Programme (v7)

a pdf of programme v7 is here

CULTURAL HERITAGE CREATIVE TOOLS AND ARCHIVES
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF DENMARK, COPENHAGEN
26-27 JUNE 2013

Wednesday, 26 June

Session 1 – Introduction and special talk 9:30 am – 10:30 am

Vice Dean Marianne Huang (Aarhus University): Introduction

Dean Seamus Ross (University of Toronto iSchool):  Beyond the Archive: Digital Curation Ecosystems and New Modes of Scholarly Creation and Communication

COFFEE BREAK 10:30 AM – 11:00 AM

Session 2 – National and international initiatives 11:00 am – 12:30 pm

(CHAIR: Agiati Benardou, DCU)

Armin Volkmann (DARIAH): On the road towards a Digital Research Infrastructure for archaeologists

Paper presentation

Digital data infrastructures for the arts and humanities are currently being developed within the framework of various projects in Germany and Europe. Among these projects, DARIAH (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities) is one of the largest projects. And it is designed as a long-term project. DARIAH focuses primarily on philology and history. But the project is open to other disciplines. So DARIAH is also conceptualizing a data infrastructure for archeology. The cooperation with other infrastructure projects (such as IANUS at the German Archaeological Institute – DAI) is a key component in the architecture of the digital data infrastructure for archaeologists. Furthermore it should be taken into account the collaboration with the project CLARIN (Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure). This data infrastructure project is geared to linguistic needs. Within the network of the different data infrastructure projects, DARIAH could     be aimed to harmonize the national activities on the EU level. International data networks of archeology are desirable in related regions such as the North and Baltic Sea coast to go beyond existing administrative boundaries of research.

But what are the specific needs of archaeologists to a digital research data infrastructure? Is it even possible to implement a centralized research data infrastructure (that is accepted by the researchers) in the very heterogeneous landscape of archaeological sciences in Germany? Therefore, it seems very important right from the start of the project to involve as many partners as possible in the conception of the infrastructure. The structure of federal states in Germany did not enable the foundation of a national archaeological data service, such as in the Netherlands or the UK. The political conditions are contrary to centralized efforts. Thus, a decentralized architecture of the data infrastructure represents a solution to the existing problem. The cooperative project with equal partners should bring together both: the research at the universities as well as at the national archives of administration. It makes mutually accessible the respective databases for all partners. Forthermore the DARIAH service will provide a redundant long-term binary data storage with sovereign rights of data privacy and security requirements.

Gunter Vasold, (Graz): GAMS: More than a Digital Asset Management System

Paper presentation

Since 2006 the Center for Information Modelling in the Humanities at Graz University is using and developing a digital asset management system dedicated to humanities research.

This so called GAMS (derived from the German Geisteswissenschaftliches Asset Management System, which can be translated as Digital Asset Management for the Humanities) plays a key role in the centre’s work as a central software component for many projects we are working on. GAMS drives a broad range of project types as different as for example medieval writings, ancient coins, photos from the early 20th century, sociological texts, Slavic and Romanic text corpora, editions of letters or archaeological collections.

GAMS is based on the open source repository software Fedora (Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture) which was developed at Cornell University, University of Virginia and some other institutions since 1998 and is now provided by the DuraSpace Organization. At the Center for Information Modelling we wrote a Java based client for ingesting and managing our data. We also implemented a bunch of reusable services around the repository software which allows us to create powerful project-specific applications in an easy way.

All resources managed by GAMS are based on custom content types. This means we do not manage single files or database records, but complex objects and their relations. Each object consists of multiple data streams (e.g. Dublin Core data, TEI data, bibliographic data or binary streams like image or video data) and disseminators, which can be seen as methods of this object. All disseminators are implemented as calls to web services, which makes them easily reusable and adaptable. Disseminators for example convert TEI from a data stream to HTML or PDF, generate thematic maps, convert images, display content with third party software as the DFG viewer and so on. Additionally each object provides at least one special data stream which contains information in how this object is related to other objects in the repository. This information is stored as graphs in a triple store what allows us to define relations in a very flexible way.

But GAMS is more than a simple institutional repository. It does not only provide results, but also research data in a structured, reusable and interactive way. We view GAMS also in a more general sense as a strategy consisting of tools, competences from different fields and training. This means that we do not only provide software, but we also offer consulting during the different phases of a project, starting with project planning, through data creation to data analysis. For this purpose we have developed a set of workflows and supporting tools. Another important part of our strategy is teaching. We train our research partners and offer regular courses to all students of our university.

In my presentation I would like to give an overview of the core technology, show some examples of our projects and give an impression on how the general strategy works.

Marco Jürgens & Sascha Grabsch (BBA): The Digital Knowledge Store

LUNCH BREAK 12:30 PM – 1:30 PM

Session 3 – Scholarly practices and requirements for tools and services

(CHAIR: Costis Dallas, DCU & iSchool)

1:30 pm – 3:00 pm

Stavros Angelis: A scholarly activity conceptual model for collaborative research

Digital Curation Unit – IMIS, Athena Research Centre, Athens, Greece

Paper presentation

In the preparatory phase of the DARIAH Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities[1] the Digital Curation Unit[2] developed a conceptual model for scholarly research activity inspired by cultural-historical activity theory and expressed in terms of the CIDOC CRM ontology. This model enabled formalizing the representation of scholarly activity and proved helpful in identifying and understanding the main activities, entities and their relations within the field of arts and humanities research. The model was further customized for the needs of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI)[3] project. In this paper we present the development of the scholarly activity conceptual model and the motivation behind it, some practical examples of implementation and findings from our hands on experience. We further focus on discussing how we envisage the model as part of a support environment for collaborative research, in particular its role in identifying common concepts and activities and in representing and accessing common procedures and methods. We believe that the use of this conceptual model may enable the modeling of the research practices in a specific domain, provide the means to extract valuable information about common activities, resources and tools used, as well as services.

The initial development of the scholarly activity model in DARIAH involved a) an empirical study of scholarly work, based on the elicitation, transcription, conceptual encoding and interpretation of open-questionnaire interviews with humanities scholars and b) the formalization of the analysis of the results of the empirical study. In order to accomplish these tasks there was a first stage of an empirical study that was carried out in the form of semi-structured conversational interviews with European arts and humanities scholars.

We wanted to model our findings from this study and to that end we transcribed and tagged the interviews and grouped the findings. We found out that most researchers were doing reflexive research; they followed their sense while trying to accomplish several sub goals in their research. In their attempt to accomplish these sub goals they performed several activities that involved a number of entities. Our analysis of the interviews revealed some patterns of research practices among researchers of different status and experience. The central construct of the model, Research Activity, is defined as a specialization of the Activity concept of the CIDOC CRM ontology, and is most notably linked with the concepts of Actor and Research Goal. Any given instance of Research Activity develops instances of Proposition (which stands as a representation of scientific statement), represents instances of Concept and involves interaction with instances of Information Object. Additional association constructs are further introduced in order to represent composition and precedence relations among research activities, thus allowing the representation of workflows of scholarly research. This conceptual model, albeit abstract, is grounded on an extensive empirical study of how arts and humanities scholars conduct their work. The model is general enough to contain and describe the activities performed in this domain; however capturing the specific needs of representation of particular subdomains requires some customization.

Such a case of customization was the application of the scholarly activity model in the study of research practices in Holocaust studies in the EHRI project. Our goal in this study was to identify researchers’ practices and extract user requirements for digital infrastructures. To this end we made an empirical study that was carried out in the form of semi-structured conversational interviews with Holocaust scholars. We initially used the model as a guide to structure our analysis of the interviews in order to understand the general research practices in this domain, and we subsequently used this knowledge to customize the conceptual model for this domain by adding specialized concepts and relations. We then imported the interviews and identified/organized the information using the structure provided by the conceptual model. This allowed us to identify and encode the researchers needs, their practices and to extract user requirements. A byproduct of this work is that the information is now organized in a way that future work on this corpus will be much easier.

While performing these tasks we recorded the usefulness of this conceptual tool and came up with some interesting findings. The conceptual model is a model that was put to the test as it was actually implemented and used to organize knowledge in two EU projects, DARIAH and EHRI. We used it to capture the research protocol of a domain, identify common ground between researchers, common activities, tools and services. In this sense the conceptual model can offer the basis for a research design tool for collaborative research, as it allows to group together common practices and provide an abstract view of the research work performed in that particular field. This also makes possible for a quick overview of the work performed by a researcher.

The conceptual model can be viewed as a compass for people starting their research in the field or a tool that assists more experienced researchers with organizing their research practices or exchanging knowledge about these practices with other researchers of the same field. This conceptual model is not a universal model. While trying to implement it on domains of different generality, from arts and humanities to Holocaust studies, it had to be customized according to the specific needs of the domain. This is a natural result as the conceptual model’s starting point was the analysis of the actual way researchers work and its goal was to assist in that process. While analyzing these two different domains we identified different research practices and different dominant entities which, in order to maintain its efficiency, resulted to a customization of the conceptual model.

References

[1]  A. Benardou, P. Constantopoulos, C. Dallas, and D. Gavrilis, “Understanding the information requirements of arts and humanities scholarship: implications for digital curation” International Journal of Digital Curation, 5, 1, 2010, pp.18-33

[2]  A. Benardou, P. Constantopoulos, C. Dallas, and D. Gavrilis, “A conceptual model for scholarly research activity” iConference 2010 proceedings, 2010, pp.26-32

[3]  P. Constantopoulos, C. Dallas, P. Doorn, D. Gavrilis, A. Gros, and G. Stylianou, “Preparing DARIAH,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia (VSMM08), Nicosia, Cyprus: 2008. http://www.dcu.gr/dcu/Documents/documents/preparingdariah/en/attachment

[4]  N. Crofts, M. Doerr, T. Gill, S. Stead, and M. Stiff, eds., Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (version 5.0.1), ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, 2009. http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr

[5]  J. Dietz, Enterprise ontology – theory and methodology, Springer Verlag, 2006

[6]  D. Ellis, “Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach,” The Library Quarterly, vol. 63, 1993, pp. 469-486

[7]  Y. Engeström, “Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work,” Ergonomics, vol. 43, 2000, pp. 960-974

[8]  L.I. Meho and H.R. Tibbo, “Modeling the information seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’ study revisited,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 54, 2003, pp. 570-587

[9]  C.L. Palmer and L.J. Neumann, “The information work of interdisciplinary humanities scholars: Exploration and translation,” The Library Quarterly, vol. 72, 2002, pp. 85-117

Veerle Vanden Daelen: Making sure the data fit the researchers. Data identification and investigation in European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI)

Name: Dr. Veerle Vanden Daelen

Country: Belgium

Institutional Affiliation: Centre for Historical Research and Documentation on War and Contemporary Society (Cegesoma, http://www.cegesoma.be/cms/index_en.php)

EU Infrastructure affiliation: Work Package Leader in EHRI (European Holocaust Research Infrastructure, http://www.ehri-project.eu/)

Title paper: Making sure the data fit the researchers. Data identification and investigation in European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI)

Paper presentation

The currently built large research infrastructures of the European Union all include “user requirements” as an important focus, clearly shown by having a separate Work Package to cover this topic. However, the attention to user requirements should reflect into all work of the project, especially in data identification and investigation, the content brought into the portals. By bringing in the data to the infrastructures, there is not only the need to fit user requirements in the sense that the infrastructure and its functionalities meet the researchers’ needs, the content itself also has to be a good, ideally a perfect, fit. It is of key importance that the data identification and investigation work of large projects is strongly connected to researchers’ interests and needs. This paper proposes to present the identification and investigation work and its connection to user requirements within European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI).

European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) is an FP7 project (7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development) of the European Union which main objective is to support the Holocaust research community by opening up a portal that will give online access to dispersed sources relating to the Holocaust, and by encouraging collaborative research through the development of tools. In a Greek case study, EHRI has organized its identification and investigation work for data integration on the work carried out by the “user requirements” work package. More specifically, the interviews which have been processed for the user requirements, the interviewees’ and their contacts’ expertise has been brought together in a workshop on data integration and Holocaust research in Greece. By linking data integration and user requirements in this way, EHRI wishes to ensure that the way the EHRI portal is built will attract historians, archivists, and the general public to use it, and that it identifies the data the researchers hope to find on this VRE, in order to ensure a larger interest and more meaningful content and format. It is our premise that linking these more technical requirements to the actual data integration (meaning the data which are being brought into these infrastructures) makes for a better adjustment of the content to format and vice versa, and henceforth for more successful – because more adapted to the users – digital research infrastructures.

Christina Kamposiori: Building Personal Collections: supporting the information practices of art historians in the digital age

Name: Christina Kamposiori, Claire Warwick, Simon Mahony, Teaching Fellow in Digital Humanities

Country: United Kingdom

Institutional affiliation: Centre for Digital Humanities, Department of Information Studies, University College London

EU infrastructure affiliation: The first author, Christina Kamposiori, was previously working as a junior researcher in the context of “Preparing DARIAH: The digital research infrastructure for the arts and humanities in Europe” with the support of the Digital Curation Unit (DCU), IMIS-Athena Research Center.

Title of the paper: Building Personal Collections: supporting the information practices of art historians in the digital age

Paper presentation

The aim of the present paper is to focus on the information behaviour of art historians regarding the creation, design, use and management of their personal collections in the digital age. Establishing personal collections in art history has been a standard, much valued activity that naturally follows the seeking and discovery of information. Yet, although a lot of research has been conducted on the information seeking behaviour of scholars, there have been few studies so far examining their personal collecting behaviour. Therefore, there is little information available on how researchers collect and use the gathered material afterwards (Case, 1991: 61; Kamposiori, 2012: 617; Palmer et al., 2009: 16).

Gathering various resources for research and teaching in art history can either constitute a solution in many problems scholars often face, such as difficulties in accessing information due to copyright issues, or facilitate other research activities, like writing or publishing (Bakewell et al., 1988: 18; Durran, 1997: 11; Kamposiori & Benardou, 2011; Palmer et al., 2009: 17-18). However, despite the fact that technology has had a great impact on the information gathering practices of art historians, it has not affected their organisational habits for more than twenty years. In fact, scholars in the field continue to utilize conventional methods for organising and managing information, since previous research has shown that digital tools and services do not meet their needs (Beaudoin & Brady, 2011: 32; Rose, 2002: 40).

It is not surprising, though, that art historians feel disappointed by the existing digital infrastructure, as information organisation and management can be a very challenging task. In art historical research, in particular, personal collections usually include the wide variety of resources scholars manage to gather throughout their research career (Beaudoin & Brady, 2011: 32; Challener, 1999: 7; Elam, 2007: 5; Kamposiori, 2012: 619). In addition, personal criteria often determine the methodology upon which information will be recorded, catalogued and organised (Bakewell et al., 1988: 46-50); for instance, some art historians prefer to organise the material they collect according to projects while others organise research and teaching resources separately. Furthermore, as scholars’ collections grow, the need for their management emerges; given especially the constant increase in the collection and use of digital recourses, there is a growing need to support the organisation and management of large amounts of complex research data.

Therefore, the goal of the present research is to identify, through the use of interviewing and observation, the particular needs art historians have when they build their personal collections. In particular, by conducting in-depth, semi-structured and face-to-face interviews, we aim to develop a sound understanding of the cognitive process undergoing the establishment of personal collections, such as how this practice is interlinked with an art historical project or how it supports other research practices.

Moreover, by observing the physical and digital collections that scholars have built, this study seeks to examine the behaviour and habits of scholars in both environments and identify any relationships and issues that may occur. In fact, getting to know scholars’ habits and aspirations along with the criteria upon which their personal collections are created, designed, used and managed can bring useful results for the facilitation of art historical research in terms of customised digital tools and services.

This paper is based on the first author’s, Christina Kamposiori’s, ongoing PhD research on “Personal research collections: examining research practices and user needs in art historical research”, conducted at the Centre for Digital Humanities, Department of Information Studies, University College London, under the supervision of Prof. Claire Warwick and Mr Simon Mahony. Finally, Christina Kamposiori’s current project was inspired by the work she conducted as a MA student in the context of “Preparing DARIAH: The digital research infrastructure for the arts and humanities in Europe” with the support of the Digital Curation Unit (DCU), IMIS-Athena Research Center, in Athens, Greece.

References:

  1. Bakewell E, Beeman WO and Reese CM (1988). Object, Image, Inquiry. The art historian at work. United States of America: J. Paul Getty Trust.
  2. Beaudoin JE and Brady JE (2011) Finding Visual Information: A Study of Image Resources Used by Archaeologists, Architects, Art Historians, and Artists. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 30(2): 24–36.
  3. Case DO (1991) The Collection and Use of Information by Some American Historians: A Study of Motives and Methods. Library Quarterly 61(1): 61–82.
  4. Durran J (1997) Art History, Scholarship and Image Libraries: Realizing the Potential of the Digital Age. Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/3799275/Art-History-Scholarship-and-Image-Libraries-Realising-the-Potential-of-the-Digital-Age (accessed 26 Sept. 2010).
  5. Challener J (1999) Information-Seeking Behavior of Professors in Art History and Studio Art. Master’s Research Paper, Kent State University. Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED435405.pdf (accessed 08 Feb. 2009).
  6. Elam B (2007) Readiness or avoidance: e-resources and the art historian. Collection Building 26(1): 4-6.
  7. Kamposiori C (2012) The Researcher as Curator in the Digital Age: Personal Collections and User Needs in Art History. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era 1(4): 611-629.
  8. Kamposiori C and Benardou A (2011) Collaboration in Art Historical Research: Looking at primitives. Kunstgeschichte, Open Peer Reviewed Journal. Available at http://www.kunstgeschichte-ejournal.net/157/ (accessed 17 June 2011).
  9. Palmer CL, Teffeau LC and Pirmann CM (2009) Scholarly Information Practices in the Online Environment. Themes from the Literature and Implications for Library Service Development. Graduate School of Library & Information Science (GSLIS), Center for Informatics Research in Science & Scholarship (CIRSS). Dublin: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, OCLC Research. Available at www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf (accessed 16 Jan. 2010).
  10. Rose T (2002) Technology’s Impact on the Information-Seeking Behavior of Art Historians. Art Documentation 21(2): 35-42.

COFFEE BREAK 3:00 PM – 3:30 PM

Session 4 – Public communication and user experience 3:30 pm – 5:30 pm

(CHAIR: Gertraud Koch, University of Hamburg)

Ingrida Vosyliūtė: Digital heritage in social media: the Lithuanian digital heritage landscape on Facebook

Author: Ingrida Vosyliūtė, Lithuania

Institutional affiliation: Vilnius University Faculty of Communication (VUFC)

EU infrastructure affiliation of VUFC:

DARIAH (Cooperating partner)

ARIADNE (Associate partner)

V-Must (Associate partner)

LoCloud (Partner)

Title: Digital heritage in social media: the Lithuanian digital heritage landscape on Facebook

Paper presentation

This paper presents the background, approach, research questions and initial findings of a research project focusing on digital heritage in social media as a new form of cultural heritage representation and communication.

The expansion of social networking sites such as Facebook, Google+, tumblr and Twitter widely used worldwide, and many more used regionally or locally, together with the formation of virtual communities, generated a vast amount of accumulated social data: profile information, social interaction records, user generated content, etc., which, in the last five years, has become the object of wide-ranging scholarly and scientific research. Particular interest has been focused on Facebook – by far the most popular social networking site, reaching a phenomenal 1,000 million users worldwide. Studies address a diversity of major themes such as social capital (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007; Zywica & Danowski, 2008; Valenzuela, Park & Kee, 2009), open access and privacy (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini, 2007; Debatin et al, 2009), user motivation (Joinson, 2008; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Ross et al, 2009), social relationships (Walther et al, 2008; Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009; Viswanath et al, 2009), identity construction (Hewitt & Forte, 2006; Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008; Back et al, 2010), higher education and informal learning (Madge, Meek and Wellens, 2009; Selwyn, 2009; Roblyer et al, 2010), and others.

With an increasing use of digital heritage online, cultural institutions such as museums, libraries and archives started to use Facebook as one of the most common social media tools, supporting dissemination of cultural heritage content and communication with a broader audience. Research on this field mainly focused so far on how to improve the performance of social media communication channels in museums (Russo et al, 2006; Liu, 2008; Simon, 2010), including studies of national museum landscapes (Holdgaard, 2011) and case studies of a particular museums (Caruth & Berstein, 2007; Kelly, 2009; Simoes, 2012). Further studies address the use of Facebook as social media practice by virtual libraries and archives (Oomen et al., 2010; Leigh, 2013; Bates, 2013), as well as a common practice characteristic of “participatory culture” in general (Simon, 2010; Giaccardi, 2012).

The project presented here attempts to deepen existing knowledge on the use of Facebook as a site of social interaction in the cultural heritage domain, by analyzing empirical data from Lithuanian Facebook groups and pages related to cultural heritage. The Lithuanian landscape in Facebook shows that, in terms of formation of these groups and later activity, digital cultural heritage goes beyond boundaries of formal institutions (museums, libraries, archives, etc.): we can identify emerging social media practices in the digital heritage domain that shows semi-institutional behaviour, or involves a community of interest.

A theoretical approach to these practices may be derived from the sociology of culture, suggesting a distinction in social organization of culture between institutions and formations (Williams, 1981). Further insights about these communities can be drawn from sociology of art, which sees creativity through a collective action of individuals (Becker, 1982), and “institutional isomorphism”, revealing organizational characteristics for social structure (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). A digital dimension of observed practices also discloses important aspects of contemporary “network societies” (Castells, 1996). Some cases of social networking indicate that Facebook is used not only as a social media tool for the dissemination of digital heritage or institutional activity, but also as a ground and environment for online social existence.

Through ethnographic research and formal investigation of Facebook-based activities, such as posting, commenting, liking, sharing, etc., as well as an empirical analysis of digital heritage resources and user generated content on Lithuanian Facebook, we hope to contribute to further understanding of how digital heritage operates in social media.

By looking into the general situation as well as particular cases of informal communities of interest representing Lithuanian digital heritage on Facebook, this project attempts to answer which research-based, professional and amateur communities engage with social media interactions on digital heritage Facebook groups and how; what kinds of cultural heritage resources and user generated content are shared on social media by these communities; which professional, research, learning or social practices are related with digital heritage in social media interaction; and more generally how digital heritage serves institutional, social and individual needs, as an increasingly important form of channel for the public communication of cultural heritage.

References:

Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2006, Vol. 4258, 36–58.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11957454_3.

Back, M. D., et al. Facebook Profiles Reflect Actual Personality, Not Self-Idealization. Psychological Science, 2010, Vol. 21, No. 3 (March), 372-374.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/3/372.extract

Bates, N. Benchmark study: What are your visitors doing? Europeana Professional: Press & Events. 5 March, 2013.

http://pro.europeana.eu/web/guest/pro-blog/-/blogs/benchmark-study%3A-what-are-your-visitors-doing. (Accessed 28 March, 2013).

Becker, H. S. Art Worlds. Berkley: University of California Press, 1982.

Caruth, N., & Bernstein S. Building an On-line Community at the Brooklyn Museum: A Timeline. Paper presented at the International conference for culture and heritage on-line Museums and the Web 2007. San Francisco, April 11-14, 2007.

http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2007/papers/caruth/caruth.html

Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell., 1996.

Debatin, B., et al. Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009, Vol. 15, No. 1 (October), 83–108.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x/full

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 1983, Vol. 48, No. 2 (April), 147-160.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2095101?uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102222715377

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. Trust and Privacy Concern Within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Paper presented at the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems 2007 (AMCIS 2007), Keystone, August 9-12, 2007.

http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339/

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield Ch., & Lampe C. The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends:’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007, Vol. 12, No. 4 (July), 1143–1168.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/full

Giaccardi, E. Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture. Oxford: Routledge, 2012.

Hewitt, A. & Forte A. Crossing Boundaries: Identity Management and Student/faculty Relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at the International conference Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW‘2006), Banff, 4-8 November, 2006.

Holdgaard, N. The Use of Social Media in the Danish Museum Landscape. Paper presented at the International conference for culture and heritage on-line Museums and the Web 2011. Philadelphia, April 6-9, 2011.

http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/the_use_of_social_media_in_the_danish_museum_l

Joinson, A. N. Looking at, Looking up or Keeping up with People?: Motives and Use of Facebook. Paper presented at the 26th ACM SIGCH Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), Florence, April 5-10 2008.

Kelly, B. Time To Stop Doing and Start Thinking: A Framework For Exploiting Web 2.0 Services. Paper presented at the International conference for culture and heritage on-line Museums and the Web 2009. Indianapolis, April 15-18, 2009.

http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2009/papers/kelly/kelly.html

Leigh, A. Benchmarking cultural events in social media in Turku. Wikiopisto. 19 March, 2013.

http://fi.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_events_in_Turku. (Accessed 20 April, 2013).

Liu, A. H. Using Online Communities to Attract Museum Visitors. International Journal of Education Through Art, 2008, Vol. 4, No. 3 (December), 259–274.

Madge, C., et al. Facebook, Social Integration and Informal Learning at University: ‘It Is More for Socialising and Talking to Friends About Work Than for Actually Doing Work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 2009, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June): 141–155.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439880902923606#.UYAFM8qmjQA

Oomen J. et al., Emerging Practices in the Cultural Heritage Domain – Social Tagging of Audiovisual Heritage. Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, 2010, April 26-27th, Raleigh.

http://www.prestoprime.org/training/publications.en.html

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva Y. A., & Calvert A. L. College Students’ Social Networking Experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2009, Vol. 30, No. 3 (May-June), 227–238.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0193397308001408

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend-networking Sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008, Vol. 11, No. 2 (April), 169-174.

Roblyer, M. D., et al. Findings on Facebook in Higher Education: A Comparison of College Faculty and Student Uses and Perceptions of Social Networking Sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 3 (June), 134-140.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751610000278

Ross, C., et al. Personality and Motivations Associated with Facebook Use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2009, Vol. 25, No. 2 (March), 578-586.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563208002355

Russo, A., et al. How Will Social Media Affect Museum Communication? Paper presented at the International conference Nordic Digital Excellence in Museums 2006 (NODEM 2006), Oslo, December 7-9, 2006.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6067/

Selwyn, N. Faceworking: Exploring Students’ Education‐related Use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 2009, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June), 157–174.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439880902923622#.UYAEosqmjQA

Simoes, P. Citizen Cultural Participation: Analysis of British Museum and Rijks Museum Facebook pages. Creative Cooperation in Cultural Heritage. 8 October, 2012.

http://chief.uc.pt/blog/index.php/citizen-cultural-participation-analysis-of-british-museum-and-rijks-museum-facebook-pages/. (Accessed 5 April, 2013).

Simon, N. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010.

http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/

Valenzuela, S., Park. N., & Kee, K. F. Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation1. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009, Vol 14, No. 4 (July), 875–901.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x/pdf

Viswanath, B., et al. On the Evolution of User Interaction in Facebook. Paper presented at the 2nd ACM SIGCOOM Workshop on Online Social Networks, Barcelona, August 16-21, 2009.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1592675

Walther, J., et al. Self-Generated Versus Other-Generated Statements and Impressions in Computer-Mediated Communication A Test of Warranting Theory Using Facebook. Communication Research, 2009, Vol. 36, No. 2 (April), 229-253.

http://www.academia.edu/258648/Self-Generated_Versus_Other-Generated…

Williams, R. The Sociology of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in Anchored Relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 5 (September), 1816-1836.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563208000204

Zywica J., & Danowski J. The Faces of Facebookers: Investigating Social Enhancement and Social Compensation Hypotheses; Predicting FacebookTM and Offline Popularity from Sociability and Self-Esteem, and Mapping the Meanings of Popularity with Semantic Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2008, Vol. 14, No. 1 (November), 1-34.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x/pdf

Christian Hviid Mortensen & Vitus Vestergaard (LARM): Embodied Tuning: Interfacing Danish Radio Heritage

Presenters

Christian Hviid Mortensen

PhD Fellow / LARM Audio Research Archive Project / Curator @ The Media Museum
Institute for the Study of Culture,
University of Southern Denmark

Vitus Vestergaard
Assistant Professor
Institute for the Study of Culture
University of Southern Denmark

Project Presentation

Embodied Tuning: Interfacing Danish Radio Heritage

With the advance in digital technologies and processes of digitization radio heritage is becoming increasingly more accessible online as is the case with the LARM Audio Research Archive (www.LARM.fm). However, even though the web-accessed CMS of a digital archive is superior in giving access to huge amounts of material, it can be a forbidding and uninviting interface to the layperson.

The digital archive as a form of pull media are contrasted with push media as advocated by Wired Magazine. In a glib article announcing the imminent “death” of the web browser the difference is characterized thus:

The Web is a wonderful library, but a library nonetheless. On the other hand the new networked media – part instructional and part entertainment – are not archival but immersive. The image to hold in mind is an amusement park, full of experiences and information coming at you in many forms, some scripted some serendipitous [italics in original] (Wired Magazine, March 1997).

What could such an amusement park of radio heritage be like? Depending on the design, exhibitions can be based on both push and pull strategies, and in exhibitions the lines are blurry. On one hand museum visitors are often bombarded with pushy information from signs and exhibits. On the other hand many exhibitions are based on exploration by the visitors, where each individual visitor chooses what to examine and what to ignore. By combining the logic of push and pull strategies we suggest that the immersive and atmospheric qualities of the exhibition as a form of communication and experience could fulfill the promise of partly instructional and partly entertaining engagements with radio heritage. The aim is to enable visitors to explore radio heritage without using simple pull strategies of listening kiosks and selectable playlists.

As an alternative to simple kiosks and to advanced digital archives like LARM.fm this paper presents a platform for interfacing auditive radio heritage in the context of a listening exhibition held at The Media Museum, Odense, Denmark, from October 2012 until January 2013. The conceptual frame for the exhibition was visitors embodying the tuning dial on an analogue radio “tuning in” to auditive artefacts by moving their bodies around the exhibition space. The auditive artefacts thus constituted a layer of augmented reality that the visitor could discover further by interacting with props provided in the exhibition.

The spatial and atmospheric qualities of the exhibition as well as the physicality of the props are discussed as potential advantages in the dissemination of radio heritage compared to the screen-based interface of LARM.fm.

Based on the results from a small scale visitor study conducted in the exhibition it is argued that such a listening exhibition offers immersive experiences in a mixed reality environment and that such experiences can engage people not otherwise interested in radio heritage. This engagement offers an opportunity for further engagement with radio heritage, inspiration and learning.

Alexandra Angeletaki, Marcello Carrozzino, Chiara Evangelista, Stein Johansen: Implementation of 3D tools and immersive experience interaction for supporting learning in a museum– archive environment. Visions and challenges

Authors: Alexandra Angeletaki (NTNU), Marcello Carrozzino (PERCRO), Chiara Evangelista (PERCRO), Stein Johansen (NTNU)

NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) University library, Gunnerus branch, Trondheim, Norway

PERCRO, TECIP Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy

Project presentation

Our main research focus on this paper is user interaction in a historical archive environment as a space for participatory education. We have been borrowing design strategies from the sector of the museum into the archive dissemination strategy discussion.

Museums have always been a destination of dynamic social and cultural character known of having a clear focus on facilitating learning while archives have remained a research arena for specialized professionals. Our outreach activities intends to invite new user groups to participate in seeking knowledge in a hybrid environment in order to create engagement in the content of such collections of historical value and create dynamic linkages between the archives of the past and the society of today.

We adhere to the belief that virtual reality can support experiential learning. The idea of applying 3D technology for promoting the collections of museums and archives is not new but the investigation of its influence on the visitor experience can create new possibilities. Evaluation methodology though, has been difficult to develop. Research in the field has been borrowing ethnographic and phenomenological tools or usability technique analysis to evaluate the learning outcome of the visitor experience in an immersive application environment but this research field is a demanding one as it starts to develop. In our paper we assume that there might be several aspects of the immersive experience that such a tool allows us to investigate when users interact with 3D virtual images of physical objects, as old manuscripts and books or archaeological objects and their history in a learning frame.

Our study uses empirical material from a workshop organized for school students as part of their learning curriculum on the history of Chemistry in November 2013. The performance of 40 school students attending the workshop was documented by videography and photography while a focus group of six out of them was selected for interview. In this paper we look into the role of social conduct in mixed reality environments and the role of collaborative production of meaning in a space of technological innovation in trying to establish an evaluation methodology based on previous studies in the field. That aspect involves cultural learning which is defined in our case as learning that occurs through observation, instruction, trial and error in a context of interacting with other people or objects.

Pernille Korzon (Serious Games Interactive): Sharing Historical & Cultural Heritage in a fun interactive way.

Abstract to be added.

Thursday, 27 June

Session 5 – keynote 9:15 am – 10:00 am

Professor Julian Richards, Director, Archaeology Data Service; Director, Centre for Digital Heritage, University of York

The e-journal Internet Archaeology was first published in 1996. At the time it was the first fully online peer-reviewed e-journal, in any discipline. Now, 17 years later, it is in its 34th issue and still publishing rich interactive content, including monograph length multi-layered articles, online databases and GIS, VR models, and sound and movie files. All content in archived by the UK’s Archaeology Data Service, and the journal has won several awards for its creative exemplars of linked e-publications and archives. When Internet Archaeology was established, the internet itself was still in its infancy. The journal has had a transformative effect on scholarly communication in archaeology, and a significant impact on the humanities more broadly. This paper will review the challenges faced and solutions adopted, setting them in the wider context of developments in cultural heritage publications and archives.

COFFEE BREAK 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM

Session 6 – Corpora and digital collections‚ 10:30 am – 12:00 pm

(CHAIR: Matthew Driscoll, University of Copenhagen)

Eveline Wandl-Vogt: Dialectal data corpus says**hello world!“

Liaison manager of the research groups DINAMLEX (Lexicography of Austrian dialects and names) and Research infrastructures and text technologies

Co-worker of CLARIN, DARIAH, DASHISH, COST since 1.1.2013

Institute for corpus linguistics and text technology (ICLTT) | Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), 1040 Wien. Wohllebengasse 12-14/2

Paper submission

In this presentation, a dialect data corpus is introduced, namely the “Data base of Bavarian dialects in Austria (DBÖ)”. The main data are part of an about 100 years lasting data collection within an area, that nowadays belongs to seven nations, formerly so called Austrian-Hungarian monarchy. Several types of dialect data (excerpts of historical and literary dialect texts, material of questionnaires and field works) have been stored in an analogue repository, until a database has been established in the early 90es. The main aim at this time was to fasten up a national dictionary project, namely the so-called “Dictionary of Bavarian dialects in Austria (WBÖ)”. Nowadays, aims have enlarged: from durable, up-to-date archiving of data, high-quality interpretation, user-friendly data access and – maybe most of all – exchange of knowledge, reusability of both, developed tools and well-annotated data.

The focus of the presentation is to give insight into methods of data access creation of a dialect data corpus and annotation in analogue and digital surroundings, both based on lexicographical knowledge and discussed in its development during time from the analogue collection to the digital web-based, interactive data presentation. The main aim is highlighting how solid and clear-sighted lexicographic work might be the base for a well annotated dialect data corpus for many research questions although the annotation might be and has to be very much project-specific.

Today, about 50 years after the first print-publication of the dictionary, the first online version will be launched the second quarter of 2013 (beta-version available since 07.2012). Furthermore, a collection of the data corpus is online since 07.2010 (mushrooms – cf. wboe.oeaw.ac.at).

The author will focus mainly the following issues:

–: Data representation of a heterogeneous data (about 100 years of collection in very different language surroundings, differences of notation of about 1000 co-workers in the field, quality of collections etc.)

–: Data analyses: from the main aim of bringing out the main and only lexicographic documentation of dialects in Austria to a research infrastructure for variants in Austria: examples concerning language change and morphology are given.

–: Data visualisation: Enlarging the data base in 2007-2009 with a spatial extension (GIS) within the framework of the project “Data base of Bavarian dialects in Austria (dbo@ema)”, coordinated by the author of the paper, linguistic and extra linguistic data are visualised and accessable by interactive maps. Examples for further improvements are given.

–: The data corpus as an European infrastructure: The example of a network with European dialectal lexicographers and botanists is given to demonstrate improvement of workflow, knowledge and re-use of data. Within the framework of OpenUp! data of the dbo@ema-project have made available for the EUROPEANA metadata.

References

Europeana. think culture. Explore Europe’s cultural collections.

Accessed at http://www.europeana.eu/portal/. (30.04.2013)

Eveline Wandl-Vogt (Ed.): Data base of Bavarian dialects in Austria electronically mapped (dbo@ema). Collection 1 v.1.0: Mushrooms [Original: Datenbank der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich elektronically mapped (dbo@ema)]. Vienna. Work in Progress. Status: 12.2012.

http://wboe.oeaw.ac.at; last access: 18.12.2012

Institute for the Lexicography of Austrian dialects and names: Data base of Bavarian dialects in Austria. [Original: Datenbank der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich (DBÖ)]. Vienna. Work in Progress. Status: 12.2012.

Institute for the Lexicography of Austrian dialects and names: Dictionary of Bavarian dialects in Austria [Original: Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich (WBÖ)]. Vienna 1963-.

Institute for the Lexicography of Austrian dialects and names: Dictionary of Bavarian dialects in Austria online. [Original: Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich online (WBÖe); chief editor: Eveline Wandl-Vogt]. Vienna 07.2012 (Betaversion).

OpenUp! Opening up the Natural History Heritage for EUROPEANA.

Accessed at http://open-up.eu/. (30.04.2013)

http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/wboe; latest access: 18.12.2012

Jacob Wang: National Museum of Denmark, Digitalization projects

Abstract to be added.

E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Corina Nicolae, Mihai Bozgan, Marius Amarie, Tudor Martin: Cultural Heritage under lenses. 3D Icons Project and the Romanian experience

Romanian National History Museum, Bucharest, Romania

Paper presentation

Preserving cultural heritage artefacts represents one of the most important functions of a museum, along with making known these proofs of history to the general public. One of the methods of both preserving and promoting history is represented by 3D digitizing technologies applied in the field of cultural heritage. 3D Digitisation of Icons of European Architectural and Archaeological Heritage (3D Icons) project is a pilot project funded under the European Commission’s ICT Policy Support Programme, built on the results of CARARE and 3D-COFORM. The implication of the Romanian National History Museum in this project, as a full-time member, gave us the opportunity, for the first time, to test and implement the 3D technology in a public institution, such as a museum. In this paper, we would like to present the impact that 3D Icons project had on our understanding of the value of these technologies for cultural heritage. Presented as a study-case, the Romanian experience within 3D Icons project will focus on the technologies used for obtaining 3D models, the outcome and the ways of promoting them via the web. The study will center on several artistic and architectural details from the Romano-Catholic Cathedral from Alba Iulia, Alba County, one of the most representative architectural complexes of Romanic art from Eastern Romania. As a member in 3D Icons project we became aware of open-source technologies related to 3D modeling, which facilitated us to establish an easy methodology and data processing method, while working with low-cost software enabled us to find cost effective solution for 3D modeling.

LUNCH BREAK 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

Session 7 – Digital infrastructures, architecture and tools 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm

(CHAIR: Erik Champion, DIGHUMLAB)

Bente Larsen (LARM): LARM – from digital archive to explorative workspace

Paper presentation

To be added.

Sam Leon: Pundit and the Open Knowledge Foundation – Digitised Manuscripts in Europeana project

Paper presentation

Over the past few years the Open Knowledge Foundation has been developing a suite of tools for working with open cultural data that are now collected as Open Culture Labs. The aim of this tool suite is to enable students, teachers and researchers to access, curate and enrich digital resources on the web. The guiding principle behind the development of these tools is that they should be simple and easy to use.

At the start of 2012 the DM2E (Digitised Manuscripts to Europeana) project began with the Open Knowledge Foundation as one of the core partners. The goal of the project was to create an annotation platform for working with Linked Open Data tailored specifically for the Digital Humanities community; this tool is called Pundit.

Not only was this tool a key addition to the Open Culture Labs but it has stimulated a great deal of interest in the use of Linked Data to enable humanities research and how models like the Europeana Data Model can be used to accommodate scholarly activity. This short talk will demonstrate Pundit and look at some of the issues around modelling the scholarly domain in the humanities upon which Pundit builds.

Aileen O’Carroll and Sharon Webb: Digital heritage tools in Ireland – a review

Institutional Affiliation 1: An Foras Feasa, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Co. Kildare.

Institutional Affiliation 2 : National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Co. Kildare.

Project Affiliation: The Digital Repository of Ireland.

Paper presentation

This paper reviews the user tools currently in use by Irish Cultural Heritage organisations. We report on future tool developments and identify desired features and tools that could support further user engagement and interaction with content. We highlight that key challenges for those providing user tools are associated with issues of scalability, preservation and sustainability of digital tools, and argue that for cultural heritage organisations the provision of digital tools is as important as providing access to the digital content stored, harvested and aggregated.

This review draws on qualitative interviews carried out by the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI) in order to inform requirements specifications, policy statements, user guidelines and best practices. The Digital Repository of Ireland is an interactive national trusted digital repository for contemporary and historical, social and cultural data held by Irish institutions. It will provide a central internet access point and interactive multimedia tools, for use by the public, students and scholars. Our stakeholder interviews, which included interviews with the National Library of Ireland, the National Archives of Ireland, a number of university libraries as well as other cultural institutions and independent archives, highlighted current practices and trends in the provision and development of digital heritage tools. This process provided us with unique insights into the challenges, as well as the opportunities, associated with user engagement.

Providing access to our digital cultural heritage is an important task. As a result of this comprehensive interview process we find that access alone does not suffice given the growth, and current level, of user expectations in terms of data use, reuse and interaction. As such, the development and provision of user tools that support innovative analysis, visualisation and curation of digital content is an important feature of digital archives, libraries, repositories and other such systems. Tools that support resource, content and knowledge discovery are an important aspect of current developments within the Irish context and this was highlighted during our stakeholder interviews.

Alastair Dunning (Europeana Foundation, The Netherlands) & Agiatis Benardou (DCU, Greece): Europeana Cloud: The Project, the Challenges of Assessing Researchers Needs in the Cloud and Ensuring Community Engagement

Project presentation:

Europeana Cloud: The Project, the Challenges of Assessing Researchers Needs in the Cloud and Ensuring Community Engagement

Europeana Cloud is a Best Practice Network coordinated by the Europeana Foundation, designed to establish a cloud-based system for Europeana and its aggregators. Europeana Cloud will provide new content, new metadata, a new linked storage system, new tools and services for researchers and a new platform – Europeana Research. A key objective in Europeana Cloud is the provision of tools and services for researchers that permit innovative research that exploits digitised content in Europeana via the Cloud.

Through a user-centric approach based on work already conducted within DARIAH (Preparing DARIAH and affiliated projects such as EHRI and CENDARI) and CESSDA (through Data without Boundaries and DASISH), part of the work in Europeana Cloud focuses on the identification and assessment of researcher needs in the Humanities and the Social Sciences within the Cloud environment, while ensuring the active engagement of the wider research community. Within Europeana Cloud we investigate researchers’ use of and interaction with Europeana and TEL material, as well as identify, document and assess existing tools and services from the domain of discovery, curation and use of TEL, and Europeana material. Moreover, we are exploring and analyzing the usefulness and relevance of the existing content within Europeana, alongside the new content which will be ingested as part of this project, and other types of content.

To this end, a 3-member Humanities and Social Sciences Research Communities Advisory Board (RCAB), that will guide our activities and review the key deliverables, has been put together. Further, a desk research to analyse the current situation related to digital research practices, tools and content for the Humanities and Social Sciences research community is being conducted. Thus providing the basis for the confirmatory stage, which is a web survey to be undertaken in the first year of the project. The central objective of this is to get an evidence-based account of what actual researchers use/find of value amongst resources (from Europeana, TEL etc.), how they access them (e.g. entry points, information seeking processes) and how they then use them (e.g. which elements/attributes need to be there, etc.); also, what other features should be there for materials to be fit-for-purpose.

In turn, the information collected will inform how Europeana Cloud can provide a valuable infrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences research community and will seek to explore and answer some key questions pertaining to research infrastructures: What advantages might the aggregation of digitised content from Europeana cultural heritage institutions bring for researchers? What benefits might different levels of authentication over such an aggregation of content permit? What kind of tools could be built on top of that infrastructure and which of them are the most appropriate to support this kind of communities (ie tools for transcription, tools for data analysis, tools for visualising or enriching metadata, tools for sharing)? And, importantly, how might these findings and information relate to other infrastructures, both existing and future ones?

COFFEE BREAK 3:00 PM – 3:30 PM

Session 8 – Research infrastructures policy panel 3:30 pm – 5:00 pm

(CHAIR: to be advised)

Marnix van Berchum (eCloud) & Hans Jørgen Marker (DASISH) and Erik Champion (DARIAH): Panel presentation: Research and digital heritage: what should the EU do?

Name:             Marnix van Berchum

Country:          The Netherlands

Affiliation:       Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) – www.dans.knaw.nl

Project:            Europeana Cloud (eCloud)

Panel presentation: Research and digital heritage: what should the EU do?

With the start of the Europeana Cloud (eCloud) project in February 2013, a new step in the introduction of digital heritage content into the areas of Humanities and Social Sciences research has been taken. Europeana Cloud will provide new content, new metadata, a new linked storage system, new tools and services for researchers, and a new discovery platform.

Organisations within this project, such as Europeana and The European Library, are far from the only institutions operating in this field. Projects such as ARIADNE (within archaeology), EHRI (Holocaust Studies) and CENDARI (within history) and the larger infrastructures such as DARIAH and CLARIN all have roles to play. But without communication the risk of unnecessary overlap and strategic misalignment is high.

Therefore, as part of the eCloud project a Europeana Research Coordinators Group (ERCG) has been established, with members from European Research Infrastructures in Humanities and Social Sciences, being a key stakeholder group in this new development. The members of the ERCG will share their knowledge and experience, and will work on the alignment of their strategies, with reference to digital heritage and Europeana.

In this proposed panel the ERCG will be presented and several members of the ERCG will discuss issues related to digital heritage and research. They include questions like:

  • How is digital heritage connected to research?
  • What is needed on a European level?
  • Where do Research Infrastructures play a role? And how?
  • What do we need/want from the EU?

Proposed participants/speakers:

  • Marnix van Berchum (co-ordinator ERCG):
    “Introducing the ERCG: how Europeana Cloud connects to Research Infrastructures in Europe”
  • Hans Jørgen Marker [DASISH]:
    “Aligning strategies on digital heritage and RI’s: what we need from the EU
  • Erik Champion[co-leader DARIAH VCC 2 task co-leader]:
    “DARIAH and DH Research Infrastructures: how digital humanities can benefit from digital heritage”

There will be a short introduction by the panel-members. Marnix van Berchum will discuss the purpose of the Europeana Research Coordinators Group. Hans Jørgen Marker (DASISH) will present European Research Infrastructures, DASISH and digital heritage. Erik Champion (DARIAH) will outline key issues on digital heritage and humanities research.

Two key questions to be addressed by the speakers are

  • What is the importance of Research Infrastructures, viz a viz the (re)use of European digital heritage?
  • What is needed on the European level to (further) align the strategies of the Research Infrastructures of the Social Sciences and Humanities?

The second part will be open to discussion by the audience.

Workshop ends (5:30 pm)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s