
• Publications close
• Article close
• Conference object close
• European Commission close
• EC|H2020 close
• ZENODO close
• DARIAH EU close

This paper takes as an example the envisioned portal of the newly started Polifonia project that interlinks resources from very rich, old, established archives while making optimal use of the latest semantic web technologies. In the project, ten research pilots, spanning from historical bells and organ heritage, classification of polyphonic notated music, to the historical role of music in children's lives, form the driving force behind the development of the dedicated interface.Based on a mixture of participation and participatory observation, we describe and reflect on the processes involved in making the portal. In other words - exemplified with the case of Polifonia - we reflect on the role of interfaces (of various types, shapes, manifestations and/or durations) to organise knowledge in an interdisciplinary project. In particular, we focus on the role of data management within the project as a key component of research methodology and cross-disciplinary collaboration, rather than an administrative exercise. The knowledge generated by this part of the project serves at least three different purposes: (1) to envision new research questions (competence questions) guiding the engineering backbone processes; (2) to define the future elements of the portal both for experts, other researchers, wider public and specific parts of the wider public; and last but not least, (3) the documentation task needed to support reproducibility and FAIRness of all data processes. Figure 1 below illustrates how the three components, namely the sociotechnical roadmap of the portal, the ontology-based knowledge graphs created in the research pilots, and the data management plan form three complementary components of the Polifonia project, that ultimately all feed into the web portal.In this paper, we claim that behind any interface there is the need for a layer of interfaces that form the basis of the final interface visible to the public. These procedural, intermediary, interfaces take the form of meetings, shared notes, github presence - and will result in products of their own (Data Management Plan, knowledge graphs), as well as inform the decisions during the process of designing the portal.

D 2.1: Initial plan for communication and dissemination of project results and RI access, including audience/instrument mapping and communications KPIs (M6, to be updated continuously from then on until M 48).

Obtaining high-quality labelled data for training a classifier in a new application domain is often costly. Transfer Learning (a.k.a. “Inductive Transfer”) tries to alleviate these costs by transferring, to the “target” domain of interest, knowledge available from a different “source” domain. In transfer learning the lack of labelled information from the target domain is compensated by the availability at training time of a set of unlabelled examples from the target distribution. Transductive Transfer Learning denotes the transfer learning setting in which the only set of target documents that we are interested in classifying is known and available at training time. Although this definition is indeed in line with Vapnik’s original definition of “transduction”, current terminology in the field is confused. In this article, we discuss how the term “transduction” has been misused in the transfer learning literature, and propose a clarification consistent with the original characterization of this term given by Vapnik. We go on to observe that the above terminology misuse has brought about misleading experimental comparisons, with inductive transfer learning methods that have been incorrectly compared with transductive transfer learning methods. We then, give empirical evidence that the difference in performance between the inductive version and the transductive version of a transfer learning method can indeed be statistically significant (i.e., that knowing at training time the only data one needs to classify indeed gives an advantage). Our clarification allows a reassessment of the field, and of the relative merits of the major, state-of-the-art algorithms for transfer learning in text classification.

Abstract Contemporary discourse points to the central role that heritage plays in the process of enabling groups of various cultural or ethnic background to strengthen their feeling of belonging and sharing in society. Safeguarding heritage is also valued highly in the priorities of the European Commission. As a result, there have been several long-term initiatives involving the digitisation, annotation and cataloguing of tangible cultural heritage in museums and collections. Specifically, for built heritage, a pressing challenge is that historical monuments such as buildings, temples, churches or city fortification infrastructures are hard to document due to their historic palimpsest; spatial transformations, actions of destruction, reuse of material, or continuous urban development that covers traces and changes the formal integrity and identity of a cultural heritage site. The ability to reason about a monument’s form is crucial for efficient documentation and cataloguing. This paper presents a 3D digitisation workflow through the involvement of reality capture technologies for the annotation and structure analysis of built heritage with the use of 3D Convolutional Neural Networks (3D CNNs) for classification purposes. The presented workflow contributes a new approach to the identification of a building’s architectural components (e.g., arch, dome) and to the study of the stylistic influences (e.g., Gothic, Byzantine) of building parts. In doing so this workflow can assist in tracking a building’s history, identifying its construction period and comparing it to other buildings of the same period. This process can contribute to educational and research activities, as well as facilitate the automated classification of datasets in digital repositories for scholarly research in digital humanities.

The objective of this study was to provide the global community of interested scholars with an updated understanding of digital humanities in Spain, in terms of researchers and research centres, disciplines involved and research topics of interest, trends in digital resources development, main funding bodies and the evolution of their investment since the early nineties. One of the characteristics that differentiates this study from previous approaches is the information used to carry out the research. It combines large datasets of publicly available data from trusted sources with a handpicked selection of records grouping information scattered over the Web. Most of the evidence detected by other studies has been numerically confirmed. At the same time, the new metrics and values established constitute a reference base for monitoring the future evolution of the discipline, and thus favour comparisons. Half of the researchers were found to be affiliated to only nine institutions, whereas the other half of them were scattered across 84 locations. Department affiliation showed a varied pattern of the different degrees of specialization in each institution. Although the major historic role played by Philology was confirmed, the rising interest of other areas of the Humanities and Social Science produces a wider picture, which helped to identify five large clusters of research topics, centred on major disciplines. The quantitative analysis of funding, a dimension almost unexplored in the Humanities, proved to be a valuable way to assess the discipline and its historical evolution. In fact, it revealed interesting trends that led to our proposal of a three-phase periodization in the consolidation of digital humanities in Spain. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations regarding how to deal with issues that could harm the future development of this research area and the role that Spanish researchers can play in the international context. The whole dataset analysed in this publication can be downloaded at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3893546 A part of this dataset has been also analysed for this poster https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4256689

Communicating is a par excellence scholarly primitive, all probably the most universal scholarly activity across disciplines and over time. This, however, does not imply the uniformity of scholarly communication practices. This is especially true for the humanities domain where the need for cultural nuance in many fields, scholarly outputs are usually grounded in regional, national and language-specific communities. But what are the chances and limitations of bibliodiversity and media diversity in everyday scholarly communication practices? How we can communicate research results in ways that truly align with our increasingly digital and diverse research workflows? What are the cases where the evaluation is disconnected to novel forms of research and what are the possibilities for re-harmonization? Considering that the traditional paradigm of article and book publishing still serves as the highest value currency of career-development in Humanities, the stakes are especially high when looking for answers to such questions. The Innovations in Scholarly Communication Work Package of the Horizon2020 project OPERAS-P is conducting an open consultation to get a better understanding about current trends, gaps and community needs in scholarly writing and research evaluation practices. Working closely with the OPERAS infrastructure dedicated to scholarly communication in the SSH domain, we are in the position to directly translate these needs into supporting the development of the relevant OPERAS activities and services. This workshop, organised in coordination with the DiMPO WG, will be centred around the four scholarly primitives of communicating, linking, commenting, and evaluating. We will look how these basic scholarly activities can be supported by novel scholarly communication practices. Workshop format Target audience: scholars in various humanities disciplines from the DARIAH-community. What participants can gain: Shared knowledge of workflows and resources for innovative scholarly communication that are well-grounded in research realities of the Humanities. Participants' needs will be amplified in the European policy debates and will be considered in the development of scholarly communication services provided by OPERAS: Contribution to DARIAH community: Although scholarly communication is an elementary scholarly activity, this topic has not yet been addressed in DARIAH Annual Event workshops. Recommendations will be incorporated into both DARIAHOpen and DARIAH DiMPO outputs, as well as the forthcoming recommendations to Humanities researchers being prepared by the OPERAS Innovations WG. Method: World café with questions addressing various aspects of research publications (writing, linking, commenting, evaluating) in the humanities. The workshop will build upon the versatile experience of the DiMPO and the OPERAS Working Groups covering such techniques as user stories, process collage, thermometers of indicators etc. adapted for this workshop. Outline: Introduction flesh talks (30 mins) Presentation of OPERAS WP 6. Innovation Writing innovations/challenges with special focus on data publications + presentation of the journals JODH and RDJHSS for further discussion in the breakout room Peer review challenges + presentation of Publons to be further discussed in the breakout Presentation of the findings of the OPERAS-P Landscape Study Presentation of The Open Science Career Assessment Matrix to be further discussed in the breakout BREAKOUT discussions (30 mins) Two SSH data journals: JOHD and RDJHSS (Claire and Elisa) Publons (Erzsébet) OS metrics (Maciej and Jadranka) Reporting back, conclusion (20’)

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."]}

This poster has been awarded with the Best Poster Award at DARIAH2020 virtual annual event https://twitter.com/dariaheu/status/1327290958971609090?s=21 In order to provide the global community of scholars working in this field with a greater understanding of the current Spanish scenario, LINHD has recently promoted a research on the evolution of Digital Humanities in Spain in the last 25 years, a timeframe comparable with Unsworth first formulation of scholarly primitives. More than 1,000 records have been mapped, distributed as follow: 577 researchers; 368 projects; 88 resources; 9 post-graduate courses; and 8 specialised journals. Digital resources (i.e. repositories of documents, collections of artefacts, crowdsourcing platforms, dictionaries, databases, etc.), which are the object of this poster, have been produced, most of the time, with the aim to publish a service to improve the basic of day-to-day research workflow in the Humanities. Our initial objectives were: to classify and describe the digital resources mapped according with the classical and new scholarly primitives, in order to highlight presences, absence and recurring associations of these categories; To visualize the relationships between scholarly primitives and other dimensions in our data, like discipline and typology. to identify how the introduction of digital tools and methods has affected the basic functions of research in the Humanities in Spain over time. Data analysed is part of a larger dataset that can be downloaded at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3893546 The whole dataset has been extensively analysed in https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.nov.01