Reflections on cultural heritage and digital humanities

Abstract

Computer based modelling in cultural heritage has focused on database development, generalised as data standards and, since the 1990s, also formal ontologies. Modelling in digital humanities has had its core in textual scholarship, including close reading and text encoding of literary and historical sources as well as models of text corpora, usually relying on statistical methods. Integration between the two modelling paradigms has been undertaken at the practical level. This paper goes beyond pragmatic concerns by focusing on comparing the two modelling traditions at a more abstract level.To this end, one core standard development undertaken in each domain is selected: CIDOC's Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) for modelling in cultural heritage-narrowed down to museum documentation-and Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) for modelling in digital humanities-narrowed down to textual scholarship. This does not imply that these two standards are only used in the two areas mentioned above, rather that their main focus has been in those areas. We will use the two standards to investigate what is meant by modelling in the two communities, thus, clarify the differences and the similarities between the concepts of modelling and models as they are used in each community. Partly this will be done based on a survey of previous literature, and partly by an investigation into modelling practices within these two standardisation initiatives. Minutes and reports, descriptions of the standards themselves and their developments, mailing lists threads, and the participants' own experience in the development of the respective standards have informed this study.

Digital humanities and practical memory: modelling textuality

“…By modelling I intend mainly the creation and manipulation of external representations, encompassing the whole spectrum of what Bradley (2015) calls tools for making, for exploring and for thinking. Building on previous co-authored research (Ciula and Eide 2014, Ciula and Marras 2016, Ciula and Eide 2017, what I claim in this paper is that modelling can be considered both a meaning-making practice and a strategy to exercise individual and collective (active) memory. To substantiate my claim I chose to focus on textuality -hence on the sociology of the textual condition and the engagement with the digital as an ongoing "repurposing of the work of the past" ( Our tools for memory are many and various.…”

Computer - Assisted Processing of Intertextuality in Ancient Languages

“…The inclusion of FRBRoo, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model harmonised with CIDOC-CRM [Doerr and LeBoeuf, 2009], has also been discussed. However work in this area is progressing slowly and development has concentrated around TEI/CIDOC-CRM harmonisation, for example see [Ciula and Eide, 2014]. Some mappings have been drafted (last updated 2007/8) and stylesheets (last updated 2011) and guidelines (last updated 2010) have been published, all by the SIG, but two issues are worth noting:…”

Modelling in digital humanities: Signs in context

“…Modelling in DH is often understood as "any act of formal structuring" of data intended as "formal information" (Flanders and Jannidis 2015: 4). Our point of departure (see also Ciula and Eide 2014;Ciula and Marras 2016) is however wider exactly to allow us to explore whether a more encompassing definition can overcome some limitations of a narrower take on modelling. Rather than prioritising a conceptualisation of modelling directed first and foremost at communicating with the computer, we rather attempt at seeing modelling as a means to create "tools for thinking" (Bradley 2015).…”