• DARIAH EU
• Publications close
• Research data close
• European Commission close
• EC|H2020 close
• EC|H2020|CSA close
• ZENODO close

This talk outlines a vision for Common European Data Spaces, proposed by the European Commission, where FAIR principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016) and FAIR Digital Objects (FDOs) (De Smedt et al. 2020, Schwardmann 2020) can play a role in bringing together research infrastructures, data aggregators and other stakeholders working with curated objects in museums, herbaria, libraries and archives. The organisations and stakeholders involved represent a wide range of disciplines and data types including biodiversity, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, cultural history, digital storytelling, art conservation, and history of science among others (ICEDIG 2020, Ortolja-Baird and Nyhan 2021). The context and the history of the curated objects also span the natural sciences and cultural heritage domains (Nadim 2021, Weber 2021). Despite this heterogeneity, various common themes in the area of digital curation, open access, and data usage (Tasovac et al. 2020) appear where FDOs and Common European Data Spaces can be a useful venue for supporting the European Strategy for Data. In particular, FDOs, as an abstraction mechanism to structure and describe digital artefacts from a specific domain yet at the same time provide interoperability (De Smedt et al. 2020), can help realise the vision behind a common data space to “bring together relevant data infrastructures and governance frameworks in order to facilitate data pooling and sharing” (European Commission 2022:2). A May 2022 report on the challenges and opportunities of European Common Data Spaces highlights the following points: Open data holders have extensive experience in data publishing, metadata management, data quality, dataset discovery, data federation, as well as tried-and-tested standards (e.g. DCAT) and technologies. There seems to be very little knowledge/technology transfer from the open data community to the data spaces community, which is a missed opportunity. Data space implementations should not reinvent wheels that the open data community has already developed, tested, and used extensively. Whether the data is private, shared, or open, using data from multiple sources requires interoperability at several levels, from identifiers to vocabularies. The question of which data intermediaries will act as neutral agents to ensure interoperability is underexplored in the data space context. Public administrations, building on their experience of publishing open data, are best placed to take on such roles Open data holders have extensive experience in data publishing, metadata management, data quality, dataset discovery, data federation, as well as tried-and-tested standards (e.g. DCAT) and technologies. There seems to be very little knowledge/technology transfer from the open data community to the data spaces community, which is a missed opportunity. Data space implementations should not reinvent wheels that the open data community has already developed, tested, and used extensively. Whether the data is private, shared, or open, using data from multiple sources requires interoperability at several levels, from identifiers to vocabularies. The question of which data intermediaries will act as neutral agents to ensure interoperability is underexplored in the data space context. Public administrations, building on their experience of publishing open data, are best placed to take on such roles Building on previous conversations facilitated by DiSSCo, DARIAH, Europeana, and Archives Portal Europe Foundation, (Europeana Conference 2021, DARIAH Annual Event 2022), this talk will address the above points from the perspective of bringing together the domains of natural history museums, cultural heritage, and digital humanities. Within our collaboration, we have identified several common areas such as data discoverability, linking, and providing contextual information, which align with the goal of FDO implementation. DiSSCo and DARIAH as European infrastructures, on the one hand, and Europeana and Archives Portal as data aggregators, on the other hand, are involved in improving access to data and the researchers' capacity to work with heterogeneous data sources. One of the biggest shared challenges across the diverse workflows in the arts and humanities and natural history domains is that the data curation processes form a natural continuum between a range of different actors working either in cultural heritage institutions or in academia. In reality, these different layers of curation, enrichment and analysis are separated by legal, institutional, infrastructural and even funding silos (as in many countries, these institutions belong to different ministries, and fall under different legislative frameworks). How can this continuum, from a scholarly point of view, be supported within common data space and FDO framework? At the same time, implementing a common data space requires not just interoperability but stewardship and strategy for sharing resources (Keller 2021). The data infrastructure and FAIR related activities explored in our collaboration are of strategic importance to help Europe and the rest of the world deal with important societal issues. Therefore, bringing this collaboration within the context of FDO provides an ideal avenue to explore potential data, policy, and implementation matters, in order to address the two gaps outlined above for Common Data Spaces. Furthermore, the ideas expressed in Common European Data Space for Cultural Heritage (with Europeana as the core stakeholder) and Green Deal Data Spaces need further clarification concerning implementation planning and most importantly, how multiple commons would work together. With DARIAH coming from the humanities and DiSSCo from the natural sciences side, such collaborations and synergy should align with the Common Data Spaces vision. The philosophy and ideas behind data and digital commons are not new (Fuchs 2020, Kashwan et al. 2021). However, it is crucial to contextualise the implementation strategy and benefits within data intensive, multidisciplinary research and FAIR principles. Given that curated objects are informational resources for the researchers, but can also provide contexts, and make visible the relationships between artefacts, people, publications, organisations, provenance, and events, it is important to think of them as much more than just records in a database. Additionally, FDOs as the digital representations of the curated objects have the potential of fostering cross-disciplinary collaborations (such as between biology, history, art or anthropology) and of providing a wider lens for understanding materiality and the role of data (Ribes 2019). As interdisciplinarity and data-driven foci are gaining traction via applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it is vital to understand what FDO adoption and implementation can contribute to common data spaces. We believe FDOs can be a successful foundation for Common European Data Spaces because they can can connect multiple commons -- from Green Deal to Cultural Heritage -- in order to drive forward the vision for interdisciplinary collaboration.

This presentation was held as part of the SSHOC DARIAH Train-the-trainer RDM Bootcamp held in February 2021 (see Zenodo community sshocdariahtrainerrdmbootcamp) This upload contains the slides of the session "Planning to meet the costs of managing research data to be FAIR". This session aims to offer training resources to adapt to your institutional context, helping researchers to do the following: Understand why they should budget for the costs of making data FAIR, and keeping it FAIR, and include these costs in grant applications Appreciate the benefits that services may provide to justify their costs Know about the different kinds of data management costs, including costs that funding bodies may allow to be charged to projects Apply a costing guide to help budget for the costs that may arise in preparing data to be FAIR Share experiences and expectations about costing the preparation of FAIR data

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’)

To become sustainable over time, European research infrastructures must increase their visibility, both individually and collectively. This requires the harmonization of the strategies, tools, guidelines and resources that European research infrastructures use in their communication. This toolkit is a collective effort of 31 communication experts representing 17 research infrastructures to provide an easy and useful set of communication tools, guidelines and resources adapted to the needs, constraints and capacities of European research infrastructures. The “Communication Toolkit for European Research Infrastructures” includes: A style guide, comprised of a glossary, a jargon buster and key messages; A website, including guidelines for navigation and the “about us” page, along with contents for a “about EU research infrastructures” webpage A social media strategy and common hashtags Resources, including general PowerPoint slides and strategies to address different targets (private sector, decision-makers and research infrastructures outside of Europe).