• DARIAH EU
• Publications close
• Research data close
• Conference object close
• Article close
• English close
• Hyper Article en Ligne close
• NARCIS close
• DARIAH EU close

In Digital Humanities we are accustomed to think about tools as a means to tell a story, whether it be a story about artefacts, events, or patterns in the past. This paper looks at it from the other end, namely that each tool comes with its own story. When we group tools together for means of dissemination, re-use, and accountability in the coordination of an infrastructure we are also telling a story. Certain selected ensembles of tools, which encompass and supersede the individual stories of the tools, create a story of their own. In this paper we take as a case various tools reporting efforts in DARIAH (from the DARIAH contribution website (IKCT), to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to the SSH Marketplace (MP)). We reflect which story is told by whom, for whom, and for what purpose. Doing so, we build on the fact that the stories that tools tell not only shape the (DH) field in which they are built, but are also products and artefacts reflecting the priorities and the technological choices made by the communities building them. (Barbot, 2019; Scharnhorst et al., 2019; König and Uytvanck, 2020; Ďurčo et al. 2021) Reflecting about tools and their lifecycle is not new: some are success stories, some are encompassing failures (Dombrowski, 2014); some are collective stories, while others are more personal ones. Interestingly, and maybe increasingly so, we see a growing emphasis on the need to provide context to tools, particularly in their documentation and registration - not in the least as a means to encourage sustainability and re-use. Still, in practice, we see a co-existence of various ‘documentation streams’. In this paper, we articulate the stories behind various documentation streams that have been designed and are now being executed in DARIAH. With the IKCT, administrative and technical descriptions are centralized; the more recent KPIs put emphasis on DARIAH’s outreach and impact and the even fresher MP targets the functioning of DARIAH-related tools as part of the EOSC landscape. By making the stories around those specific ensembles of tools visible, we shed light on the different communities, stakeholders and their interests, relying on earlier debates around DARIAH’s reference architecture (Barbot et al, 2021, De Leeuw et al, 2017). We also reflect how the different stories mimic the changing strategies of DARIAH and the maturity of tools and services in it. In practice, we see sometimes the same tools figure in different stories, or even making a ‘career’ between different types of storytelling, but we also see new types of tools emerging. Documentation is never a pure administrative act (Hackman 2009, Smiraglia 2014). By unravelling the ‘secret stories tools whisper in the infrastructure’ when being documented, we raise further awareness why we document what in which form. Ultimately, the reflective layer contributes to a more effective documentation. Therefore, we hope to give guidance to the storytellers, to those which tell the story of one tool, and those which tell the stories of ensembles of them. References: Barbot, L., Roi, A., Scharnhorst, A., Durco, M., Fischer, F., Kalman, T., Moranville, Y., Parkola, T., Garnett, V., Edmond, J., & Toth-Czifra, E. (2021). Towards a concise DARIAH service strategy: 2020 Reflections - White Paper. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4621287 Barbot, L., Fischer, F., Moranville, Y., & Pozdniakov, I. (2019). Which DH tools are actually used in research?Https://Weltliteratur.Net/Dh-Tools-Used-in-Research/ Permalink Https://Web.Archive.Org/Web/20220222114745/Https://Weltliteratur.Net/Dh-Tools-Used-in-Research/. De Leeuw, L. Admiraal, F., Ďurčo, M., Larousse, N., Mertens, M., Morselli, F., Priddy, M., Ribbe, P., Thiel, C., Wieneke, L. (2017) D5.1 Report on Integrated Service!Needs: DARIAH (in kind) contributions - Concept and Procedures. DARIAH. Humanities at Scale project. 〈hal-01628733v2〉 Dombrowski, Q. (2014). What Ever Happened to Project Bamboo? Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29(3), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu026 Ďurčo, M., Barbot, L., Illmayer, K., Karampatakis, S., Fischer, F., Moranville, Y., Ocansey, J. T., Probst, S., Kozak, M., Buddenbohm, S., & Yim, S.-B. (2021). 7.2 Marketplace – Implementation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5749465 Hackman, L. (2009). The Origins of Documentation Strategies in Context: Recollections and Reflections. The American Archivist, 72(2), 436–459. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.72.2.g401052h82h12pm3 König, A., & Uytvanck, D. V. (2020). D7.3 Marketplace—Interoperability. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5871651 Scharnhorst, A., Admiraal, F., Roorda, D. (2019) DARIAH (in-kind) contributions: a visual walk-through. DARIAH Annual Event 2019: Humanities Data, May 2019, Warsaw, Poland. 〈hal-02196707〉 Smiraglia, R. P. (2014). Cultural Synergy in Information Institutions. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1249-0

International audience

Published in OA on RESSI (http://www.ressi.ch/) on the 15.02.22. We present here highlights from an enquiry on the innovations in scholarly writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences in the H2020 project OPERAS-P. This article explores the theme of Open Research Data and its role in the emergence of new models of scholarly writing. We examine more closely the obstacles and fostering conditions to the publication of research data, both from a social and a technical perspective. International audience

The concept of “scholarly primitive” has been widely welcomed both by humanists and system designers in the humanities, due to the fact that it made it possible to have a solid conceptual basis for the operationalization of the essential functionalities required for advancing computer-mediated work in the humanities. It has also helped to prioritize, and to provide general frameworks for the analysis of system requirements, which otherwise would have remained vague, or too specifically tied to the particular projects. However, in the design of actual systems or digital infrastructures, most initiatives that have tried to apply the concept of “scholarly primitive” have acknowledged the importance of looking at the relationship between them (e.g., Palmer et al., 2009), but haven't framed these primitives or activities within the larger workflows in which researchers transition from one activity to the other, or perform multiple connected activities in tandem. One of the most fully-fledged conceptual models for scholarly research activity based on scholarly primitives was developed by DARIAH (note 1). Grounded in conceptual and empirical research, this conceptual model aims to fit the needs of the actual research life-cycle (Benardou, 2013), with the resulting NeDiMAH (note 2) Methods Ontology (NeMO) centered around a list of research activities, which are hierarchically connected by means of a taxonomical structure. We have developed a process perspective that can help to understand how these activities are interconnected. For example, the activity “gathering” is defined by the NeMO ontology as “aggregating discovered resources [...] for further analysis.” (note 3). While this normalization of the activity name and definition is useful for several purposes in system design, the NeMO ontology makes no connection to the activities that occur during “discovering” or “analysis”, which makes it difficult to understand how “gathering” occurs in practice, and how it works in real contexts where other activities precede, succeed, or occur simultaneously to the “gathering” activity. The lack of understanding of the scholarly primitives (or of the research activities) in a workflow perspective has negative implications in designing systems that support the research life-cycle. To overcome this limitation, this paper introduces the concept of “workflow transitions” and presents investigations of scholarly work using this concept. The method we propose consists of selecting a sample of representative “research projects” (Koolen et al., 2020) and use them as the unit of analysis for the study of workflows and workflow transitions. We developed our approach through analysing the research process of two digital humanities projects in great detail, by interviewing the project collaborators (using Critical Incident Technique), studying their papers and looking at datasets, tools and scripts. In this paper we will present the resulting workflow visualizations, the findings of our analysis and their implications for digital infrastructure support for humanities research.

International audience; This paper describes the workflow of the Grammateus project, from gathering data on Greek documentary papyri to the creation of a web application. The first stage is the selection of a corpus and the choice of metadata to record: papyrology specialists gather data from printed editions, existing online resources and digital facsimiles. In the next step, this data is transformed into the EpiDoc standard of XML TEI encoding, to facilitate its reuse by others, and processed for HTML display. We also reuse existing text transcriptions available on . Since these transcriptions may be regularly updated by the scholarly community, we aim to access them dynamically. Although the transcriptions follow the EpiDoc guidelines, the wide diversity of the papyri as well as small inconsistencies in encoding make data reuse challenging. Currently, our data is available on an institutional GitLab repository, and we will archive our final dataset according to the FAIR principles.

The European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) portal website aims to aggregate digitally available archival descriptions concerning the Holocaust. This portal is actually a meta-catalogue, or an information aggregator, whose biggest goal is to have up-to-date information by means of building sustainable data pipelines between EHRI and its content providers. Just like in similar archival information aggregators (e.g. Archives Portal Europe or Monasterium), the XML-based metadata standard Encoded Archival Description (EAD) plays a key role. The article presents how EADs are imported into the portal, mainly thanks to the Open Archive Initiative protocols.

International audience

International audience

International audience; The technicality of network visualization applied to history and its relative novelty often result in a superficial use of a software, limited to describing a situation immediately extracted from a data set. This approach is justified in the exploratory phase of an analysis in most cases where the network is very explicitly present in the object studied. But the complexity of the entanglement of historical actors, places, institutions or temporal sequences makes finer modeling necessary if we want to go beyond a simplistic "datafication". To encourage curiosity towards other modes of analysis and put the data modeling (and therefore the historical sources) at the center of the research process, this article proposes a short introduction on how to discuss what makes a specific historical network, its components, its relationships, its layers and its different facets. It offers a kind of visual guide to help historians follow a multilayer framework to think their research object from another (multidimensional) angle and to combine them.

International audience