While automation has significantly enhanced the efficiency of digitisation processes in CH, cataloguing and indexing remain complex challenges. The intricacies involved in accurately understanding and categorising resources necessitate more than just technological solutions; they require context-aware and culturally sensitive approaches. Here, ML offers promising perspectives. ML, particularly in its advanced forms like deep learning, can assist in cataloguing and indexing by analysing large datasets to identify patterns, categorise content, and even suggest metadata. This can be particularly useful in handling large volumes of CH data, where manual processing is time-consuming and prone to human error. Typical applications of ML in this field include image recognition for identifying and classifying visual elements in artefacts, NLP for analysing textual content, and pattern recognition for sorting and organising data based on specific characteristics. Furthermore, prospective developments may entail the refinement of metadata mapping and the enhancement of quality control mechanisms. Moreover, ML algorithms can be trained to recognise stylistic elements, historical contexts, and other nuances that are essential for accurate cataloguing in CH. However, it is crucial to note that the effectiveness of ML depends heavily on the quality and diversity of the training data. Biases in this data can lead to inaccuracies in cataloguing and indexing. Thus, a collaborative approach, where ML is supplemented by expert human oversight, is often the most effective strategy.
-Overall, this section provides a comprehensive overview of six technological trends as well as five key scientific movements and guiding principles that are shaping research and how universities and GLAMs should provide environments, services, and tools with a view to collecting and disseminating content. By exploring each of these trends, movements, and principles, we can gain a deeper understanding of how research and CH processes are permeated by dynamic movements and how resources can be made more transparent, inclusive and accountable, as well as how data can be made available to human and non-human users.
+Before considering the trends discussed hereafter, note that current technological developments do not exist in isolation, but tend to intertwine and act synergistically. A vivid example of this interplay can be seen in AI and its latent impact on the semantic web, particularly in facilitating more efficient querying and crawling processes such as the LinkedDataGPT proof-of-concept service from Liip on the City of Zurich that combines ChatGPT — a generative AI solution — on top of a Linked Data portal to facilitate querying open datasets (Stocker, 2023). Inversely AI can be fed by data on the web to learn and reason, as outlined by
+
This deeper understanding of the web’s architecture as a conduit for linking programs on a global scale holds profound implications. It signifies that the web is not merely a medium for accessing information but a dynamic environment where data-driven programs interact, exchange data, and collaborate across geographical boundaries. In this context, Linked Data emerges as a powerful enabler, providing a structured and standardised approach for these programs to communicate and share meaningful data (Bizer et al., 2008).
+Big Data refers to extremely large and complex datasets that exceed the capabilities of traditional data processing methods and tools. It encompasses a massive volume of structured, semi-structured and unstructured data that is currently flooding across a variety of sectors, companies and organisations (see Emmanuel & Stanier, 2016). The characteristics of big data are often described by the three ⋁ model (Laney, 2001):
+In addition to the three ⋁ model, two more characteristics are often included (Saha & Srivastava, 2014, p. 1294):
+Regarding the two latter dimensions, (Debattista et al., 2015) argue that that Linked Data is the most suitable technology to increase the value of data over conventional formats, thus contributing towards the value challenge in Big Data. As for veracity, they describe a semantic pipeline with eight key metrics to address the veracity dimension. Building on this technological foundation, the integration of Linked Data and Big Data analytics takes centre stage.
+(McGillivray et al., 2020) highlight the critical need for bridging the communication gap between DH and NLP to drive progress in both fields. They propose increased interdisciplinary collaboration, encouraging DH researchers to actively utilise NLP tools to refine their research methodologies. A primary challenge in this convergence is the application of NLP to the complex, historical, or noisy texts often encountered in DH research. They conclude by advocating for stronger cooperation between practitioners in these fields. This collaborative effort is vital for harnessing the full potential of ML in analysing and interpreting CH.
+Ethical concerns, particularly regarding social biases and racism, are prevalent in technologies like ImageNet, where facial recognition may yield AI statements with strong negative connotations (Neudecker, 2022). Addressing this, (Gandon, 2019) suggest the production of AI services that are ‘benevolent-by-design for the good of the Web and society’. Furthermore, (Floridi, 2023) introduces the double-charge thesis, asserting that all technology design is a moral act, challenging the neutrality thesis. He emphasises that technologies are not neutral and can be influenced by a dynamic equilibrium of values, predisposing them towards morally good or evil directions.
+One of these platforms that address these issues is AI4LAM, which is an international and participatory community focused on advancing the use of AI in, for and by libraries, archives, and museums. The initiative was launched by the National Library of Norway and Stanford University Libraries in 2018 inspired by the success of the IIIF community. Another agency is the AEOLIAN Network, AI for Cultural Organisations, which investigates the role that AI can play to make born-digital and digitised cultural records more accessible to users (Jaillant & Rees, 2023, p. 582).
+In a report for the University of Leeds in the UK, (Pirgova-Morgan, 2023) explores the potential and practical implications of AI in libraries. The project, forming part of the university’s ambitious vision for digital transformation, aims to understand how AI can be effectively integrated into library services. This research looks at both the use of general AI for long term strategic planning and specific AI applications for improving UX, process optimisation and enhancing the discoverability of collections. The methodology used in this study involves a multi-faceted approach including desk-based assessments, a university-wide survey and expert interviews. Specifically, the study highlights the following key findings:
+These insights from the University of Leeds report illustrate the complex impact of AI on library services, from enhancing user interaction to influencing strategic decision-making, while also emphasising the importance of adapting AI applications to specific institutional needs.
+In recent years, the principles of Open Science, that historically include Open methodology, Open source, Open data, OA, Open peer review, as well as open educational resources, have become increasingly important as they emphasise transparency, collaboration and accessibility in scientific research (Bezjak et al., 2019). Open methodology refers to the sharing of research processes and methods, allowing other researchers to reproduce and build on existing work (see Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018). Open source software and tools enable researchers to collaborate, while open data practices promote the sharing of research data in ways that are accessible, discoverable and reusable by others. Open access seeks to remove financial and other barriers to accessing scientific knowledge, while open peer review provides greater transparency and accountability in the publication process. Finally, open educational resources encourage the sharing of teaching and learning materials, thereby facilitating the dissemination of knowledge and skills.
+(UNESCO, 2019) conducted a preliminary study of the technical, financial and considerations related to the promotion of Open Science. This research underscored the necessity for a holistic approach to Open Science and stressed the significance of tackling international legal matters, as well as the existing challenges stemming from unequal access to justice, which can hinder global scientific collaboration. This study laid the groundwork for a recommendation on making ‘[…] multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation’ (UNESCO, 2021, p. 7). UNESCO identified five types of access related to Open Science: infrastructures, societal actors, as well as associated and diverse knowledge systems where dialogue is needed. This includes acknowledging the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to govern and make decisions on the custodianship, ownership, and administration of data on traditional knowledge and on their lands and resources. Figure 3.10 provides a visual summary of this.
+While Open Science offers numerous benefits, it also presents challenges and potential drawbacks that warrant careful consideration. One major concern is the risk of exacerbating inequities between researchers from well-resourced institutions and those from less privileged backgrounds. Open access publishing often entails significant costs in the form of article processing charges, which can disproportionately burden researchers without adequate funding support (Burchardt, 2014). Additionally, Open Science practices relying on open protocols may be vulnerable to misuse, such as automated bots excessively crawling open repositories or datasets. This can lead to overloading systems, unauthorised data extraction, or unintended uses of research outputs (see Irish & Saba, 2023; Li et al., 2021). These risks underscore the importance of balancing openness with safeguards that ensure equitable participation and secure, sustainable access to research materials.
+In addition to the principles of Open Science, the concept of Open Scholarship has been introduced by (Tennant et al., 2020) as a broader approach that encompasses the arts and humanities and goes beyond the research community to the wider public. Open Scholarship emphasises the importance of making research and scholarship accessible to a wider audience, including non-experts, educators and policy makers. It can be particularly relevant to the arts and humanities, as they often deal with complex cultural materials and narratives that have wider societal implications. By making their work openly accessible and engaging with non-experts, humanities researchers can contribute to public discourse, promote cultural understanding, and inform policy and decision-making. Open scholarship can also support greater collaboration and innovation within the Arts and Humanities by enabling researchers to work collaboratively across disciplines and with a wide range of constituents. For instance, open educational resources can be used to develop collaborative teaching and learning materials that draw on the expertise of scholars and practitioners from different disciplines, while open data practices can facilitate the sharing and reuse of CH materials.
+Conversely, (Knöchelmann, 2019) advocates for the term Open Humanities as a dedicated discourse that would within the humanities. Notably, he argues that Open Humanities should adapt key Open Science elements to the Humanities’ unique context. In the case of preprints, the challenges in the humanities, such as limited discipline-specific preprint servers and linguistic diversity, require tailored solutions to encourage adoption. Open peer review in the humanities should accommodate the field’s subjectivity and diverse perspectives. Concerns about liberal copyright licenses revolve around potential misrepresentation and plagiarism, highlighting the importance of maintaining scholarly integrity regardless of the chosen license. Knochelmann’s proposal underscores the need for context-sensitive approaches to promote openness and collaboration while respecting humanities’ distinct characteristics.
+Overall, the principles of Open Science provide a framework for promoting greater collaboration, transparency and accessibility in research practices. Yet, the challenges discussed underscore the need for careful adaptation to address inequities, cybersecurity concerns, and field-specific nuances. The concept of Open Scholarship, which stresses the importance of making research and scholarship accessible to wider audiences, can be instrumental in broadening the impact of research in both natural sciences and the humanities, as Open Science encourages greater collaboration and innovation across disciplines. Ultimately, this underscores the need for adaptation and positions all academic disciplines as essential contributors to societal understanding, cultural preservation and informed decision-making, while ensuring the sustainability and integrity of open practices.
+
@@ -849,7 +939,7 @@ 8. Yale’s LUX and LOUD Consistency<
(…)
9. Discussion
-[Il] faut renoncer à l’idée d’une interopérabilité syntaxique ou structurelle par l’utilisation d’un modèle unique, qu’il s’agisse de la production, de stockage ou de l’exploitation au sein même d’un [système d’information]. (Poupeau, 2018)
+[Il] faut renoncer à l’idée d’une interopérabilité syntaxique ou structurelle par l’utilisation d’un modèle unique, qu’il s’agisse de la production, de stockage ou de l’exploitation au sein même d’un [système d’information]. (Poupeau, 2018)
This chapter presents a comprehensive discussion where I interpret, analyse and critically examine my findings in relation to the thesis and the wider application of LOUD. Through an in-depth analysis of the design principles of LOUD and their implications for CH, this discussion aims to demonstrate the many challenges and opportunities inherent in this framework. The focus is on achieving community-driven consensus, rather than simply pursuing technological breakthrough.
The following sections are organised to provide a comprehensive review of the empirical findings, an evaluation abstracting LOUD, and a retrospective analysis of the research journey. Firstly, in Section 9.1, I will present a summary of the empirical findings from my research. This will include key themes and insights, structured to reflect the different areas of study and practice within LOUD.
@@ -859,7 +949,7 @@ 9.1 Empirical Findings
This section summarises the empirical findings of my research and already offers some suggestions. The structure does not follow the exact order of the three empirical chapters but is organised around overarching topics that emerged throughout the study. The seven topics include Community Practices and Standards, Inclusion and Marginalised Groups, Maintenance and Community Engagement, Interoperability and Usability, Future Directions and Sustainability, Digital Materiality and Representation, as well as Challenges of Scaling and Implementation.
Community Practices and Standards
GitHub serves as a vital hub for community involvement, with a core group of active contributors often attending meetings regularly. This platform simplifies decision-making within the community, although it also reflects biases similar to those in FLOSS communities. Behind visible activities like meetings, there is substantial preparatory work managed by co-chairs, editorial boards, or driven by community-generated use cases. This foundational work often determines the direction and outcomes of formal gatherings. The LUX project at Yale, as seen in , has successfully fostered collaboration across various units, bringing together libraries and museums on a unified platform. The technological foundation of LUX, based on open standards, facilitates data integration and cross-collections discovery.
-Not only does the deployment of FLOSS tools contribute to these achievements, but it also emphasises the social advantages of working collaboratively. The concept of the Tragedy of the Commons, as described by (Hardin, 1968), highlights the potential for individual self-interest to deplete shared resources. However, (Ostrom, 1990) offers a counterpoint by demonstrating how communities can successfully manage common resources through collective action and shared norms. In this context, initiatives like the CHAOSS initiative play a significant role by providing metrics that help evaluate the health and sustainability of open source communities. These metrics include contributions, issue resolution times, and community growth, offering valuable insights into how collaborative efforts can be maintained and improved.
+Not only does the deployment of FLOSS tools contribute to these achievements, but it also emphasises the social advantages of working collaboratively. The concept of the Tragedy of the Commons, as described by (Hardin, 1968), highlights the potential for individual self-interest to deplete shared resources. However, (Ostrom, 1990) offers a counterpoint by demonstrating how communities can successfully manage common resources through collective action and shared norms. In this context, initiatives like the CHAOSS initiative play a significant role by providing metrics that help evaluate the health and sustainability of open source communities. These metrics include contributions, issue resolution times, and community growth, offering valuable insights into how collaborative efforts can be maintained and improved.
Reaching consensus is another critical aspect of community practices and standards. While the minutes of meetings are valuable artefacts, they often reflect an Anglo-Saxon approach to decision-making characterised by few substantive points and critical turning points. The formal aspects of conversations captured in minutes do not fully encompass the decision-making process, which frequently involves informal conversations, consensus-building through open dialogue, and subtle cues that influence outcomes. These elements are integral to the English and American approach and hold valuable lessons for an international community. IIIF and Linked Art are international communities, but decisions are made in English and the majority of participants are based in North America and the UK, significantly imprinting this approach. Understanding these nuances can help us improve our collaborative efforts within the IIIF and Linked Art communities. By recognising and appreciating these different facets of decision-making, we can learn from each other and enhance our collective ability to make effective and inclusive decisions.
Some of the challenges associated with these practices include the major demand on resources for community building, the slowness inherent in distributed development, and the difficulty in achieving consensus. Additionally, the concept of social sustainability can be seen as an imaginary construct that papers over differences, as discussed by Addressing these challenges is crucial for the long-term success and effectiveness of the IIIF and Linked Art communities.
Inclusion and Marginalised Groups
@@ -878,7 +968,7 @@ 9.1 Empirical Findings
I would suggest as a way forward for the IIIF and Linked Art communities to focus on further improving usability of the specifications. This includes conducting comprehensive usability assessments of APIs to evaluate the experiences of new developers versus existing ones, understanding the steepness of the learning curve associated with each API, and guiding improvements in documentation, on-boarding processes, and overall developer support. Efforts should be made to lower the barriers to entry for new developers by developing more intuitive and user-friendly tutorials, providing example projects, and creating a robust support community. Ensuring that developers can quickly and effectively leverage APIs will foster greater adoption. Addressing the challenges of transitioning between different versions of specifications is critical, and developing tools and guidelines that help maintain consistency across versions will reduce friction and ensure smoother updates.
Future Directions and Sustainability
Survey findings, as discussed in , underscore the need for ongoing efforts to develop LOUD standards that foster an inclusive, dynamic digital ecosystem. Future strategies should include creating educational resources and frameworks that support interdisciplinary collaboration and reduce barriers to participation. While the Manifest serves as the fundamental unit within IIIF, the Linked Art protocol can play a similar central role as semantic gateways in broader contexts, allowing round-tripping across the APIs. The topic modelling exercise in LUX, detailed in , reveals complex actor-networks of organisations, individuals, and non-human actors, providing insights into the relationships sustaining the LUX initiative.
-The next steps for Linked Art might involve forming a new consortium independent of a CIDOC Working Group, which could provide the necessary support to sustain the initiative. Alternatively, integrating Linked Art into IIIF as a new TSG and specification could address the discovery challenges within IIIF, as discussed during the birds of a feather session led by Robert Sanderson (see Raemy, 2024) at the 2024 IIIF Conference in Los Angeles. Design principles that act as bridges across different disciplines, as proposed by (Roke & Tillman, 2022), are crucial. IIIF has demonstrated that this collaborative approach is feasible, and Linked Art could follow in its footsteps. However, achieving this requires increased dedication from passive members and broader adoption of the model and the API ecosystem in the near future.
+The next steps for Linked Art might involve forming a new consortium independent of a CIDOC Working Group, which could provide the necessary support to sustain the initiative. Alternatively, integrating Linked Art into IIIF as a new TSG and specification could address the discovery challenges within IIIF, as discussed during the birds of a feather session led by Robert Sanderson (see Raemy, 2024) at the 2024 IIIF Conference in Los Angeles. Design principles that act as bridges across different disciplines, as proposed by (Roke & Tillman, 2022), are crucial. IIIF has demonstrated that this collaborative approach is feasible, and Linked Art could follow in its footsteps. However, achieving this requires increased dedication from passive members and broader adoption of the model and the API ecosystem in the near future.
Digital Materiality and Representation
As explored in Chapter 7, the detailed digital representation of photographic albums, such as the Kreis Family Collection, demonstrates the need to comprehensively capture the materiality of digital objects. This includes the structure and context of images, which are crucial for maintaining their historical and social significance. The implementation of the IIIF Presentation API in creating a detailed digital replica of the Getty’s Bayard Album shows how digital materiality can be enhanced through thoughtful use of technology, but also highlights the scalability challenges for such detailed representations.
Creating these detailed digital representations can be seen as a ‘boutique’ approach, which, while labour-intensive and resource-demanding, is necessary for preserving the integrity and contextual significance of cultural heritage objects. The challenge lies in developing the appropriate means and methodologies to achieve this level of detail consistently. Future endeavours, whether through research projects or collaborative efforts between GLAM institutions and DH practitioners, should aim to address these challenges and create sustainable practices for digital materiality and representation. As Edwards aptly notes:
@@ -888,7 +978,7 @@ 9.1 Empirical Findings
Reflecting on these findings, I would like to assert that continuous participation, particularly for institutions that can afford to be part of initiatives like IIIF-C, is essential. Active members should not only focus on their own use cases but also consider the needs and perspectives of other, perhaps marginalised, groups. Achieving the dual goals of making progress within one community, whether it be IIIF or Linked Art, while also engaging in effective outreach and creating a solid baseline, will benefit everyone in the CH sector and beyond. Addressing where LOUD fits in, how people perceive this new concept or paradigm, and understanding how LOUD differs from Linked Data in general are essential. These questions help to clarify the stages at which themes related to one of the LOUD design principles emerge, crystallise, and potentially disappear. My thesis does not fully resolve these queries but offers insights and hints for further exploration.
In conclusion, the empirical findings reveal the richness of the implementation and maintenance of LOUD standards in the CH domain. From the critical role of community practices and standards to the challenges of achieving interoperability and inclusivity, each theme underlines the complex interplay of social, technical and organisational factors. will look at the evaluation of LOUD and explore its overall impact, delving into the delta of what to do with it, particularly in terms of Linked Data versus LOUD, where my thesis provides pointers but does not provide definitive answers.
Bibliography
Adamou, Alessandro, Picca, Davide, Hou, Yumeng, & Loreto Granados-García, Paula. (2023). The Facets of Intangible Heritage in Southern Chinese Martial Arts: Applying a Knowledge-driven Cultural Contact Detection Approach.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
16(3), 63:1-63:27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3606702Ahmad, Yahaya. (2006). The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible.
International Journal of Heritage Studies,
12(3), 292–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639Akrich, Madeleine, Callon, Michel, & Latour, Bruno (Eds.). (2006).
Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs. Presses des Mines.
https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181Alter, George, Rizzolo, Flavio, & Schleidt, Kathi. (2023). View points on data points: A shared vocabulary for cross-domain conversations on data and metadata.
IASSIST Quarterly,
47(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.29173/iq1051Aslan, Zaki. (1997). Protective Structures for the Conservation and Presentation of Archaeological Sites.
Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies,
3(0), 16.
https://doi.org/10.5334/jcms.3974Avram, Henriette D. (1968).
The MARC Pilot Project. Final Report (ED029663; p. 173). Library of Congress.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED029663Azzopardi, Elaine, Kenter, Jasper O., Young, Juliette, Leakey, Chris, O’Connor, Seb, Martino, Simone, Flannery, Wesley, Sousa, Lisa P., Mylona, Dimitra, Frangoudes, Katia, Béguier, Irène, Pafi, Maria, Silva, Arturo Rey da, Ainscough, Jacob, Koutrakis, Manos, Silva, Margarida Ferreira da, & Pita, Cristina. (2023). What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation.
People and Nature,
5(2), 368–383.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10386Baader, Franz, & Lutz, Carsten. (2007). 13 Description logic. In Patrick Blackburn, Johan Van Benthem, & Frank Wolter (Eds.),
Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning (Vol. 3, pp. 757–819). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-2464(07)80016-4Baca, Murtha, & Harpring, Patricia. (2017).
Categories for the description of works of art [Report]. Getty Research Institute.
https://apo.org.au/node/14985Bekiari, Chryssoula, Bruseker, George, Doerr, Martin, Ore, Christian-Emil, Stead, Stephen, & Velios, Athanasios. (2021).
CIDOC Conceptural Reference Model 7.1.1.
https://doi.org/10.26225/FDZH-X261Beretta, Francesco. (2022). Interopérabilité des données de la recherche et ontologies fondationnelles : Un éco-système d’exnsions du CIDOC CRM pour les sciences humaines et sociales. In Nicolas Lasolle, Olivier Bruneau, & Jean Lieber (Eds.),
Actes des journées humanités numériques et Web sémantique (pp. 2–22). Les Archives Henri-Poincaré - Philosophie et Recherches sur les Sciences et les Technologies (AHP-PReST); Laboratoire lorrain de recherche en informatique et ses applications (LORIA).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7014341Berressem, Hanjo. (2015). Déjà Vu: Serres after Latour, Deleuze after Harman, ‘Nature Writing’ after ‘Network Theory’.
Amerikastudien / American Studies,
60(1), 59–79.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44071895Borgo, Stefano, Ferrario, Roberta, Gangemi, Aldo, Guarino, Nicola, Masolo, Claudio, Porello, Daniele, Sanfilippo, Emilio M., & Vieu, Laure. (2022). DOLCE: A descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering.
Applied Ontology,
17(1), 45–69.
https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-210259Bowman, Blythe A. (2008). Transnational Crimes Against Culture: Looting at Archaeological Sites and the “Grey” Market in Antiquities.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
24(3), 225–242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986208318210Brown, Karen, Cummins, Alissandra, & González Rueda, Ana S. (Eds.). (2023).
Communities and Museums in the 21st Century: Shared Histories and Climate Action (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003288138Bruseker, George, Carboni, Nicola, & Guillem, Anaïs. (2017). Cultural Heritage Data Management: The Role of Formal Ontology and CIDOC CRM. In Matthew L. Vincent, Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho, Marinos Ioannides, & Thomas E. Levy (Eds.),
Heritage and Archaeology in the Digital Age: Acquisition, Curation, and Dissemination of Spatial Cultural Heritage Data (pp. 93–131). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9_6Callon, Michel. (2001). Actor Network Theory. In Neil J. Smelser & Paul B. Baltes (Eds.),
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 62–66). Pergamon.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03168-5Cameron, Fiona. (2007). Beyond the Cult of the Replicant: Museums and Historical Digital Objects—Traditional Concerns, New Discourses. In Fiona Cameron & Sarah Kenderdine (Eds.),
Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. The MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033534.003.0004Canning, Erin, Brown, Susan, Roger, Sarah, & Martin, Kimberley. (2022). The Power to Structure : Making Meaning from Metadata Through Ontologies.
KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies,
6(3), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.169Cantara, Linda. (2005). METS: The Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard.
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
40(3–4), 237–253.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n03_11Caplan, Priscilla, & Guenther, Rebecca S. (2005). Practical Preservation: The PREMIS Experience.
Library Trends,
54(1), 111–124.
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/193223Carman, John. (2009). Where the Value Lies: The importance of materiality to the immaterial aspects of heritage. In Emma Waterton & Laurajane Smith (Eds.), Taking Archaeology Out of Heritage (pp. 192–208). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Chang, Liang, Sattler, Uli, & Gu, Tianlong. (2014). An ABox Revision Algorithm for the Description Logic EL_bot. In Meghyn Bienvenu, Magdalena Ortiz, Riccardo Rosati, & Mantas Simkus (Eds.),
Informal Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Description Logics (Vol. 1193, pp. 459–470). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1193/#paper_64Charles, Valentine, & Isaac, Antoine. (2015).
Enhancing the Europeana Data Model (EDM) (p. 21) [White paper]. Europeana Foundation.
http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/EDM_WhitePaper_17062015.pdfChiquet, Vera, Felsing, Ulrike, & Fornaro, Peter. (2023). A Participatory Interface for a Photo Archives.
Archiving Conference,
20, 109–111.
https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2023.20.1.23Chiquet, Vera. (2023). How to digitally preserve UNESCO intangible cultural heritage? A web-archive for ephemeral events at the Basler Carnival.
Archiving Conference,
20, 105–108.
https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2023.20.1.22Clavaud, Florence, & Wildi, Tobias. (2021). ICA Records in Contexts-Ontology (RiC-O): A Semantic Framework for Describing Archival Resources.
Linked Archives International Workshop 2021,
3019, 79–92.
https://enc.hal.science/hal-03965776Coburn, Erin, Lanzi, Elisa, O’Keefe, Elizabeth, Stein, Regine, & Whiteside, Ann. (2010). The Cataloging Cultural Objects experience: Codifying practice for the cultural heritage community.
IFLA Journal,
36(1), 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209359561Coburn, Erin, Light, Richard, McKenna, Gordon, Stein, Regine, & Vitzthum, Axel. (2010).
LIDO - Lightweight Information Describing Objects Version 1.0.
https://lido-schema.org/schema/v1.0/lido-v1.0-specification.pdfConstantopoulos, Panos, & Dallas, Costis. (2008). Aspects of a digital curation agenda for cultural heritage. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Human-Machine Systems. Athens, Greece: IEEE, 1–6.
Conway, Paul. (2015). Digital transformations and the archival nature of surrogates.
Archival Science,
15(1), 51–69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-014-9219-zCornut, Murielle, Raemy, Julien Antoine, & Spiess, Florian. (2023). Annotations as Knowledge Practices in Image Archives: Application of Linked Open Usable Data and Machine Learning.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
16(4), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3625301Cornut, Murielle. (2023). Open, edit, save: Über die performative Materialität privater Fotoalben. In Ulrich Hägele (Ed.), Kuratierte Erinnerungen: Das Fotoalbum (pp. 157–170). Waxmann.
Cossham, Amanda Frances. (2017).
Models of the bibliographic universe [{PhD} {Thesis}, Monash University].
https://doi.org/10.4225/03/596e9bc6c1d09Coyle, Karen, & Hillmann, Diane. (2007). Resource Description and Access (RDA): Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century.
D-Lib Magazine,
13(1/2).
https://doi.org/10.1045/january2007-coyleDahlgren, Anna, & Hansson, Karin. (2020). The Diversity Paradox: Conflicting Demands on Metadata Production in Cultural Heritage Collections.
Digital Culture & Society,
6(2), 239–256.
https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2020-0212De Muynke, Julien, Baltazar, Marie, Monferran, Martin, Voisenat, Claudie, & Katz, Brian F. G. (2022). Ears of the past, an inquiry into the sonic memory of the acoustics of Notre-Dame before the fire of 2019.
Journal of Cultural Heritage.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.09.006Delmas-Glass, Emmanuelle, & Sanderson, Robert. (2020). Fostering a community of PHAROS scholars through the adoption of open standards.
Art Libraries Journal,
45(1), 19–23.
https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2019.32Denton, William. (2006). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-All?
Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
6(2), 231–232.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0018Digital Preservation Coalition. (2017). Persistent Identifiers. In
Digital Preservation Handbook. DPC.
https://www.dpconline.org/handbook/technical-solutions-and-tools/persistent-identifiersDijkshoorn, Chris. (2023, October). Building Collection Data Infrastructure at the Rijksmuseum. EuropeanaTech 2023.
Doerr, Martin. (2003). The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata.
AI Magazine,
24(3), 75–92.
https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v24i3.1720Duin, Marcel. (2022). WebAssembly: Beyond the Browser. In
Q42 Engineering.
https://engineering.q42.nl/webassembly-beyond-the-browser/Edmunds, Jeff. (2023). BIBFRAME Must Die.
ScholarSphere, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.26207/V18M-0G05Edwards, Elizabeth, & Hart, Janice (Eds.). (2004).
Photographs Objects Histories (1st Edition). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203506493Ehrlinger, Lisa, & Wöß, Wolfram. (2016). Towards a Definition of Knowledge Graphs. In Michael Martin, Martí Cuquet, & Erwin Folmer (Eds.),
Joint Proceedings of the Posters and Demos Track of the 12th International Conference on Semantic Systems - SEMANTiCS2016 and the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Change & Evolving Semantics (SuCCESS’16) (Vol. 1695). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1695/#paper4Endres, Bill. (2019). Digitizing Medieval Manuscripts: The St. Chad Gospels, Materiality, Recoveries, and Representation in 2D & 3D. In
Digitizing Medieval Manuscripts. ARC, Amsterdam University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781942401803Felsing, Ulrike, & Cornut, Murielle. (2024). Re-Imagining the Collection of the Kreis Family.
Research in Arts and Education,
2024(1), 41–53.
https://doi.org/10.54916/rae.142567Felsing, Ulrike, & Frischknecht, Max. (2021). Critical Map Visualizations. In Christine Schranz (Ed.),
Shifts in Mapping (pp. 95–124). transcript Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839460412-008Felsing, Ulrike, Fornaro, Peter, Frischknecht, Max, & Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2023). Community and Interoperability at the Core of Sustaining Image Archives.
Digital Humanities in the Nordic and Baltic Countries Publications,
5(1), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.5617/dhnbpub.10649Ferrazzi, Sabrina. (2021). The Notion of “Cultural Heritage” in the International Field: Behind Origin and Evolution of a Concept.
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique,
34(3), 743–768.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09739-0Fiorentino, Sara, & Chinni, Tania. (2023). The Persistence of Memory. Exploring the Significance of Glass from Materiality to Intangible Values.
Heritage,
6(6), 4834–4842.
https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6060257Floridi, Luciano. (2005). Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
70(2), 351–370.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40040796Floridi, Luciano. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Force, Donald C., & Smith, Randy. (2021). Context Lost: Digital Surrogates, Their Physical Counterparts, and the Metadata that Is Keeping Them Apart.
The American Archivist,
84(1), 91–118.
https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.91Freire, Nuno, & Isaac, Antoine. (2019). Technical Usability of Wikidata’s Linked Data. In Witold Abramowicz & Rafael Corchuelo (Eds.),
Business Information Systems Workshops (pp. 556–567). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36691-9_47Freire, Nuno, Calado, Pável, & Martins, Bruno. (2018). Availability of Cultural Heritage Structured Metadata in the World Wide Web. In Leslie Chan & Pierre Mounier (Eds.),
ELPUB 2018.
https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.20Freire, Nuno, Isaac, Antoine, Robson, Glen, Brooks, John, & Manguinhas, Hugo. (2017). A survey of Web technology for metadata aggregation in cultural heritage.
Information Services & Use,
37(4), 425–436.
https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170859Freire, Nuno, Meijers, Enno, Valk, Sjors de, Raemy, Julien A., & Isaac, Antoine. (2021). Metadata Aggregation via Linked Data: Results of the Europeana Common Culture Project. In Emmanouel Garoufallou & María-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones (Eds.),
Metadata and Semantic Research (pp. 383–394). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71903-6_35Fresa, Antonella. (2013). A Data Infrastructure for Digital Cultural Heritage: Characteristics, Requirements and Priority Services.
International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing,
7(supplement), 29–46.
https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2013.0058Frischknecht, Max. (2022). Generating Perspectives: Applying Generative Design to critically explore the Atlas of Swiss Folklore.
DARIAH-CH Study Day 2022 Posters.
https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.17911Georgopoulos, Andreas. (2018). CIPA’s Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. In Sander Münster, Kristina Friedrichs, Florian Niebling, & Agnieszka Seidel-Grzesińska (Eds.),
Digital Research and Education in Architectural Heritage (pp. 215–245). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76992-9_13Giacomo, Giuseppe De, & Lenzerini, Maurizio. (1996). TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 316–327.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3087368.3087406Gilliland, Anne J. (2016). Setting the Stage. In Murtha Baca (Ed.),
Introduction to metadata (Third edition). Getty Research Institute.
https://www.getty.edu/publications/intrometadata/setting-the-stage/Greenberg, Jane. (2005). Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes.
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
40(3–4), 17–36.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n03_02Gruber, Thomas R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications.
Knowledge Acquisition,
5(2), 199–220.
https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008Guenther, Rebecca S. (2003). MODS: The Metadata Object Description Schema.
Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
3(1), 137–150.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0006Guillem, Anaïs, Gros, Antoine, & De Luca, Livio. (2023, June). Faire parler les claveaux effondrés de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris.
Recueil Des Communications Du 4e Colloque Humanistica.
https://hal.science/hal-04106101Guillem, Anaïs, Gros, Antoine, Reby, Kevin, Abergel, Violette, & De Luca, Livio. (2023). RCC8 for CIDOC CRM: Semantic Modeling of Mereological and Topological Spatial Relations in Notre-Dame de Paris. In Antonis Bikakis, Roberta Ferrario, Stéphane Jean, Béatrice Markhoff, Alessandro Mosca, & Marianna Nicolosi Asmundo (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Web and Ontology Design for Cultural Heritage (Vol. 3540). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3540/#paper2Hacıgüzeller, Piraye, Taylor, James Stuart, & Perry, Sara. (2021). On the Emerging Supremacy of Structured Digital Data in Archaeology: A Preliminary Assessment of Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Left Behind.
Open Archaeology,
7(1), 1709–1730.
https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0220Haraway, Donna Jeanne. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
Haraway, Donna. (2008). Encounters with Companion Species: Entangling Dogs, Baboons, Philosophers, and Biologists.
Configurations,
14(1), 97–114.
https://doi.org/10.1353/con.0.0002Hardesty, Juliet, & Nolan, Allison. (2021). Mitigating Bias in Metadata: A Use Case Using Homosaurus Linked Data.
Information Technology and Libraries,
40(3).
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i3.13053Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons.
Science,
162(3859), 1243–1248.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243Harpring, Patricia. (2010). Development of the Getty Vocabularies: AAT, TGN, ULAN, and CONA.
Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America,
29(1), 67–72.
https://doi.org/10.1086/adx.29.1.27949541Haxaire, Claudie. (2009). The Power of Ambiguity: The Nature and Efficacy of the Zamble Masks Revealed by “Disease Masks” Among the Gouro People (Côte d’Ivoire).
Africa,
79(4), 543–569.
https://doi.org/10.3366/E0001972009001065He, Y., Ma, Y. H., & Zhang, X. R. (2017). “Digital Heritage” Theory and Innovative Practice.
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
XLII-2/W5, 335–342.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-335-2017Hertz, Ellen, Graezer Bideau, Florence, Leimgruber, Walter, & Munz, Hervé. (2018).
Politiques de la tradition. Le patrimoine culturel immatériel (Vol. 131). Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
https://edoc.unibas.ch/68569/Hill, Linda, Buchel, Olha, Janée, Greg, & Zeng, Marcia Lei. (2002). Integration of Knowledge Organization Systems into Digital Library Architectures: Position Paper for 13th ASIST SIGICR Workshop, Reconceptualizing Classification Research.
Advances in Classification Research Online,
13(1), 46–52.
https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v13i1.13835Hillmann, Diane I., Marker, Rhonda, & Brady, Chris. (2008). Metadata Standards and Applications.
The Serials Librarian,
54(1–2), 7–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260801973364Hodge, Gail M. (2000). Systems of knowledge organization for digital libraries: Beyond traditional authority files. Digital Library Federation, Council on Library; Information Resources.
Hoffmann, Anna Lauren. (2021). Terms of inclusion: Data, discourse, violence.
New Media & Society,
23(12), 3539–3556.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820958725Hou, Yumeng, & Kenderdine, Sarah. (2024). Ontology-based knowledge representation for traditional martial arts.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae005Hou, Yumeng, Kenderdine, Sarah, Picca, Davide, Egloff, Mattia, & Adamou, Alessandro. (2022). Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage Embodied: State of the Art.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
15(3), 55:1-55:20.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3494837Huber, Birgit, & Frischknecht, Max. (2024). Digitalisierung und (De-)Konstruktion. Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines Prototyps für die digitale Zugänglichmachung des «Atlas der Schweizerischen Volkskunde. In Sabine Eggmann & Konrad J. Kuhn (Eds.),
Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde Archives suisses des traditions populaires (Vol. 2024/1, pp. 27–52). Chronos.
https://doi.org/10.33057/CHRONOS.1785/27-51Huber, Birgit. (2023). Die Entdeckung der «Brünig-Napf-Reuss-Linie». In
Blog zur Schweizer Geschichte - Schweizerisches Nationalmuseum.
https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/2023/10/die-entdeckung-der-bruenig-napf-reuss-linie/Hyvönen, Eero. (2012). Cultural Heritage on the Semantic Web. In
Publishing and Using Cultural Heritage Linked Data on the Semantic Web (pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79438-4_1Hyvönen, Eero. (2020). Using the Semantic Web in digital humanities: Shift from data publishing to data-analysis and serendipitous knowledge discovery.
Semantic Web,
11(1), 187–193.
https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-190386ICA Expert Group on Archival Description. (2023).
Records in Context Conceptual Model 1.0.
https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ric-cm-1.0_0.pdfIoannides, Marinos, & Davies, Robert. (2019). Towards a Holistic Documentation and Wider Use of Digital Cultural Heritage. In Emmanouel Garoufallou, Fabio Sartori, Rania Siatri, & Marios Zervas (Eds.),
Metadata and Semantic Research (pp. 76–88). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14401-2_7Izu, Benjamin Obeghare. (2022). The Sociocultural Significance of the Emedjo (Masquerade) Dance Among the Abraka People in Delta State, Nigeria.
E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 413–423.
https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.2022394Jackson, Steven J., Edwards, Paul N., Bowker, Geoffrey C., & Knobel, Cory P. (2007). Understanding infrastructure: History, heuristics and cyberinfrastructure policy.
First Monday,
12(6).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i6.1904Katz, Brian F. G. (2023, October). Digitally exploring the acoustic history of Notre-Dame Cathedral.
EuropeanaTech 2023.
https://youtu.be/JDcNV_X54oQKoch, Inês, Ribeiro, Cristina, & Teixeira Lopes, Carla. (2020). ArchOnto, a CIDOC-CRM-Based Linked Data Model for the Portuguese Archives. In Mark Hall, Tanja Merčun, Thomas Risse, & Fabien Duchateau (Eds.),
Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge (Vol. 12246, pp. 133–146). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54956-5_10Krötzsch, Markus, Simancik, Frantisek, & Horrocks, Ian. (2013).
A Description Logic Primer. arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1201.4089Lagoze, Carl, Van de Sompel, Herbert, Nelson, Michael, & Warner, Simeon. (2002). The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting - v.2.0. In
Open Archives Initiative.
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.htmlLatour, Bruno. (1990). Postmodern? No, simply amodern! Steps towards an anthropology of science.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,
21(1), 145–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(90)90018-4Latour, Bruno. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications.
Soziale Welt,
47(4), 369–381.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40878163Latour, Bruno. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno. (2022). Habiter la Terre : Entretiens avec Nicolas Truong. Éditions Les Liens qui libèrent ; Arte éditions.
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Etienne. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Christopher A. (2009). Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model. In Marcia J. Bates & Mary Niles Maack (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition (3rd ed., pp. 4020–4030). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044377Leimgruber, Walter. (2008). Was ist immaterielles Kulturerbe?
Bulletin / Schweizerische Akademie Der Geistes- Und Sozialwissenschaften,
2008, H. 2, 24–25.
http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A5251330Leimgruber, Walter. (2010). Switzerland and the UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Journal of Folklore Research,
47(1–2), 161–196.
https://doi.org/10.2979/JFR.2010.47.1-2.161Lemmer-Webber, Christine, & Tallon, Jessica. (2018). ActivityPub. In
W3C.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/Lenzerini, Federico. (2011). Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples.
European Journal of International Law,
22(1), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr006Lim, Shirley, & Li Liew, Chern. (2011). Metadata quality and interoperability of GLAM digital images.
Aslib Proceedings,
63(5), 484–498.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531111164978Lindenthal, Jutta, Meiners, Hanna-Lena, & Balzer, Detlev. (2023). LIDO Primer. In
LIDO.
https://lido-schema.org/documents/primer/latest/lido-primer.htmlLit, L. W. C. van. (2020). The Digital Materiality of Digitized Manuscripts. In
Among Digitized Manuscripts. Philology, Codicology, Paleography in a Digital World (pp. 51–72). Brill.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwzrd.6Loulanski, Tolina. (2006). Revising the Concept for Cultural Heritage: The Argument for a Functional Approach.
International Journal of Cultural Property,
13(2), 207–233.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739106060085Lowenthal, David. (2005). Natural and cultural heritage.
International Journal of Heritage Studies,
11(1), 81–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250500037088Mahony, Simon. (2018). Cultural Diversity and the Digital Humanities.
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences,
11(3), 371–388.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-018-0216-0Marcondes, Carlos Henrique. (2021). Integrated classification schemas to interlink cultural heritage collections over the web using LOD technologies.
International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies,
15(3), 170.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMSO.2021.123040Martinez Demarco, Sol. (2019). Empowering women through digital skills in Argentina: A tale of two stories.
TATuP - Zeitschrift Für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie Und Praxis,
28(2), 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.28.2.s23Martinez Demarco, Sol. (2023). From digital inclusion to IT appropriation: Gendered aspects of appropriation imaginary and practices.
GENDER – Zeitschrift Für Geschlecht, Kultur Und Gesellschaft,
15(1), 72–86.
https://doi.org/10.3224/gender.v15i1.06Masolo, Claudio, Borgo, Stefano, Gangemi, Aldo, Guarino, Nicola, & Oltramari, Alessandro. (2003).
Wonder Web Deliverable D18: Ontology Library (Ontology {Infrastructure} for the {Semantic} {Web} Del 18; p. 343). Laboratory For Applied Ontology - ISTC-CNR.
http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/D18.pdfMazzocchi, Fulvio. (2018). Knowledge organization system (KOS).
Knowledge Organization,
45(1), 54–78.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-54Micle, Dorel. (2014). Archaeological Heritage Between Natural Hazard and Anthropic Destruction: The Negative Impact of Social Non-involvement in the Protection of Archaeological Sites.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
163, 269–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.316Mikhaylova, Daria, & Metilli, Daniele. (2023). Extending RiC-O to Model Historical Architectural Archives: The ITDT Ontology.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
16(4), 67:1-67:15.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3606706Mixter, Jeff. (2014). Using a Common Model: Mapping VRA Core 4.0 Into an RDF Ontology.
Journal of Library Metadata,
14(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2014.891890Morales, Susana. (2009). La apropiación de TIC: Una perspectiva. In Susana Morales & M. I. Loyola (Eds.), Los jóvenes y las TIC. Apropiación y uso en educación (pp. 99–120). Edición de las autoras.
Morales, Susana. (2017).
Imaginación y software: Aportes para la construcción del paradigma de la apropiación. Del Gato Gris.
http://hdl.handle.net/11086/27405Morales, Susana. (2018). La apropiación de tecnologías. Ideas para un paradigma en construcción. In Acerca de la apropiación de tecnologías. Teoría, estudios y debates (pp. 23–33). Del Gato Gris.
Mr Gee. (2023, October). Day 2 Closing – A multitude of tools.
EuropeanaTech 2023.
https://youtu.be/pOX9CrvAG7IMüller, Katja. (2018). Digitale Objekte - subjektive Materie. Zur Materialität digitalisierter Objekte in Museum und Archiv. In Hans Peter Hahn & Friedemann Neumann (Eds.),
Edition Kulturwissenschaft (1st ed., Vol. 182, pp. 49–66). transcript Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839445136-004Munjeri, Dawson. (2004). Tangible and Intangible Heritage: From difference to convergence.
Museum International,
56(1–2), 12–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00453.xMünster, S., Apollonio, F. I., Bell, P., Kuroczynski, P., Di Lenardo, I., Rinaudo, F., & Tamborrino, R. (2019). Digital Cultural Heritage meets Digital Humanities.
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
XLII-2/W15, 813–820.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-813-2019Münster, Sander, Utescher, Ronja, & Ulutas Aydogan, Selda. (2021). Digital topics on cultural heritage investigated: How can data-driven and data-guided methods support to identify current topics and trends in digital heritage?
Built Heritage,
5(1), 25.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-021-00045-7Nelson, Peter A. (2021). The Role of GPR in Community-Driven Compliance Archaeology with Tribal and Non-tribal Communities in Central California.
Advances in Archaeological Practice,
9(3), 215–225.
https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2021.14Newbury, David. (2018). LOUD: Linked Open Usable Data and linked.art.
2018 CIDOC Conference, 1–11.
https://cidoc.mini.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/03/CIDOC2018_paper_153.pdfNielsen, Erland Kolding. (2008). Digitisation of Library Material in Europe: Problems, Obstacles and Perspectives anno 2007.
LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries,
18(1), 20–27.
https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7901Ostrom, Elinor. (1990).
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763Owens, Trevor. (2011). Defining Data for Humanists: Text, Artifact, Information or Evidence?
Journal of Digital Humanities,
1(1).
https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-1/defining-data-for-humanists-by-trevor-owens/Padfield, Joseph, Bolland, Charlotte, Fitzgerald, Neil, McLaughlin, Anne, Robson, Glen, & Terras, Melissa. (2022).
Practical applications of IIIF as a building block towards a digital National Collection [Arts and {Humanities} {Research} {Council} {Final} {Report}]. Towards a National Collection.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6884885Page, Kevin R., Delmas-Glass, Emmanuelle, Beaudet, David, Norling, Samantha, Rother, Lynn, & Hänsli, Thomas. (2020). Linked Art: Networking Digital Collections and Scholarship.
Digital Humanities 2020 Book of Abstracts, 504–509.
https://dh2020.adho.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/139_LinkedArtNetworkingDigitalCollectionsandScholarship.htmlPagenstecher, Cord. (2009). Private Fotoalben als historische Quelle.
Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History,
6(3), 449–463.
https://doi.org/10.14765/ZZF.DOK-1803Patrón, Pedro, Miguelañez, Emilio, Petillot, Yvan R., Patrón, Pedro, Miguelañez, Emilio, & Petillot, Yvan R. (2011). Embedded Knowledge and Autonomous Planning: The Path Towards Permanent Presence of Underwater Networks. In
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (pp. 199–224). IntechOpen.
https://doi.org/10.5772/24649Peterhans, Simon, Sauter, Loris, Spiess, Florian, & Schuldt, Heiko. (2022). Automatic Generation of Coherent Image Galleries in Virtual Reality. In Gianmaria Silvello, Oscar Corcho, Paolo Manghi, Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Koraljka Golub, Nicola Ferro, & Antonella Poggi (Eds.),
Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (Vol. 13541, pp. 282–288). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_23Pfrunder, Peter. (1995). Ernst Brunner: Photographien, 1937-1962 (2. Aufl). Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Volkskunde ; Offizin.
Philip, Kavita. (2021). The Internet Will Be Decolonized. In Thomas S. Mullaney, Benjamin Peters, Mar Hicks, & Kavita Philip (Eds.),
Your Computer Is on Fire (pp. 91–116). The MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10993.003.0002Pitti, Daniel V. (1999). Encoded archival description: An introduction and overview.
New Review of Information Networking,
5(1), 61–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13614579909516936Portalés, Cristina, Rodrigues, João M. F., Rodrigues Gonçalves, Alexandra, Alba, Ester, & Sebastián, Jorge. (2018). Digital Cultural Heritage.
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction,
2(3), 58.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030058Raemy, Julien Antoine, Gray, Tanya, Collinson, Alwyn, & Page, Kevin R. (2023). Enabling Participatory Data Perspectives for Image Archives through a Linked Art Workflow. In Anne Baillot, Walter Scholger, Toma Tasovac, & Georg Vogeler (Eds.),
Digital Humanities 2023 Book of Abstracts (Vol. 2023, pp. 515–516). Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO).
https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-ep95099Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2017).
The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF): Raising awareness of the user benefits for scholarly editions [Bachelor’s thesis, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences; Arts, Haute école de gestion de Genève].
https://sonar.ch/hesso/documents/314853Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2020).
Enabling better aggregation and discovery of cultural heritage content for Europeana and its partner institutions [Master’s thesis, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences; Arts, Haute école de gestion de Genève].
https://sonar.ch/hesso/documents/315109Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2021). Applying Effective Data Modelling Approaches for the Creation of a Participatory Archive Platform. In Yumeng Hou (Ed.),
Human Factors in Digital Humanities (pp. 1–5). Institut des humanités digitales.
https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-ep87517Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2022). Améliorer la valorisation des données du patrimoine culturel grâce au Linked Open Usable Data (LOUD). In Nicolas Lasolle, Olivier Bruneau, & Jean Lieber (Eds.),
Actes des journées humanités numériques et Web sémantique (pp. 132–149). Les Archives Henri-Poincaré - Philosophie et Recherches sur les Sciences et les Technologies (AHP-PReST); Laboratoire lorrain de recherche en informatique et ses applications (LORIA).
https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-ep89725Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2024).
Interlinking Cultural Heritage Data with Community-driven Principles and Standards.
https://julsraemy.ch/prezi/pia-ringvorlesung-2024.htmlRaemy, Julien Antoine. (2024). Some notes from the 2024 IIIF Conference held in Los Angeles. In
Thoughts and discombobulations of Julien A. Raemy.
https://julsraemy.ch/posts/2024/06/26/iiif-conference-la/Rautenberg, Michel. (1998). L’émergence patrimoniale de l’ethnologie : Entre mémoire et politiques publiques. In Patrimoine et modernité (pp. 279–289). L’Harmattan.
Respaldiza Hidalgo, María Aránzazu, Wachowicz, Monica, & Vázquez Hoehne, Antonio. (2011). Metadata Visualization of Cultural Heritage Information within a Collaborative Environment.
Proceedings of XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium.
https://oa.upm.es/11636/Ribes, David, & Lee, Charlotte P. (2010). Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research: Current Themes and Future Trajectories.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),
19(3), 231–244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9120-0Ridge, Mia, Blickhan, Samantha, Ferriter, Meghan, Mast, Austin, Brumfield, Ben, Wilkins, Brendon, Cybulska, Daria, Burgher, Denise, Casey, Jim, Luther, Kurt, Goldman, Michael Haley, White, Nick, Willcox, Pip, Brumfield, Sara Carlstead, Coleman, Sonya J., & Prytz, Ylva Berglund. (2021). 12. Connecting with communities. In
The Collective Wisdom Handbook: Perspectives on Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage - community review version (1st edition). British Library.
https://doi.org/10.21428/a5d7554f.1b80974bRiley, Jenn. (2009). Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe. In
Jenn Riley.
https://jennriley.com/metadatamap/Riley, Jenn. (2017). Understanding metadata. What is metadata, and what is it for? National Information Standards Organization (NISO).
Riva, Pat, Le Boeuf, Patrick, & Žumer, Maja. (2017).
IFLA Library Reference Model: A Conceptual Model for Bibliographic Information [{IFLA}-{LRM}]. International Federation of Library Associations; Institutions.
https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/40Rodighiero, Dario. (2021).
Mapping Affinities: Democratizing Data Visualization. Métis Presses.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37368046Roke, Elizabeth Russey, & Tillman, Ruth Kitchin. (2022). Pragmatic Principles for Archival Linked Data.
The American Archivist,
85(1), 173–201.
https://doi.org/10.17723/2327-9702-85.1.173Rossenova, Lozana, & Di Franco, Karen. (2022). Iterative Pasts and Linked Futures: A Feminist Approach to Modeling Data in Archives and Collections of Artists’ Publishing.
Perspectives on Data,
2.
https://doi.org/10.53269/9780865593152/05SAA Dictionary. (2023). Taxonomy. In
Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Society of American Archivists.
https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/taxonomy.htmlSabharwal, Arjun. (2015). 2 - Archives and special collections in the digital humanities. In Arjun Sabharwal (Ed.),
Digital Curation in the Digital Humanities (pp. 27–47). Chandos Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100143-1.00002-7Sanderson, Robert. (2013). RDF: Resource Description Failures and Linked Data Letdowns.
Journal of Digital Humanities,
2(3).
https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/rdf-resource-description-failures-and-linked-data-letdowns/Sanderson, Robert. (2019). Keynote: Standards and Communities: Connected People, Consistent Data, Usable Applications.
2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), 28.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2019.00009Schmoll, Friedemann. (2009a). Die Vermessung der Kultur: Der ‘Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde’ und die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1928-1980. Steiner.
Schmoll, Friedemann. (2009b). Richard Weiss : Skizzen zum internationalen Wirken des Schweizer Volkskundlers.
Schweizerisches Archiv Für Volkskunde/ Archives Suisses Des Traditions Populaires,
2009(105), 15–32.
https://doi.org/10.5169/SEALS-118266Schöch, Christof. (2013). Big? Smart? Clean? Messy? Data in the Humanities.
Journal of Digital Humanities,
2(3).
https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/big-smart-clean-messy-data-in-the-humanities/Semeraro, Concetta, Lezoche, Mario, Panetto, Hervé, & Dassisti, Michele. (2021). Digital twin paradigm: A systematic literature review.
Computers in Industry,
130, 103469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103469Serres, Michel. (2014). Le parasite. Pluriel.
Shao, Guodong, & Kibira, Deogratias. (2018). DIGITAL MANUFACTURING: REQUIREMENTS AND CHALLENGES FOR IMPLEMENTING DIGITAL SURROGATES.
2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 1226–1237.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2018.8632242Shepherd, Elizabeth, & Smith, Charlotte. (2000). The Application of ISAD(G) to the Description of Archival Datasets.
Journal of the Society of Archivists,
21(1), 55–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00379810050006911Simandiraki-Grimshaw, Anna. (2023). What is a museum object according to a museum database? In
TETRARCHs.
https://www.tetrarchs.org/index.php/2023/09/19/what-is-a-museum-object-according-to-a-museum-database/Snell, James M., & Prodromou, Evan. (2017). Activity Streams 2.0. In
W3C.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/Snydman, Stuart, Sanderson, Robert, & Cramer, Tom. (2015). The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF): A community & technology approach for web-based images.
Archiving Conference,
12, 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2015.12.1.art00005Spiess, Florian, & Schuldt, Heiko. (2022). Multimodal Interactive Lifelog Retrieval with vitrivr-VR.
Proceedings of the 5th Annual on Lifelog Search Challenge, 38–42.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3512729.3533008Spiess, Florian, & Stauffiger, Markus. (2023). Forschung und Archive: Erschliessung und Zugänglichkeit neu gedacht.
Arbido,
2023(1).
https://arbido.ch/de/ausgaben-artikel/2023/archiv-der-zukunft/forschung-und-archive-erschliessung-und-zugaenglichkeit-neu-gedachtSpiess, Florian, Rossetto, Luca, & Schuldt, Heiko. (2024). Exploring Multimedia Vector Spaces with vitrivr-VR. In Stevan Rudinac, Alan Hanjalic, Cynthia Liem, Marcel Worring, Björn Thor Jónsson, Bei Liu, & Yoko Yamakata (Eds.),
MultiMedia Modeling (Vol. 14557, pp. 317–323). Springer Nature Switzerland.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53302-0_27Sprochi, Amanda. (2016). Where Are We Headed? Resource Description and Access, Bibliographic Framework, and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Library Reference Model.
The International Information & Library Review,
48(2), 129–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2016.1176455Star, Susan Leigh, & Griesemer, James R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ’Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science,
19(3), 387–420.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/285080Star, Susan Leigh, & Ruhleder, Karen. (1994). Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: Complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems.
Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 253–264.
https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.193021Star, Susan Leigh. (1999). The Ethnography of Infrastructure.
American Behavioral Scientist,
43(3), 377–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326Stein, Regine, & Balandi, Oguzhan. (2019). Using LIDO for Evolving Object Documentation into CIDOC CRM.
Heritage,
2(1), 1023–1031.
https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage2010066Tasovac, Toma, Chambers, Sally, & Tóth-Czifra, Erzsébet. (2020). Cultural Heritage Data from a Humanities Research Perspective: A DARIAH Position Paper.
DARIAH-EU.
https://hal.science/hal-02961317Tennant, Roy. (2002). MARC must die.
Library Journal,
127(17), 26–27.
http://soiscompsfall2007.pbworks.com/f/marc%20must%20die.pdfTerras, Melissa, Coleman, Stephen, Drost, Steven, Elsden, Chris, Helgason, Ingi, Lechelt, Susan, Osborne, Nicola, Panneels, Inge, Pegado, Briana, Schafer, Burkhard, Smyth, Michael, Thornton, Pip, & Speed, Chris. (2021). The value of mass-digitised cultural heritage content in creative contexts.
Big Data & Society,
8(1), 20539517211006165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211006165Tuominen, Jouni, Hyvönen, Eero, & Leskinen, Petri. (2017). Bio CRM: A Data Model for Representing Biographical Data for Prosopographical Research. In Antske Fokkens, Serge ter Braake, Ronald Sluijter, Paul Arthur, & Eveline Wandl-Vogt (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Conference on Biographical Data in a Digital World 2017 (Vol. 2119, pp. 59–66). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2119/#paper10Tweed, Christopher, & Sutherland, Margaret. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development.
Landscape and Urban Planning,
83(1), 62–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2009).
UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://doi.org/10.15220/978-92-9189-075-0-enUNESCO. (2009).
Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage (Circular {Letter} CL/3865). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000179529UNESCO. (2022).
Basic texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Programme and Meeting Document CLT-2022/WS/3). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000383762UNESCO. Culture for Development Indicators. (2014).
Methodology Manual. United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000229608Van de Sompel, Herbert, & Nelson, Michael L. (2015). Reminiscing About 15 Years of Interoperability Efforts.
D-Lib Magazine,
21(11/12).
https://doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompelVan der Auwera, Sigrid. (2013). UNESCO and the protection of cultural property during armed conflict.
International Journal of Cultural Policy,
19(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2011.625415Vandenhende, Lise, & Van Hoorick, Geert. (2017). The management of cultural heritage and nature : Complementary or conflicting regulations?
EELF Annual Conference, 5th, Abstracts.
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8722614Vecco, Marilena. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible.
Journal of Cultural Heritage,
11(3), 321–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006Vienni-Baptista, Bianca, Fletcher, Isabel, & Lyall, Catherine (Eds.). (2023).
Foundations of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research: A Reader. Bristol University Press.
https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529235012Vinck, Dominique. (2019).
Les métiers de l’ombre de la Fête des Vignerons. Editions Antipodes.
https://doi.org/10.33056/antipodes.1711Weibel, Stuart L., & Koch, Traugott. (2000). The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: Mission, Current Activities, and Future Directions.
D-Lib Magazine,
6(12).
https://doi.org/10.1045/december2000-weibelWeinthal, Dianne, & Childress, Dawn. (2019).
IIIF for Open Access.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/260616w7Weiss, Richard. (1940). Atlas der schweizerischen Volkskunde : Die bisherigen Erfahrungen der Exploratoren.
Schweizerisches Archiv Für Volkskunde/ Archives Suisses Des Traditions Populaires.,
38(1), 105–118.
https://doi.org/10.5169/SEALS-113634Wenger, Etienne. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.
National Science Foundation, 1–7.
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11736Windhager, Florian, Federico, Paolo, Schreder, Gunther, Glinka, Katrin, Dork, Marian, Miksch, Silvia, & Mayr, Eva. (2019). Visualization of Cultural Heritage Collection Data: State of the Art and Future Challenges.
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
25(6), 2311–2330.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2830759Zeng, Marcia Lei, & Qin, Jian. (2022). Metadata (Third edition). ALA Neal-Schuman.
Zeng, Marcia Lei. (2008). Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS).
Knowledge Organization,
35(2–3), 160–182.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-160Zou, Xiaozhu, Xiong, Siyi, Li, Zhi, & Jiang, Ping. (2018). Constructing Metadata Schema of Scientific and Technical Report Based on FRBR.
Computer and Information Science,
11(2), 34–39.
https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v11n2p34Žumer, Maja. (2007). Functional requirements for bibliographic records: FRBR: The end of the road or a new beginning.
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
33(6), 27–29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2007.1720330608Bibliography
Adamou, Alessandro, Picca, Davide, Hou, Yumeng, & Loreto Granados-García, Paula. (2023). The Facets of Intangible Heritage in Southern Chinese Martial Arts: Applying a Knowledge-driven Cultural Contact Detection Approach.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
16(3), 63:1-63:27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3606702Ahmad, Yahaya. (2006). The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible.
International Journal of Heritage Studies,
12(3), 292–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639Akrich, Madeleine, Callon, Michel, & Latour, Bruno (Eds.). (2006).
Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs. Presses des Mines.
https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181Allen, Laurie. (2023). Why Experiment: Machine Learning at the Library of Congress. In
The Library of Congress.
https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2023/11/why-experiment-machine-learning-at-the-library-of-congress/Alter, George, Rizzolo, Flavio, & Schleidt, Kathi. (2023). View points on data points: A shared vocabulary for cross-domain conversations on data and metadata.
IASSIST Quarterly,
47(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.29173/iq1051Andresen, S. L. (2002). John McCarthy: Father of AI.
IEEE Intelligent Systems,
17(5), 84–85.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2002.1039837Aslan, Zaki. (1997). Protective Structures for the Conservation and Presentation of Archaeological Sites.
Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies,
3(0), 16.
https://doi.org/10.5334/jcms.3974Avram, Henriette D. (1968).
The MARC Pilot Project. Final Report (ED029663; p. 173). Library of Congress.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED029663Azzopardi, Elaine, Kenter, Jasper O., Young, Juliette, Leakey, Chris, O’Connor, Seb, Martino, Simone, Flannery, Wesley, Sousa, Lisa P., Mylona, Dimitra, Frangoudes, Katia, Béguier, Irène, Pafi, Maria, Silva, Arturo Rey da, Ainscough, Jacob, Koutrakis, Manos, Silva, Margarida Ferreira da, & Pita, Cristina. (2023). What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation.
People and Nature,
5(2), 368–383.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10386Baader, Franz, & Lutz, Carsten. (2007). 13 Description logic. In Patrick Blackburn, Johan Van Benthem, & Frank Wolter (Eds.),
Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning (Vol. 3, pp. 757–819). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-2464(07)80016-4Baca, Murtha, & Harpring, Patricia. (2017).
Categories for the description of works of art [Report]. Getty Research Institute.
https://apo.org.au/node/14985Barrile, Vincenzo, & Bernardo, Ernesto. (2022). Big Data and Cultural Heritage. In Francesco Calabrò, Lucia Della Spina, & María José Piñeira Mantiñán (Eds.),
New Metropolitan Perspectives (Vol. 482, pp. 2708–2716). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06825-6_259Becattini, Federico, Bongini, Pietro, Bulla, Luana, Bimbo, Alberto Del, Marinucci, Ludovica, Mongiovì, Misael, & Presutti, Valentina. (2023). VISCOUNTH: A Large-scale Multilingual Visual Question Answering Dataset for Cultural Heritage.
ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications,
19(6), 193:1-193:20.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3590773Bekiari, Chryssoula, Bruseker, George, Doerr, Martin, Ore, Christian-Emil, Stead, Stephen, & Velios, Athanasios. (2021).
CIDOC Conceptural Reference Model 7.1.1.
https://doi.org/10.26225/FDZH-X261Beretta, Francesco. (2022). Interopérabilité des données de la recherche et ontologies fondationnelles : Un éco-système d’exnsions du CIDOC CRM pour les sciences humaines et sociales. In Nicolas Lasolle, Olivier Bruneau, & Jean Lieber (Eds.),
Actes des journées humanités numériques et Web sémantique (pp. 2–22). Les Archives Henri-Poincaré - Philosophie et Recherches sur les Sciences et les Technologies (AHP-PReST); Laboratoire lorrain de recherche en informatique et ses applications (LORIA).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7014341Bermès, Emmanuelle. (2023). Modélisons un peu : Le choix d’un type de bases de données. In
Figoblog.
https://figoblog.org/2023/12/13/modelisons-un-peu-le-choix-dun-type-de-bases-de-donnees/Berners-Lee, Tim, Hendler, James, & Lassila, Ora. (2001). The Semantic Web.
Scientific American,
284(5), 34–43.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26059207Berressem, Hanjo. (2015). Déjà Vu: Serres after Latour, Deleuze after Harman, ‘Nature Writing’ after ‘Network Theory’.
Amerikastudien / American Studies,
60(1), 59–79.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44071895Bezjak, Sonja, Conzett, Philipp, Fernandes, Pedro L., Görögh, Edit, Helbig, Kerstin, Kramer, Bianca, Labastida, Ignasi, Niemeyer, Kyle, Psomopoulos, Fotis, Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Schneider, René, Tennant, Jon, Verbakel, Ellen, & Clyburne-Sherin, April. (2019). The Open Science Training Handbook.
FOSTER.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2587951Bizer, Christian, Heath, Tom, Idehen, Kingsley, & Berners-Lee, Tim. (2008). Linked data on the web (LDOW2008).
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, 1265–1266.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1367497.1367760Borgo, Stefano, Ferrario, Roberta, Gangemi, Aldo, Guarino, Nicola, Masolo, Claudio, Porello, Daniele, Sanfilippo, Emilio M., & Vieu, Laure. (2022). DOLCE: A descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering.
Applied Ontology,
17(1), 45–69.
https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-210259Bowman, Blythe A. (2008). Transnational Crimes Against Culture: Looting at Archaeological Sites and the “Grey” Market in Antiquities.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
24(3), 225–242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986208318210Brown, Karen, Cummins, Alissandra, & González Rueda, Ana S. (Eds.). (2023).
Communities and Museums in the 21st Century: Shared Histories and Climate Action (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003288138Bruseker, George, Carboni, Nicola, & Guillem, Anaïs. (2017). Cultural Heritage Data Management: The Role of Formal Ontology and CIDOC CRM. In Matthew L. Vincent, Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho, Marinos Ioannides, & Thomas E. Levy (Eds.),
Heritage and Archaeology in the Digital Age: Acquisition, Curation, and Dissemination of Spatial Cultural Heritage Data (pp. 93–131). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9_6Burchardt, Jørgen. (2014). Researchers Outside APC-Financed Open Access: Implications for Scholars Without a Paying Institution.
Sage Open,
4(4), 2158244014551714.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014551714Callon, Michel. (2001). Actor Network Theory. In Neil J. Smelser & Paul B. Baltes (Eds.),
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 62–66). Pergamon.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03168-5Cameron, Fiona. (2007). Beyond the Cult of the Replicant: Museums and Historical Digital Objects—Traditional Concerns, New Discourses. In Fiona Cameron & Sarah Kenderdine (Eds.),
Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. The MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033534.003.0004Canning, Erin, Brown, Susan, Roger, Sarah, & Martin, Kimberley. (2022). The Power to Structure : Making Meaning from Metadata Through Ontologies.
KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies,
6(3), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.169Cantara, Linda. (2005). METS: The Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard.
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
40(3–4), 237–253.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n03_11Caplan, Priscilla, & Guenther, Rebecca S. (2005). Practical Preservation: The PREMIS Experience.
Library Trends,
54(1), 111–124.
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/193223Carman, John. (2009). Where the Value Lies: The importance of materiality to the immaterial aspects of heritage. In Emma Waterton & Laurajane Smith (Eds.), Taking Archaeology Out of Heritage (pp. 192–208). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Chang, Liang, Sattler, Uli, & Gu, Tianlong. (2014). An ABox Revision Algorithm for the Description Logic EL_bot. In Meghyn Bienvenu, Magdalena Ortiz, Riccardo Rosati, & Mantas Simkus (Eds.),
Informal Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Description Logics (Vol. 1193, pp. 459–470). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1193/#paper_64Charles, Valentine, & Isaac, Antoine. (2015).
Enhancing the Europeana Data Model (EDM) (p. 21) [White paper]. Europeana Foundation.
http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/EDM_WhitePaper_17062015.pdfChiquet, Vera, Felsing, Ulrike, & Fornaro, Peter. (2023). A Participatory Interface for a Photo Archives.
Archiving Conference,
20, 109–111.
https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2023.20.1.23Chiquet, Vera. (2023). How to digitally preserve UNESCO intangible cultural heritage? A web-archive for ephemeral events at the Basler Carnival.
Archiving Conference,
20, 105–108.
https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2023.20.1.22Clavaud, Florence, & Wildi, Tobias. (2021). ICA Records in Contexts-Ontology (RiC-O): A Semantic Framework for Describing Archival Resources.
Linked Archives International Workshop 2021,
3019, 79–92.
https://enc.hal.science/hal-03965776Coburn, Erin, Lanzi, Elisa, O’Keefe, Elizabeth, Stein, Regine, & Whiteside, Ann. (2010). The Cataloging Cultural Objects experience: Codifying practice for the cultural heritage community.
IFLA Journal,
36(1), 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209359561Coburn, Erin, Light, Richard, McKenna, Gordon, Stein, Regine, & Vitzthum, Axel. (2010).
LIDO - Lightweight Information Describing Objects Version 1.0.
https://lido-schema.org/schema/v1.0/lido-v1.0-specification.pdfColeman, Catherine Nicole. (2020). Managing Bias When Library Collections Become Data.
International Journal of Librarianship,
5(1), 8–19.
https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2020.vol5.1.162Constantopoulos, Panos, & Dallas, Costis. (2008). Aspects of a digital curation agenda for cultural heritage. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Human-Machine Systems. Athens, Greece: IEEE, 1–6.
Conway, Paul. (2015). Digital transformations and the archival nature of surrogates.
Archival Science,
15(1), 51–69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-014-9219-zCornut, Murielle, Raemy, Julien Antoine, & Spiess, Florian. (2023). Annotations as Knowledge Practices in Image Archives: Application of Linked Open Usable Data and Machine Learning.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
16(4), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3625301Cornut, Murielle. (2023). Open, edit, save: Über die performative Materialität privater Fotoalben. In Ulrich Hägele (Ed.), Kuratierte Erinnerungen: Das Fotoalbum (pp. 157–170). Waxmann.
Cossham, Amanda Frances. (2017).
Models of the bibliographic universe [{PhD} {Thesis}, Monash University].
https://doi.org/10.4225/03/596e9bc6c1d09Coyle, Karen, & Hillmann, Diane. (2007). Resource Description and Access (RDA): Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century.
D-Lib Magazine,
13(1/2).
https://doi.org/10.1045/january2007-coyleDahlgren, Anna, & Hansson, Karin. (2020). The Diversity Paradox: Conflicting Demands on Metadata Production in Cultural Heritage Collections.
Digital Culture & Society,
6(2), 239–256.
https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2020-0212Darmont, Jérôme, Favre, Cécile, Loudcher, Sabine, & Noûs, Camille. (2020). Data lakes for digital humanities.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Tools & Uses Congress, 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3423603.3424004De Muynke, Julien, Baltazar, Marie, Monferran, Martin, Voisenat, Claudie, & Katz, Brian F. G. (2022). Ears of the past, an inquiry into the sonic memory of the acoustics of Notre-Dame before the fire of 2019.
Journal of Cultural Heritage.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.09.006Debattista, Jeremy, Lange, Christoph, Scerri, Simon, & Auer, Sören. (2015). Linked ’Big’ Data: Towards a Manifold Increase in Big Data Value and Veracity.
2015 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Symposium on Big Data Computing (BDC), 92–98.
https://doi.org/10.1109/BDC.2015.34Delmas-Glass, Emmanuelle, & Sanderson, Robert. (2020). Fostering a community of PHAROS scholars through the adoption of open standards.
Art Libraries Journal,
45(1), 19–23.
https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2019.32Denton, William. (2006). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-All?
Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
6(2), 231–232.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0018Digital Preservation Coalition. (2017). Persistent Identifiers. In
Digital Preservation Handbook. DPC.
https://www.dpconline.org/handbook/technical-solutions-and-tools/persistent-identifiersDijkshoorn, Chris. (2023, October). Building Collection Data Infrastructure at the Rijksmuseum. EuropeanaTech 2023.
Doerr, Martin. (2003). The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata.
AI Magazine,
24(3), 75–92.
https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v24i3.1720Drakopoulos, Georgios, Spyrou, Evaggelos, Voutos, Yorghos, & Mylonas, Phivos. (2019). A semantically annotated JSON metadata structure for open linked cultural data in Neo4j.
Proceedings of the 23rd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics, 81–88.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3368640.3368659Duin, Marcel. (2022). WebAssembly: Beyond the Browser. In
Q42 Engineering.
https://engineering.q42.nl/webassembly-beyond-the-browser/Edmunds, Jeff. (2023). BIBFRAME Must Die.
ScholarSphere, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.26207/V18M-0G05Edwards, Elizabeth, & Hart, Janice (Eds.). (2004).
Photographs Objects Histories (1st Edition). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203506493Ehrlinger, Lisa, & Wöß, Wolfram. (2016). Towards a Definition of Knowledge Graphs. In Michael Martin, Martí Cuquet, & Erwin Folmer (Eds.),
Joint Proceedings of the Posters and Demos Track of the 12th International Conference on Semantic Systems - SEMANTiCS2016 and the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Change & Evolving Semantics (SuCCESS’16) (Vol. 1695). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1695/#paper4Emmanuel, Isitor, & Stanier, Clare. (2016). Defining Big Data.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Big Data and Advanced Wireless Technologies, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3010089.3010090Endres, Bill. (2019). Digitizing Medieval Manuscripts: The St. Chad Gospels, Materiality, Recoveries, and Representation in 2D & 3D. In
Digitizing Medieval Manuscripts. ARC, Amsterdam University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781942401803Felsing, Ulrike, & Cornut, Murielle. (2024). Re-Imagining the Collection of the Kreis Family.
Research in Arts and Education,
2024(1), 41–53.
https://doi.org/10.54916/rae.142567Felsing, Ulrike, & Frischknecht, Max. (2021). Critical Map Visualizations. In Christine Schranz (Ed.),
Shifts in Mapping (pp. 95–124). transcript Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839460412-008Felsing, Ulrike, Fornaro, Peter, Frischknecht, Max, & Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2023). Community and Interoperability at the Core of Sustaining Image Archives.
Digital Humanities in the Nordic and Baltic Countries Publications,
5(1), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.5617/dhnbpub.10649Ferrazzi, Sabrina. (2021). The Notion of “Cultural Heritage” in the International Field: Behind Origin and Evolution of a Concept.
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique,
34(3), 743–768.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09739-0Fiorentino, Sara, & Chinni, Tania. (2023). The Persistence of Memory. Exploring the Significance of Glass from Materiality to Intangible Values.
Heritage,
6(6), 4834–4842.
https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6060257Floridi, Luciano. (2005). Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
70(2), 351–370.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40040796Floridi, Luciano. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Floridi, Luciano. (2023).
On good and evil, the mistaken idea that technology is ever neutral, and the importance of the double-charge thesis [{SSRN} {Scholarly} {Paper}].
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4551487Force, Donald C., & Smith, Randy. (2021). Context Lost: Digital Surrogates, Their Physical Counterparts, and the Metadata that Is Keeping Them Apart.
The American Archivist,
84(1), 91–118.
https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.91FOSTER. (2019). Open Science. In
Foster Taxonomy. FACILITATE OPEN SCIENCE TRAINING FOR EUROPEAN RESEARCH.
https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/100Freire, Nuno, & Isaac, Antoine. (2019). Technical Usability of Wikidata’s Linked Data. In Witold Abramowicz & Rafael Corchuelo (Eds.),
Business Information Systems Workshops (pp. 556–567). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36691-9_47Freire, Nuno, Calado, Pável, & Martins, Bruno. (2018). Availability of Cultural Heritage Structured Metadata in the World Wide Web. In Leslie Chan & Pierre Mounier (Eds.),
ELPUB 2018.
https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.20Freire, Nuno, Isaac, Antoine, Robson, Glen, Brooks, John, & Manguinhas, Hugo. (2017). A survey of Web technology for metadata aggregation in cultural heritage.
Information Services & Use,
37(4), 425–436.
https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170859Freire, Nuno, Meijers, Enno, Valk, Sjors de, Raemy, Julien A., & Isaac, Antoine. (2021). Metadata Aggregation via Linked Data: Results of the Europeana Common Culture Project. In Emmanouel Garoufallou & María-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones (Eds.),
Metadata and Semantic Research (pp. 383–394). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71903-6_35Fresa, Antonella. (2013). A Data Infrastructure for Digital Cultural Heritage: Characteristics, Requirements and Priority Services.
International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing,
7(supplement), 29–46.
https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2013.0058Frischknecht, Max. (2022). Generating Perspectives: Applying Generative Design to critically explore the Atlas of Swiss Folklore.
DARIAH-CH Study Day 2022 Posters.
https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.17911Gandon, Fabien. (2017). Pour tout le monde : Tim Berners-Lee, lauréat du prix Turing 2016 pour avoir inventé… le Web.
Bulletin 1024,
2017(11), 129–154.
https://doi.org/10.48556/SIF.1024.11.129Gandon, Fabien. (2019).
Web Science, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Augmentation (Seminar Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 18262. 10 Years of Web Science: Closing The Loop; pp. 10–13). Schloss Dagstuhl — Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
https://inria.hal.science/hal-01976768Georgopoulos, Andreas. (2018). CIPA’s Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. In Sander Münster, Kristina Friedrichs, Florian Niebling, & Agnieszka Seidel-Grzesińska (Eds.),
Digital Research and Education in Architectural Heritage (pp. 215–245). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76992-9_13Giacomo, Giuseppe De, & Lenzerini, Maurizio. (1996). TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 316–327.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3087368.3087406Gilliland, Anne J. (2016). Setting the Stage. In Murtha Baca (Ed.),
Introduction to metadata (Third edition). Getty Research Institute.
https://www.getty.edu/publications/intrometadata/setting-the-stage/Gomes, Daniel, Miranda, João, & Costa, Miguel. (2011). A Survey on Web Archiving Initiatives. In Stefan Gradmann, Francesca Borri, Carlo Meghini, & Heiko Schuldt (Eds.),
Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (Vol. 6966, pp. 408–420). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24469-8_41Goyal, Yash, Khot, Tejas, Summers-Stay, Douglas, Batra, Dhruv, & Parikh, Devi. (2017). Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answering.
arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1612.00837Greenberg, Jane. (2005). Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes.
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
40(3–4), 17–36.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n03_02Gruber, Thomas R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications.
Knowledge Acquisition,
5(2), 199–220.
https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008Guenther, Rebecca S. (2003). MODS: The Metadata Object Description Schema.
Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
3(1), 137–150.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0006Guillem, Anaïs, Gros, Antoine, & De Luca, Livio. (2023, June). Faire parler les claveaux effondrés de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris.
Recueil Des Communications Du 4e Colloque Humanistica.
https://hal.science/hal-04106101Guillem, Anaïs, Gros, Antoine, Reby, Kevin, Abergel, Violette, & De Luca, Livio. (2023). RCC8 for CIDOC CRM: Semantic Modeling of Mereological and Topological Spatial Relations in Notre-Dame de Paris. In Antonis Bikakis, Roberta Ferrario, Stéphane Jean, Béatrice Markhoff, Alessandro Mosca, & Marianna Nicolosi Asmundo (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Web and Ontology Design for Cultural Heritage (Vol. 3540). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3540/#paper2Hacıgüzeller, Piraye, Taylor, James Stuart, & Perry, Sara. (2021). On the Emerging Supremacy of Structured Digital Data in Archaeology: A Preliminary Assessment of Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Left Behind.
Open Archaeology,
7(1), 1709–1730.
https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0220Haraway, Donna Jeanne. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
Haraway, Donna. (2008). Encounters with Companion Species: Entangling Dogs, Baboons, Philosophers, and Biologists.
Configurations,
14(1), 97–114.
https://doi.org/10.1353/con.0.0002Hardesty, Juliet, & Nolan, Allison. (2021). Mitigating Bias in Metadata: A Use Case Using Homosaurus Linked Data.
Information Technology and Libraries,
40(3).
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i3.13053Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons.
Science,
162(3859), 1243–1248.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243Harpring, Patricia. (2010). Development of the Getty Vocabularies: AAT, TGN, ULAN, and CONA.
Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America,
29(1), 67–72.
https://doi.org/10.1086/adx.29.1.27949541Haxaire, Claudie. (2009). The Power of Ambiguity: The Nature and Efficacy of the Zamble Masks Revealed by “Disease Masks” Among the Gouro People (Côte d’Ivoire).
Africa,
79(4), 543–569.
https://doi.org/10.3366/E0001972009001065He, Y., Ma, Y. H., & Zhang, X. R. (2017). “Digital Heritage” Theory and Innovative Practice.
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
XLII-2/W5, 335–342.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-335-2017Hertz, Ellen, Graezer Bideau, Florence, Leimgruber, Walter, & Munz, Hervé. (2018).
Politiques de la tradition. Le patrimoine culturel immatériel (Vol. 131). Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
https://edoc.unibas.ch/68569/Hill, Linda, Buchel, Olha, Janée, Greg, & Zeng, Marcia Lei. (2002). Integration of Knowledge Organization Systems into Digital Library Architectures: Position Paper for 13th ASIST SIGICR Workshop, Reconceptualizing Classification Research.
Advances in Classification Research Online,
13(1), 46–52.
https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v13i1.13835Hillmann, Diane I., Marker, Rhonda, & Brady, Chris. (2008). Metadata Standards and Applications.
The Serials Librarian,
54(1–2), 7–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260801973364Hodge, Gail M. (2000). Systems of knowledge organization for digital libraries: Beyond traditional authority files. Digital Library Federation, Council on Library; Information Resources.
Hoffmann, Anna Lauren. (2021). Terms of inclusion: Data, discourse, violence.
New Media & Society,
23(12), 3539–3556.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820958725Hou, Yumeng, & Kenderdine, Sarah. (2024). Ontology-based knowledge representation for traditional martial arts.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae005Hou, Yumeng, Kenderdine, Sarah, Picca, Davide, Egloff, Mattia, & Adamou, Alessandro. (2022). Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage Embodied: State of the Art.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
15(3), 55:1-55:20.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3494837Huber, Birgit, & Frischknecht, Max. (2024). Digitalisierung und (De-)Konstruktion. Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines Prototyps für die digitale Zugänglichmachung des «Atlas der Schweizerischen Volkskunde. In Sabine Eggmann & Konrad J. Kuhn (Eds.),
Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde Archives suisses des traditions populaires (Vol. 2024/1, pp. 27–52). Chronos.
https://doi.org/10.33057/CHRONOS.1785/27-51Huber, Birgit. (2023). Die Entdeckung der «Brünig-Napf-Reuss-Linie». In
Blog zur Schweizer Geschichte - Schweizerisches Nationalmuseum.
https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/2023/10/die-entdeckung-der-bruenig-napf-reuss-linie/Hyvönen, Eero. (2012). Cultural Heritage on the Semantic Web. In
Publishing and Using Cultural Heritage Linked Data on the Semantic Web (pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79438-4_1Hyvönen, Eero. (2020). Using the Semantic Web in digital humanities: Shift from data publishing to data-analysis and serendipitous knowledge discovery.
Semantic Web,
11(1), 187–193.
https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-190386ICA Expert Group on Archival Description. (2023).
Records in Context Conceptual Model 1.0.
https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ric-cm-1.0_0.pdfIoannides, Marinos, & Davies, Robert. (2019). Towards a Holistic Documentation and Wider Use of Digital Cultural Heritage. In Emmanouel Garoufallou, Fabio Sartori, Rania Siatri, & Marios Zervas (Eds.),
Metadata and Semantic Research (pp. 76–88). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14401-2_7Irish, Kathryn, & Saba, Jessica. (2023). Bots are the new fraud: A post-hoc exploration of statistical methods to identify bot-generated responses in a corrupt data set.
Personality and Individual Differences,
213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112289Izu, Benjamin Obeghare. (2022). The Sociocultural Significance of the Emedjo (Masquerade) Dance Among the Abraka People in Delta State, Nigeria.
E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 413–423.
https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.2022394Jackson, Steven J., Edwards, Paul N., Bowker, Geoffrey C., & Knobel, Cory P. (2007). Understanding infrastructure: History, heuristics and cyberinfrastructure policy.
First Monday,
12(6).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i6.1904Jaillant, Lise, & Caputo, Annalina. (2022). Unlocking digital archives: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on AI and born-digital data.
AI & SOCIETY,
37(3), 823–835.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01367-xJaillant, Lise, & Rees, Arran. (2023). Applying AI to digital archives: Trust, collaboration and shared professional ethics.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities,
38(2), 571–585.
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqac073Jaton, Florian. (2017). We get the algorithms of our ground truths: Designing referential databases in digital image processing.
Social Studies of Science,
47(6), 811–840.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717730428Jaton, Florian. (2021). Assessing biases, relaxing moralism: On ground-truthing practices in machine learning design and application.
Big Data & Society,
8(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013569Jaton, Florian. (2023). Groundwork for AI: Enforcing a benchmark for neoantigen prediction in personalized cancer immunotherapy.
Social Studies of Science,
53(5), 787–810.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231192857Katz, Brian F. G. (2023, October). Digitally exploring the acoustic history of Notre-Dame Cathedral.
EuropeanaTech 2023.
https://youtu.be/JDcNV_X54oQKnöchelmann, Marcel. (2019). Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?
Publications,
7(4), 65.
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065Koch, Inês, Ribeiro, Cristina, & Teixeira Lopes, Carla. (2020). ArchOnto, a CIDOC-CRM-Based Linked Data Model for the Portuguese Archives. In Mark Hall, Tanja Merčun, Thomas Risse, & Fabien Duchateau (Eds.),
Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge (Vol. 12246, pp. 133–146). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54956-5_10Krötzsch, Markus, Simancik, Frantisek, & Horrocks, Ian. (2013).
A Description Logic Primer. arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1201.4089Lagoze, Carl, Van de Sompel, Herbert, Nelson, Michael, & Warner, Simeon. (2002). The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting - v.2.0. In
Open Archives Initiative.
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.htmlLaney, Doug. (2001). 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Group Research Note, 6(70), 1.
Latour, Bruno. (1990). Postmodern? No, simply amodern! Steps towards an anthropology of science.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,
21(1), 145–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(90)90018-4Latour, Bruno. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications.
Soziale Welt,
47(4), 369–381.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40878163Latour, Bruno. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno. (2022). Habiter la Terre : Entretiens avec Nicolas Truong. Éditions Les Liens qui libèrent ; Arte éditions.
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Etienne. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Christopher A. (2009). Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model. In Marcia J. Bates & Mary Niles Maack (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition (3rd ed., pp. 4020–4030). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044377Leimgruber, Walter. (2008). Was ist immaterielles Kulturerbe?
Bulletin / Schweizerische Akademie Der Geistes- Und Sozialwissenschaften,
2008, H. 2, 24–25.
http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A5251330Leimgruber, Walter. (2010). Switzerland and the UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Journal of Folklore Research,
47(1–2), 161–196.
https://doi.org/10.2979/JFR.2010.47.1-2.161Lemmer-Webber, Christine, & Tallon, Jessica. (2018). ActivityPub. In
W3C.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/Lenzerini, Federico. (2011). Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples.
European Journal of International Law,
22(1), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr006Li, Xigao, Azad, Babak Amin, Rahmati, Amir, & Nikiforakis, Nick. (2021). Good Bot, Bad Bot: Characterizing Automated Browsing Activity.
2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 1589–1605.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00079Lim, Shirley, & Li Liew, Chern. (2011). Metadata quality and interoperability of GLAM digital images.
Aslib Proceedings,
63(5), 484–498.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531111164978Lin, Tsung-Yi, Maire, Michael, Belongie, Serge, Hays, James, Perona, Pietro, Ramanan, Deva, Dollár, Piotr, & Zitnick, C. Lawrence. (2014). Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. In David Fleet, Tomas Pajdla, Bernt Schiele, & Tinne Tuytelaars (Eds.),
Computer Vision – ECCV 2014 (Vol. 8693, pp. 740–755). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48Lindenthal, Jutta, Meiners, Hanna-Lena, & Balzer, Detlev. (2023). LIDO Primer. In
LIDO.
https://lido-schema.org/documents/primer/latest/lido-primer.htmlLit, L. W. C. van. (2020). The Digital Materiality of Digitized Manuscripts. In
Among Digitized Manuscripts. Philology, Codicology, Paleography in a Digital World (pp. 51–72). Brill.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwzrd.6Loulanski, Tolina. (2006). Revising the Concept for Cultural Heritage: The Argument for a Functional Approach.
International Journal of Cultural Property,
13(2), 207–233.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739106060085Lowenthal, David. (2005). Natural and cultural heritage.
International Journal of Heritage Studies,
11(1), 81–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250500037088Mahony, Simon. (2018). Cultural Diversity and the Digital Humanities.
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences,
11(3), 371–388.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-018-0216-0Marcondes, Carlos Henrique. (2021). Integrated classification schemas to interlink cultural heritage collections over the web using LOD technologies.
International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies,
15(3), 170.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMSO.2021.123040Martinez Demarco, Sol. (2019). Empowering women through digital skills in Argentina: A tale of two stories.
TATuP - Zeitschrift Für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie Und Praxis,
28(2), 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.28.2.s23Martinez Demarco, Sol. (2023). From digital inclusion to IT appropriation: Gendered aspects of appropriation imaginary and practices.
GENDER – Zeitschrift Für Geschlecht, Kultur Und Gesellschaft,
15(1), 72–86.
https://doi.org/10.3224/gender.v15i1.06Masolo, Claudio, Borgo, Stefano, Gangemi, Aldo, Guarino, Nicola, & Oltramari, Alessandro. (2003).
Wonder Web Deliverable D18: Ontology Library (Ontology {Infrastructure} for the {Semantic} {Web} Del 18; p. 343). Laboratory For Applied Ontology - ISTC-CNR.
http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/D18.pdfMazzocchi, Fulvio. (2018). Knowledge organization system (KOS).
Knowledge Organization,
45(1), 54–78.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-54McGillivray, Barbara, Poibeau, Thierry, & Fabo, Pablo Ruiz. (2020). Digital Humanities and Natural Language Processing: Je t’aime... Moi non plus.
Digital Humanities Quarterly,
014(2).
https://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/14/2/000454/000454.htmlMicle, Dorel. (2014). Archaeological Heritage Between Natural Hazard and Anthropic Destruction: The Negative Impact of Social Non-involvement in the Protection of Archaeological Sites.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
163, 269–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.316Mikhaylova, Daria, & Metilli, Daniele. (2023). Extending RiC-O to Model Historical Architectural Archives: The ITDT Ontology.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage,
16(4), 67:1-67:15.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3606706Mixter, Jeff. (2014). Using a Common Model: Mapping VRA Core 4.0 Into an RDF Ontology.
Journal of Library Metadata,
14(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2014.891890Morales, Susana. (2009). La apropiación de TIC: Una perspectiva. In Susana Morales & M. I. Loyola (Eds.), Los jóvenes y las TIC. Apropiación y uso en educación (pp. 99–120). Edición de las autoras.
Morales, Susana. (2017).
Imaginación y software: Aportes para la construcción del paradigma de la apropiación. Del Gato Gris.
http://hdl.handle.net/11086/27405Morales, Susana. (2018). La apropiación de tecnologías. Ideas para un paradigma en construcción. In Acerca de la apropiación de tecnologías. Teoría, estudios y debates (pp. 23–33). Del Gato Gris.
Morrison, Robbie. (2021).
Redrawn slide from presentation of Ana Persic, Division of Science Policy and Capacity-Building (SC/PCB), UNESCO (France) presentation to Open Science Conference 2021, ZBW — Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Germany. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osc2021-unesco-open-science-no-gray.pngMr Gee. (2023, October). Day 2 Closing – A multitude of tools.
EuropeanaTech 2023.
https://youtu.be/pOX9CrvAG7IMüller, Katja. (2018). Digitale Objekte - subjektive Materie. Zur Materialität digitalisierter Objekte in Museum und Archiv. In Hans Peter Hahn & Friedemann Neumann (Eds.),
Edition Kulturwissenschaft (1st ed., Vol. 182, pp. 49–66). transcript Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839445136-004Munjeri, Dawson. (2004). Tangible and Intangible Heritage: From difference to convergence.
Museum International,
56(1–2), 12–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00453.xMünster, S., Apollonio, F. I., Bell, P., Kuroczynski, P., Di Lenardo, I., Rinaudo, F., & Tamborrino, R. (2019). Digital Cultural Heritage meets Digital Humanities.
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
XLII-2/W15, 813–820.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-813-2019Münster, Sander, Utescher, Ronja, & Ulutas Aydogan, Selda. (2021). Digital topics on cultural heritage investigated: How can data-driven and data-guided methods support to identify current topics and trends in digital heritage?
Built Heritage,
5(1), 25.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-021-00045-7Nargesian, Fatemeh, Zhu, Erkang, Miller, Renée J., Pu, Ken Q., & Arocena, Patricia C. (2019). Data lake management: Challenges and opportunities.
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment,
12(12), 1986–1989.
https://doi.org/10.14778/3352063.3352116Nelson, Peter A. (2021). The Role of GPR in Community-Driven Compliance Archaeology with Tribal and Non-tribal Communities in Central California.
Advances in Archaeological Practice,
9(3), 215–225.
https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2021.14Neudecker, Clemens. (2022). Cultural Heritage as Data: Digital Curation and Artificial Intelligence in Libraries. In Adrian Paschke, Georg Rehm, Clemens Neudecker, & Lydia Pintscher (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Third Conference on Digital Curation Technologies (Qurator 2022) (Vol. 3234). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3234/#paper2Newbury, David. (2018). LOUD: Linked Open Usable Data and linked.art.
2018 CIDOC Conference, 1–11.
https://cidoc.mini.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/03/CIDOC2018_paper_153.pdfNielsen, Erland Kolding. (2008). Digitisation of Library Material in Europe: Problems, Obstacles and Perspectives anno 2007.
LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries,
18(1), 20–27.
https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7901Ostrom, Elinor. (1990).
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763Owens, Trevor. (2011). Defining Data for Humanists: Text, Artifact, Information or Evidence?
Journal of Digital Humanities,
1(1).
https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-1/defining-data-for-humanists-by-trevor-owens/Oxford English Dictionary. (2023). Artificial Intelligence. In
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3194963277Padfield, Joseph, Bolland, Charlotte, Fitzgerald, Neil, McLaughlin, Anne, Robson, Glen, & Terras, Melissa. (2022).
Practical applications of IIIF as a building block towards a digital National Collection [Arts and {Humanities} {Research} {Council} {Final} {Report}]. Towards a National Collection.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6884885Page, Kevin R., Delmas-Glass, Emmanuelle, Beaudet, David, Norling, Samantha, Rother, Lynn, & Hänsli, Thomas. (2020). Linked Art: Networking Digital Collections and Scholarship.
Digital Humanities 2020 Book of Abstracts, 504–509.
https://dh2020.adho.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/139_LinkedArtNetworkingDigitalCollectionsandScholarship.htmlPagenstecher, Cord. (2009). Private Fotoalben als historische Quelle.
Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History,
6(3), 449–463.
https://doi.org/10.14765/ZZF.DOK-1803Pan, Jeff Z., Razniewski, Simon, Kalo, Jan-Christoph, Singhania, Sneha, Chen, Jiaoyan, Dietze, Stefan, Jabeen, Hajira, Omeliyanenko, Janna, Zhang, Wen, Lissandrini, Matteo, Biswas, Russa, Melo, Gerard de, Bonifati, Angela, Vakaj, Edlira, Dragoni, Mauro, & Graux, Damien. (2023).
Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: Opportunities and Challenges. arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.06374Patrón, Pedro, Miguelañez, Emilio, Petillot, Yvan R., Patrón, Pedro, Miguelañez, Emilio, & Petillot, Yvan R. (2011). Embedded Knowledge and Autonomous Planning: The Path Towards Permanent Presence of Underwater Networks. In
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (pp. 199–224). IntechOpen.
https://doi.org/10.5772/24649Perrigo, Billy. (2023). Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic.
Time.
https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/Persic, Ana. (2021).
Building a Global Consensus on Open Science – the future UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.
https://doi.org/10.5446/53434Peterhans, Simon, Sauter, Loris, Spiess, Florian, & Schuldt, Heiko. (2022). Automatic Generation of Coherent Image Galleries in Virtual Reality. In Gianmaria Silvello, Oscar Corcho, Paolo Manghi, Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Koraljka Golub, Nicola Ferro, & Antonella Poggi (Eds.),
Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (Vol. 13541, pp. 282–288). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_23Pfrunder, Peter. (1995). Ernst Brunner: Photographien, 1937-1962 (2. Aufl). Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Volkskunde ; Offizin.
Philip, Kavita. (2021). The Internet Will Be Decolonized. In Thomas S. Mullaney, Benjamin Peters, Mar Hicks, & Kavita Philip (Eds.),
Your Computer Is on Fire (pp. 91–116). The MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10993.003.0002Pirgova-Morgan, Luba. (2023).
Looking towards a brighter future: The potentiality of AI and digital transformations to library spaces (p. 111) [Digital {Futures} {Research} {Report}]. University of Leeds Libraries.
https://library.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/196/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-librariesPitti, Daniel V. (1999). Encoded archival description: An introduction and overview.
New Review of Information Networking,
5(1), 61–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13614579909516936Portalés, Cristina, Rodrigues, João M. F., Rodrigues Gonçalves, Alexandra, Alba, Ester, & Sebastián, Jorge. (2018). Digital Cultural Heritage.
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction,
2(3), 58.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030058Poulopoulos, Vassilis, & Wallace, Manolis. (2022). Digital Technologies and the Role of Data in Cultural Heritage: The Past, the Present, and the Future.
Big Data and Cognitive Computing,
6(3), 181–199.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6030073Raemy, Julien Antoine, Gray, Tanya, Collinson, Alwyn, & Page, Kevin R. (2023). Enabling Participatory Data Perspectives for Image Archives through a Linked Art Workflow. In Anne Baillot, Walter Scholger, Toma Tasovac, & Georg Vogeler (Eds.),
Digital Humanities 2023 Book of Abstracts (Vol. 2023, pp. 515–516). Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO).
https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-ep95099Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2017).
The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF): Raising awareness of the user benefits for scholarly editions [Bachelor’s thesis, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences; Arts, Haute école de gestion de Genève].
https://sonar.ch/hesso/documents/314853Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2020).
Enabling better aggregation and discovery of cultural heritage content for Europeana and its partner institutions [Master’s thesis, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences; Arts, Haute école de gestion de Genève].
https://sonar.ch/hesso/documents/315109Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2021). Applying Effective Data Modelling Approaches for the Creation of a Participatory Archive Platform. In Yumeng Hou (Ed.),
Human Factors in Digital Humanities (pp. 1–5). Institut des humanités digitales.
https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-ep87517Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2022). Améliorer la valorisation des données du patrimoine culturel grâce au Linked Open Usable Data (LOUD). In Nicolas Lasolle, Olivier Bruneau, & Jean Lieber (Eds.),
Actes des journées humanités numériques et Web sémantique (pp. 132–149). Les Archives Henri-Poincaré - Philosophie et Recherches sur les Sciences et les Technologies (AHP-PReST); Laboratoire lorrain de recherche en informatique et ses applications (LORIA).
https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-ep89725Raemy, Julien Antoine. (2024).
Interlinking Cultural Heritage Data with Community-driven Principles and Standards.
https://julsraemy.ch/prezi/pia-ringvorlesung-2024.htmlRaemy, Julien Antoine. (2024). Some notes from the 2024 IIIF Conference held in Los Angeles. In
Thoughts and discombobulations of Julien A. Raemy.
https://julsraemy.ch/posts/2024/06/26/iiif-conference-la/Rautenberg, Michel. (1998). L’émergence patrimoniale de l’ethnologie : Entre mémoire et politiques publiques. In Patrimoine et modernité (pp. 279–289). L’Harmattan.
Respaldiza Hidalgo, María Aránzazu, Wachowicz, Monica, & Vázquez Hoehne, Antonio. (2011). Metadata Visualization of Cultural Heritage Information within a Collaborative Environment.
Proceedings of XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium.
https://oa.upm.es/11636/Ribes, David, & Lee, Charlotte P. (2010). Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research: Current Themes and Future Trajectories.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),
19(3), 231–244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9120-0Ridge, Mia, Blickhan, Samantha, Ferriter, Meghan, Mast, Austin, Brumfield, Ben, Wilkins, Brendon, Cybulska, Daria, Burgher, Denise, Casey, Jim, Luther, Kurt, Goldman, Michael Haley, White, Nick, Willcox, Pip, Brumfield, Sara Carlstead, Coleman, Sonya J., & Prytz, Ylva Berglund. (2021). 12. Connecting with communities. In
The Collective Wisdom Handbook: Perspectives on Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage - community review version (1st edition). British Library.
https://doi.org/10.21428/a5d7554f.1b80974bRidge, Mia. (2023, October). Enriching lives: Connecting communities and culture with the help of machines.
EuropeanaTech 2023.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8429858Riley, Jenn. (2009). Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe. In
Jenn Riley.
https://jennriley.com/metadatamap/Riley, Jenn. (2017). Understanding metadata. What is metadata, and what is it for? National Information Standards Organization (NISO).
Riva, Pat, Le Boeuf, Patrick, & Žumer, Maja. (2017).
IFLA Library Reference Model: A Conceptual Model for Bibliographic Information [{IFLA}-{LRM}]. International Federation of Library Associations; Institutions.
https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/40Rodighiero, Dario. (2021).
Mapping Affinities: Democratizing Data Visualization. Métis Presses.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37368046Roke, Elizabeth Russey, & Tillman, Ruth Kitchin. (2022). Pragmatic Principles for Archival Linked Data.
The American Archivist,
85(1), 173–201.
https://doi.org/10.17723/2327-9702-85.1.173Rossenova, Lozana, & Di Franco, Karen. (2022). Iterative Pasts and Linked Futures: A Feminist Approach to Modeling Data in Archives and Collections of Artists’ Publishing.
Perspectives on Data,
2.
https://doi.org/10.53269/9780865593152/05SAA Dictionary. (2023). Taxonomy. In
Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Society of American Archivists.
https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/taxonomy.htmlSabharwal, Arjun. (2015). 2 - Archives and special collections in the digital humanities. In Arjun Sabharwal (Ed.),
Digital Curation in the Digital Humanities (pp. 27–47). Chandos Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100143-1.00002-7Saha, Barna, & Srivastava, Divesh. (2014). Data quality: The other face of Big Data.
2014 IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering, 1294–1297.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2014.6816764Sanderson, Robert. (2013). RDF: Resource Description Failures and Linked Data Letdowns.
Journal of Digital Humanities,
2(3).
https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/rdf-resource-description-failures-and-linked-data-letdowns/Sanderson, Robert. (2019). Keynote: Standards and Communities: Connected People, Consistent Data, Usable Applications.
2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), 28.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2019.00009Schmoll, Friedemann. (2009a). Die Vermessung der Kultur: Der ‘Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde’ und die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1928-1980. Steiner.
Schmoll, Friedemann. (2009b). Richard Weiss : Skizzen zum internationalen Wirken des Schweizer Volkskundlers.
Schweizerisches Archiv Für Volkskunde/ Archives Suisses Des Traditions Populaires,
2009(105), 15–32.
https://doi.org/10.5169/SEALS-118266Schöch, Christof. (2013). Big? Smart? Clean? Messy? Data in the Humanities.
Journal of Digital Humanities,
2(3).
https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/big-smart-clean-messy-data-in-the-humanities/Semeraro, Concetta, Lezoche, Mario, Panetto, Hervé, & Dassisti, Michele. (2021). Digital twin paradigm: A systematic literature review.
Computers in Industry,
130, 103469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103469Serres, Michel. (2014). Le parasite. Pluriel.
Shao, Guodong, & Kibira, Deogratias. (2018). DIGITAL MANUFACTURING: REQUIREMENTS AND CHALLENGES FOR IMPLEMENTING DIGITAL SURROGATES.
2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 1226–1237.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2018.8632242Shepherd, Elizabeth, & Smith, Charlotte. (2000). The Application of ISAD(G) to the Description of Archival Datasets.
Journal of the Society of Archivists,
21(1), 55–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00379810050006911Simandiraki-Grimshaw, Anna. (2023). What is a museum object according to a museum database? In
TETRARCHs.
https://www.tetrarchs.org/index.php/2023/09/19/what-is-a-museum-object-according-to-a-museum-database/Snell, James M., & Prodromou, Evan. (2017). Activity Streams 2.0. In
W3C.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/Snydman, Stuart, Sanderson, Robert, & Cramer, Tom. (2015). The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF): A community & technology approach for web-based images.
Archiving Conference,
12, 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2015.12.1.art00005Spiess, Florian, & Schuldt, Heiko. (2022). Multimodal Interactive Lifelog Retrieval with vitrivr-VR.
Proceedings of the 5th Annual on Lifelog Search Challenge, 38–42.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3512729.3533008Spiess, Florian, & Stauffiger, Markus. (2023). Forschung und Archive: Erschliessung und Zugänglichkeit neu gedacht.
Arbido,
2023(1).
https://arbido.ch/de/ausgaben-artikel/2023/archiv-der-zukunft/forschung-und-archive-erschliessung-und-zugaenglichkeit-neu-gedachtSpiess, Florian, Rossetto, Luca, & Schuldt, Heiko. (2024). Exploring Multimedia Vector Spaces with vitrivr-VR. In Stevan Rudinac, Alan Hanjalic, Cynthia Liem, Marcel Worring, Björn Thor Jónsson, Bei Liu, & Yoko Yamakata (Eds.),
MultiMedia Modeling (Vol. 14557, pp. 317–323). Springer Nature Switzerland.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53302-0_27Sporleder, Caroline. (2010). Natural Language Processing for Cultural Heritage Domains.
Language and Linguistics Compass,
4(9), 750–768.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00230.xSprochi, Amanda. (2016). Where Are We Headed? Resource Description and Access, Bibliographic Framework, and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Library Reference Model.
The International Information & Library Review,
48(2), 129–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2016.1176455Star, Susan Leigh, & Griesemer, James R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ’Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science,
19(3), 387–420.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/285080Star, Susan Leigh, & Ruhleder, Karen. (1994). Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: Complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems.
Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 253–264.
https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.193021Star, Susan Leigh. (1999). The Ethnography of Infrastructure.
American Behavioral Scientist,
43(3), 377–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326Stein, Regine, & Balandi, Oguzhan. (2019). Using LIDO for Evolving Object Documentation into CIDOC CRM.
Heritage,
2(1), 1023–1031.
https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage2010066Stocker, Christian. (2023). Use LinkedDataGPT to query Open Linked Data from the City of Zurich. In
Liip.
https://www.liip.ch/en/blog/use-linkeddatagpt-to-query-open-linked-data-from-the-city-of-zurichStrien, Daniel van, Bell, Mark, McGregor, Nora Rose, & Trizna, Michael. (2022). An Introduction to AI for GLAM.
Proceedings of the Second Teaching Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Workshop, 20–24.
https://proceedings.mlr.press/v170/strien22a.htmlSusnjak, Teo. (2023).
Applying BERT and ChatGPT for Sentiment Analysis of Lyme Disease in Scientific Literature. arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.06474Tasovac, Toma, Chambers, Sally, & Tóth-Czifra, Erzsébet. (2020). Cultural Heritage Data from a Humanities Research Perspective: A DARIAH Position Paper.
DARIAH-EU.
https://hal.science/hal-02961317Tennant, Jonathan, Agarwal, Ritwik, Baždarić, Ksenija, Brassard, David, Crick, Tom, Dunleavy, Daniel J., Evans, Thomas Rhys, Gardner, Nicholas, Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Graziotin, Daniel, Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian, Gunnarsson, Daniel, Havemann, Johanna, Hosseini, Mohammad, Katz, Daniel S., Knöchelmann, Marcel, Madan, Christopher R., Manghi, Paolo, Marocchino, Alberto, … Yarkoni, Tal. (2020).
A tale of two ’opens’: Intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship [Preprint]. SocArXiv.
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2kxq8Tennant, Roy. (2002). MARC must die.
Library Journal,
127(17), 26–27.
http://soiscompsfall2007.pbworks.com/f/marc%20must%20die.pdfTerras, Melissa, Coleman, Stephen, Drost, Steven, Elsden, Chris, Helgason, Ingi, Lechelt, Susan, Osborne, Nicola, Panneels, Inge, Pegado, Briana, Schafer, Burkhard, Smyth, Michael, Thornton, Pip, & Speed, Chris. (2021). The value of mass-digitised cultural heritage content in creative contexts.
Big Data & Society,
8(1), 20539517211006165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211006165Tuominen, Jouni, Hyvönen, Eero, & Leskinen, Petri. (2017). Bio CRM: A Data Model for Representing Biographical Data for Prosopographical Research. In Antske Fokkens, Serge ter Braake, Ronald Sluijter, Paul Arthur, & Eveline Wandl-Vogt (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Conference on Biographical Data in a Digital World 2017 (Vol. 2119, pp. 59–66). CEUR.
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2119/#paper10Tweed, Christopher, & Sutherland, Margaret. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development.
Landscape and Urban Planning,
83(1), 62–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2009).
UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://doi.org/10.15220/978-92-9189-075-0-enUNESCO. (2009).
Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage (Circular {Letter} CL/3865). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000179529UNESCO. (2019).
Preliminary study of the technical, financial and legal aspects of the desirability of a UNESCO recommendation on Open Science (Programme and Meeting Document 40 C/63; p. 24). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000370291UNESCO. (2021).
Implementation of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (Programme and Meeting Document SC-PCB-SPP/2021/OS/UROS; p. 36). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000379949UNESCO. (2022).
Basic texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Programme and Meeting Document CLT-2022/WS/3). United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000383762UNESCO. Culture for Development Indicators. (2014).
Methodology Manual. United Nations Educational, Scientific; Cultural Organization.
https://n2t.net/ark:/48223/pf0000229608Van de Sompel, Herbert, & Nelson, Michael L. (2015). Reminiscing About 15 Years of Interoperability Efforts.
D-Lib Magazine,
21(11/12).
https://doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompelVan der Auwera, Sigrid. (2013). UNESCO and the protection of cultural property during armed conflict.
International Journal of Cultural Policy,
19(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2011.625415Vandenhende, Lise, & Van Hoorick, Geert. (2017). The management of cultural heritage and nature : Complementary or conflicting regulations?
EELF Annual Conference, 5th, Abstracts.
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8722614Vecco, Marilena. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible.
Journal of Cultural Heritage,
11(3), 321–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006Vicente-Saez, Ruben, & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition.
Journal of Business Research,
88, 428–436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043Vienni-Baptista, Bianca, Fletcher, Isabel, & Lyall, Catherine (Eds.). (2023).
Foundations of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research: A Reader. Bristol University Press.
https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529235012Vinck, Dominique. (2019).
Les métiers de l’ombre de la Fête des Vignerons. Editions Antipodes.
https://doi.org/10.33056/antipodes.1711Webber, Jim. (2012). A programmatic introduction to Neo4j.
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Systems, Programming, and Applications: Software for Humanity, 217–218.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2384716.2384777Weibel, Stuart L., & Koch, Traugott. (2000). The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: Mission, Current Activities, and Future Directions.
D-Lib Magazine,
6(12).
https://doi.org/10.1045/december2000-weibelWeinthal, Dianne, & Childress, Dawn. (2019).
IIIF for Open Access.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/260616w7Weiss, Richard. (1940). Atlas der schweizerischen Volkskunde : Die bisherigen Erfahrungen der Exploratoren.
Schweizerisches Archiv Für Volkskunde/ Archives Suisses Des Traditions Populaires.,
38(1), 105–118.
https://doi.org/10.5169/SEALS-113634Wenger, Etienne. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.
National Science Foundation, 1–7.
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11736Wilkinson, Mark D., Dumontier, Michel, Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan, Appleton, Gabrielle, Axton, Myles, Baak, Arie, Blomberg, Niklas, Boiten, Jan-Willem, Silva Santos, Luiz Bonino da, Bourne, Philip E., Bouwman, Jildau, Brookes, Anthony J., Clark, Tim, Crosas, Mercè, Dillo, Ingrid, Dumon, Olivier, Edmunds, Scott, Evelo, Chris T., Finkers, Richard, … Mons, Barend. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.
Scientific Data,
3, 160018.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18Windhager, Florian, Federico, Paolo, Schreder, Gunther, Glinka, Katrin, Dork, Marian, Miksch, Silvia, & Mayr, Eva. (2019). Visualization of Cultural Heritage Collection Data: State of the Art and Future Challenges.
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
25(6), 2311–2330.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2830759Zeng, Marcia Lei, & Qin, Jian. (2022). Metadata (Third edition). ALA Neal-Schuman.
Zeng, Marcia Lei. (2008). Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS).
Knowledge Organization,
35(2–3), 160–182.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-160Zou, Xiaozhu, Xiong, Siyi, Li, Zhi, & Jiang, Ping. (2018). Constructing Metadata Schema of Scientific and Technical Report Based on FRBR.
Computer and Information Science,
11(2), 34–39.
https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v11n2p34Žumer, Maja. (2007). Functional requirements for bibliographic records: FRBR: The end of the road or a new beginning.
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
33(6), 27–29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2007.1720330608![Open Science Elements, Redrawn Slide from Presentation of Ana Persic [(Morrison, 2021) citing (Persic, 2021)]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Osc2021-unesco-open-science-no-gray.png)
+