• DARIAH EU
• Open Access close
• Publications close
• Conference object close
• European Commission close
• EU close
• ZENODO close

Storytelling tools aim to leverage the technological restraints of creating and sharing digital narratives, allowing non-expert users to deploy projects and populate them with custom-made content. In other words, storytelling tools aim at giving space for diverse narratives to emerge and spread in the digital sphere. As facilitators of imagining and communicating ideas, they may also be considered incubators of rethinking societal challenges. The three storytelling tools developed in the framework of the HORIZON2020 SO-CLOSE project allow users to create and publish multimedia, multilingual and accessible digital cultural heritage projects. In this demonstration, we present the three tools: the interactive story map, the immersive web doc and the participatory virtual exhibition. We showcase the publishing interfaces (front-end), the authoring and content management system (back-end) and a use-case application (project). The present prototypes will be publicly released by the end of the project (December 2022). SO-CLOSE is a three-year project that aims at enhancing social cohesion through sharing the cultural heritage of forced migrations. Based on theories of cultural heritage-making, the project works towards exposing the commonalities of past and present experiences with the mediation of innovative digital tools and collaborative approaches. The act of storytelling becomes a premise for the potential of a better understanding between local communities and newcomers. In this context, the three tools are conceived and developed to empower cultural institutions and communities in building and publishing their digital stories. To achieve this, end-users were intensively involved in the design process, through participatory methodologies. Starting from a state-of-the-art tools analysis, the project collaborated with cultural institutions, NGOs, refugees and asylum seekers, local communities, researchers and policy makers in the requirements elicitation process (interviews and focus groups), co-design workshops and validation surveys. Overall, the users of the storytelling tools can create projects based on journeys, chapters or exhibitions, use modules that can be selected, shuffled and repeated, populate them with their own content – including 360 videos and images and 3D models – and carry out crowdsourcing calls. The projects are published online, with integrated features for accessibility, interactivity and data interoperability with other repositories. The use-case that will illustrate the tools application will be a pilot project of Greek Forum of Refugees, co-created together with three different refugee communities living in Greece and the Contemporary Social History Archives. posters & demos: 142

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."]}

OPERAS Innovation Lab provides targeted guidance for scholars seeking to disseminate their outputs in an innovative way. This poster presents three case studies of workflows for innovative scholarly communication: 1) toolkit/anthology; 2) interdisciplinary online journal; 3) software services. The workflows will serve as blueprints for SSH scholars.

The Skills Gap Analysis, a recent survey among scholars describes the current distribution of (self-attested) practical text-processing skills and scholars' despair from the necessary skillset, as well as a perceived absence of "an entry point in(to) CLS education". We argue that corpus analysis is the entry point and why.

While the calls for reproduction studies in Computational Literary Studies (CLS) have become louder, practical aspects, especially the interplay of the components involved in the research process (code, data, environments, infrastructures, etc.) proves to be a hurdle for reproducing research. We present a way to fully reproducible research using a Docker-based approach: We exemplarily implemented it for a network-analytic study on a corpus of about 3,000 theater plays derived from the DraCor project. We demonstrate that the use of highly portable, self-contained digital artifacts (Docker images) containing runnable research environments not only allow for a full reproduction of the study, but also offer ways to implement different scenarios of repeating research (e.g. same code, different data).

If citation is a common practice for publications, it is relatively new for data especially in SSH. This paper will present the work carried out during the SSHOC project about data citation in general and more precisely how to make them actionable. International audience

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.

The aim of this poster is to provide an overview of the principal objectives of the newly started H2020 Computational Literary Studies (CLS) project- https://www.clsinfra.io. CLS is a infrastructure project works to develop and bring together resources of high-quality data, tools and knowledge to aid new approaches to studying literature in the digital age. Conducting computational literary studies has a number of challenges and opportunities from multilingual and bringing together distributing information. At present, the landscape of literary data is diverse and fragmented. Even though many resources are currently available in digital libraries, archives, repositories, websites or catalogues, a lack of standardisation hinders how they are constructed, accessed and the extent to which they are reusable (Ciotti 2014). CLS project aims to federate these resources, with the tools needed to interrogate them, and with a widened base of users, in the spirit of the FAIR and CARE principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The resulting improvements will benefit researchers by bridging gaps between greater- and lesser- resourced communities in computational literary studies and beyond, ultimately offering opportunities to create new research and insight into our shared and varied European cultural heritage. Rather than building entirely new resources for literary studies, the project is committed to exploiting and connecting the already-existing efforts and initiatives, in order to acknowledge and utilize the immense human labour that has already been undertaken. Therefore, the project builds on recently- compiled high-quality literary corpora, such as DraCor and ELTeC (Fischer et al. 2019, Burnard et al. 2021, Schöch et al. in press), integrates existing tools for text analysis, e.g. TXM, stylo, multilingual NLP pipelines (Heiden 2010, Eder et al. 2016), and takes advantage of deep integration with two other infrastructural projects, namely the CLARIN and DARIAH ERICs. Consequently, the project aims at building a coherent ecosystem to foster the technical and intellectual findability and accessibility of relevant data. The ecosystem consists of (1) resources, i.e. text collections for drama, poetry and prose in several languages, (2) tools, (3) methodological and theoretical considerations, (4) a network of CLS scholars based at different European institutions, (5) a system of short-term research stays for both early career researchers and seasoned scholars, (6) a repository for training materials, as well as (7) an efficient dissemination strategy. This is achieved through a collaboration between participating institutions: Institute of Polish Language at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland; University of Potsdam, Germany; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria; National University of Distance Education, Spain; École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France; Humboldt University of Berlin, German; Charles University, Czech Republic; Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities, France; Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities, Ghent University, Belgium; Belgrade Centre for Digital Humanities, Serbia; Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), Netherlands; Trier Center for Digital Humanities, Trier University, Germany; Moore Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland; This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101004984. References Ciotti, Fabio. 2014. „Digital literary and cultural studies: the state of the art and perspectives“.Between4/8, 1-17.https://doi.org/10.13125/2039-6597/1392. Borgman, Christine. 2010. Scholarship in the Digital Age : Information, Infrastructure, andthe Internet. Cambridge, Mass & London: MIT Press. See https://www.dariah.euandhttps://www.clarin.eu. Burnard, Lou, Christof Schöch, and Carolin Odebrecht. 2021. „In search of comity: TEI fordistant reading“.Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative. https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.3500. Eder, M., Rybicki, J. and Kestemont, M. 2016. Stylometry with R: a package forcomputational text analysis.R Journal, 8(1): 107-21.https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2016/RJ-2016-007/index.html Fischer, Frank, Ingo Börner, Matthias Göbel, Andrea Hechtl, Christopher Kittel, P. Miling, andPeer Trilcke. 2019. „Programmable Corpora: Introducing DraCor, an Infrastructure for theResearch on European Drama“. InBook of Abstractsof the Digital Humanities Conference2019. Utrecht: ADHO. Heiden, Serge. 2010. The TXM Platform: Building Open-Source Textual Analysis SoftwareCompatible with the TEI Encoding Scheme. In24th PacificAsia Conference on Language,Information and Computation(pp. 10 p.). Sendai, Japon.Retrieved fromhttp://halshs.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/54/97/64/PDF/paclic24_sheiden.pdf Schöch, Christof, Tomaz Erjavec, Roxana Patras, and Diana Santos (in press). „Creatingthe European Literary Text Collection (ELTeC): Challenges and Perspectives”.ModernLanguages Open. Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, MylesAxton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg. 2016. „The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific DataManagement and Stewardship“.Scientific Data 3(1).https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.