@article{Constantopoulos2016b,
title = {Scholarly Ontology: modelling scholarly practices.},
author = {Panos Constantopoulos and Vagianos Pertsas},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3},
issn = {1432-5012},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-09-01},
journal = {International Journal on Digital Libraries},
volume = {18},
number = {3},
pages = {173–190},
publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
abstract = {In this paper we present the Scholarly Ontology (SO), an ontology for modelling scholarly practices, inspired by business process modelling and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. The SO is based on empirical research and earlier models and is designed so as to incorporate related works through a modular structure. The SO is an elaboration of the domain-independent core part of the NeDiMAH Methods Ontology addressing the scholarly ecosystem of Digital Humanities. It thus provides a basis for developing domain-specific scholarly work ontologies springing from a common root. We define the basic concepts of the model and their semantic relations through four complementary perspectives on scholarly work: activity, procedure, resource and agency. As a use case we present a modelling example and argue on the purpose of use of the model through the presentation of indicative SPRQL and SQWRL queries that highlight the benefits of its serialization in RDFS. The SO includes an explicit treatment of intentionality and its interplay with functionality, captured by different parts of the model. We discuss the role of types as the semantic bridge between those two parts and explore several patterns that can be exploited in designing reusable access structures and conformance rules. Related taxonomies and ontologies and their possible reuse within the framework of SO are reviewed.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@misc{Dallas2017,
title = {DiMPO - a DARIAH infrastructure survey on digital practices and needs of European scholarship},
author = {Costis Dallas and Claire Clivaz and and Nephelie Chatzidiakou and Jurij Hadalin and Elena Gonzalez-Bianco and Beat Immenhauser and Maciej Maryl and Gerlinde Schneider and Walter Scholger and Toma Tasovac and Ingrida Vosyliute},
url = {https://www.conftool.net/aiucd2017/index.php?page=browseSessions&print=head&form_session=2},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-25},
abstract = {In 2015, the Digital Methods and Practices Observatory (DiMPO) Working Group of DARIAH-EU conducted a European survey on scholarly digital practices and needs, which was translated into ten languages and gathered 2’177 responses from humanities researchers residing in than 20 European countries. A project website is in preparation: http://observatory.dariah.eu (opening in January 2017). The summary of the main results is to be launched at the end of 2016 in a highlights report, presently being translated into the diverse languages of the team (French, German, Greek, Polish, Serbian, Spanish and perhaps more). The survey, the first of its kind in Europe, is a perfect case of multiculturalism and multilingualism, as well as transcultural and transnational collaboration and communication, in full alignment with the 2016 topic of the EADH day. In the next edition - scheduled for 2017 - we envisage the incorporation of questions specific to certain regions or countries so as to address the diversity of different cultural contexts.
Our presentation will also underline the main results of the survey with the aim of encouraging debate on the current state of digital practice in the humanities across Europe, and to get vital feedback for the preparation of the next survey. The survey questionnaire consists of twenty-one questions designed to be relevant to researchers from different European countries and humanities disciplines. The main focus is on of specific research activities, methods and tools used by the researchers. After filtering and normalizing the dataset, the results were statistically analyzed using descriptive statistics, although simple tests of two-way association were also performed, to assess the relationship of particular responses to the respondents’ country of residence, discipline, academic status and other relevant factors. In addition to the consolidated European results, six national detailed profiles have been produced, namely for Austria, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia and Switzerland. The findings suggest that the use of digital resources, methods, services and tools is widespread among European Humanities researchers. Used across the scholarly work lifecycle from data collection to publication and dissemination. Results add to our understanding of how users of digital resources, methods, services and tools conduct their research, and what they perceive as important for their work. This is important to ensure appropriate priorities for digital infrastructures, as well as activities and strategies for digital inception, which will shape future initiatives regarding the diverse communities of researchers in the arts and humanities.
Ultimately, the analysis of digital practices can provide original data and information to strengthen our understanding of how humanists work, and of Humanities proper. Stanford University defines the humanities “as the study of how people process and document the human experience. Since humans have been able, we have used philosophy, literature, religion, art, music, history and language to understand and record our world”. Understanding the needs of humanists, the main purpose of the DiMPO European survey, is a sine qua non condition to ensure that the fundamental purpose of the arts and humanities continues to be served in the digital era.},
howpublished = {Presentation at the 6th AIUCD Annual Conference, Rome: Associazione per l’Informatica Umanistica e la Cultura Digitale.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}

@inbook{Constantopoulos2016,
title = {Digital Methods in the Humanities: Understanding and Describing their Use across the Disciplines},
author = {Panos Constantopoulos and Lorna Hughes and Costis Dallas },
editor = {Susan Schreibman and Ray Siemens and John Unsworth},
doi = {doi: 10.1002/9781118680605.ch11 },
isbn = {9781118680599},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-11-25},
booktitle = {A New Companion to Digital Humanities},
publisher = {John Wiley & Sons, Ltd},
chapter = {11},
abstract = {This chapter considers the impact and reach of digital methods in the humanities. Digital methods are a core element of what has been called the “methodological commons”: the intellectual, disciplinary, and methodological framework that underlies the conceptualization and understanding of digital humanities. The term “method” is used to refer to the computer-based (also called information and communications technology, or ICT) techniques for the creation, analysis, communication, and dissemination of digital research. This chapter revisits the theory of computer-based methods as a core construct (or “scholarly primitive”) of the digital humanities. It reviews two significant collaborative research support initiatives to investigate the use of ICT methods in the humanities, and explores the interdependencies between digital methods and the content and computer-based tools they are used with across these disciplines. The chapter also discusses recent initiatives to formalize the expression of ICT methods in the humanities, exploring how an emerging ontology of digital methods might contribute to wider adoption and understanding of digital humanities.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}