scholarly journals Beyond validation: Using programmed diagnostics to learn about, monitor, and successfully complete your DH project

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i100-i109
Author(s):  
Martin Holmes ◽  
Joseph Takeda
Keyword(s):  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Digital Edition ◽  
Xml Documents ◽  
Schema Languages ◽  
Data Collections ◽  
Referential Integrity

Abstract Digital humanities projects have long relied on various schema languages—chiefly, RELAX NG and Schematron—for validating the XML documents in their data collections; however, these languages are limited in their ability to check for consistency, coherence, and completeness across the entire project. In our work as part of “Endings”, an umbrella project that comprises four diverse digital edition projects from different fields, we have developed a methodology for checking and enforcing correctness, completeness, and coherence across the entire document set. The following article describes the various stages (what we term “levels”) of our diagnostics process, all of which are driven by XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations) stylesheets, and produce a human readable report. These levels include checks for referential integrity, correct entity tagging, and potential duplicates in the data set. Using examples from the Endings projects, we show how diagnostic processes not only ensure correctness in the data set, but can also aid in determining project milestones and completion dates. Diagnostics, we argue, are thus a crucial extension to schema-based validation for complex digital projects and can provide concrete ways for digital humanities projects to enforce coherence and consistency and track their progress toward completion.

scholarly journals From historical cartography to historical mapping: digital edition of Gaul/Raczynski topographic map of Greater Poland (1807–1812)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Tomasz Panecki
Keyword(s):  
Web Services ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Historical Maps ◽  
Topographic Map ◽  
Digital Form ◽  
Digital Edition ◽  
Old Maps ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
Historical Cartography

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> The aim of the author is to present and discuss methodological problems related to the development of old maps’ digital editions on the example of the so called Gaul/Raczyński topographic map – a perfect case providing the whole catalogue of problems related to archival maps’ representation in the digital form. Today, we can observe an increasing interest in spatial and digital humanities, as well as more frequent old and historical maps dissemination via web services. However, consistent methods of their depiction in the digital manner have not yet been developed. The aim of the project is not only to develop such a method, but also to indicate its perspectives and constraints in the context of its future application among the whole array of old maps. The development of map’s digital edition allows the full use of such data in historical and geographical studies.</p>

Research Background

2013 ◽  
pp. 187-200
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Dweib ◽  
Joan Lu
Keyword(s):  
Data Storage ◽  
Relational Database ◽  
Query Languages ◽  
Xml Schema ◽  
Application Program Interface ◽  
Database Model ◽  
Xml Documents ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Schema Languages ◽  
Program Interface

In this chapter, the research background is discussed. This includes XML model, XML query languages, XML schema languages, XML Application Program Interface, XML documents types, XML data storage approaches, relational database model, and the similarities and differences between XML model and relational database model. Finally the chapter summary is given.

scholarly journals Usability testing of the Letters of 1916 Digital Edition

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Wusteman
Keyword(s):  
User Experience ◽  
General Public ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Usability Testing ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Digital Edition ◽  
User Groups ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the process and implications of usability testing a prototype version of the Letters of 1916 Digital Edition. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the testing, the lessons learned and how those lessons informed the subsequent redesign of the site. Findings Results imply that a majority of users, even digital humanists, were not looking for a unique and specialised interface, but assumed – and preferred – a user experience that reflects common search systems. Although the audience for digital humanities sites is becoming increasingly diverse, the needs of the different user groups may be more similar than had previously been assumed. Research limitations/implications The usability test employed 11 participants, five of whom were coded as “general public”. Four of these five had previously volunteered to transcribe and upload letters. This meant that they were already familiar with the project and with the Letters of 1916 Transcription Desk. However, their prior involvement was a result of their genuine interest in the site, thus ensuring that their interactions during testing were more realistic. Practical implications The lesson learned may be useful for the Digital Editions of future crowdsourced humanities projects. Originality/value Letters of 1916 is the first crowdsourced humanities project in Ireland. The theme of the project is topical, emotive and socially important in Ireland and among Irish diaspora today. The project’s content has been created by the “ordinary citizens of Ireland” and they are likely to be the major users of the Digital Edition. The study explores how the Digital Edition can support these users, while also facilitating the range of traditional scholars and digital humanities researchers.

scholarly journals "How can you love a work, if you don't know it?": Critical Code and Design toward Participatory Digital Editions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Visconti
Keyword(s):  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Design Code ◽  
Digital Edition ◽  
Blog Posts

A literature/digital humanities PhD digital dissertation, exploring the design, coding, and usertesting of the InfiniteUlysses.com participatory digital edition, participatory digital humanities and meaningful crowdsourcing more broadly, and meta-analysis of a unique digital humanities dissertation approach that consisted of design, code, usertesting, blogging, and a whitepaper written during the final month before the PhD defense. The dissertation *is* dr.amandavisconti.com; I've uploaded both the PDF of the whitepaper and a ZIP of the entire dr.amandavisconti.com website (which includes archived blog posts, WARCs of the InfiniteUlysses.com digital edition, and more).

scholarly journals "How can you love a work, if you don't know it?": Critical Code and Design toward Participatory Digital Editions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Visconti
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Design Process ◽  
User Experience ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Book Clubs ◽  
Textual Scholarship ◽  
Digital Edition ◽  
Introductory Section ◽  
Design Theories ◽  
First Time

This whitepaper offers an analytic discussion of the process and productfor Amanda Visconti's dissertation "How can you love a work, if you don'tknow it?": Critical Code and Design toward Participatory Digital Editions (dr.AmandaVisconti.com). The introductory section proposes a speculativeexperiment to test digital edition design theories: "What if we build adigital edition and invite everyone? What if millions of scholars,first-time readers, book clubs, teachers and their students show up andannotate a text with their infinite interpretations, questions, andcontextualizations?". Approaching digital editions as Morris Eaves'"problem-solving mechanism"s, the project designed, built, and user-testeda digital edition of James Joyce’s Ulysses with various experimentalinterface features: InfiniteUlysses.com. Three areas of research advancedthrough the project are presented: designing public and participatoryedition projects, and whether critical participation is necessary to suchprojects; designing digital edition functionalities and appearance to servea participatory audience, and what we learn about such an endeavor throughInfinite Ulysses' user experience data; and separating the values oftextual scholarship from their embodiments to imagine new types of edition.A review of theoretical and built precedents from textual scholarship,scholarly design and code projects, public and participatory humanitiesendeavors, and theories around a digital Ulysses grounds the report,followed by an overview of the features of the Infinite Ulyssesparticipatory digital edition. Section 2 discusses existing examples ofpublic participation in digital humanities (DH) projects, Section 3 focuseson digital editions and the design process, Section 4 reimagines thedigital edition by separating textual scholarship values from the commonembodiments of these values, and the conclusion sums up the interventionsof this project and lists next steps for continuing this research. Abibliography and appendices (full texts of user surveys, explanation ofproject's dissertational format, wireframes and screenshot from throughoutthe design process) conclude the report.

Understanding co-editing mechanism of wiki-based digital humanities projects

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-218
Author(s):  
Weihua Deng ◽  
Pei Lv ◽  
Ming Yi ◽  
Ming Liu
Keyword(s):  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Content Creation ◽  
Analytic Procedure ◽  
Editing Efficiency ◽  
Argumentation Structure ◽  
Mogao Grottoes ◽  
Online Encyclopedia ◽  
Editing Process

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the co-editing mechanism aiming at content creation, and an entry of online encyclopedia is taken as a case, for the purpose of promoting and enhancing the development of wiki-based digital humanities projects (WDHPs), specifically, the projects that focus on gathering contextual information in the culture heritage domain. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory study was conducted by three steps. A representative entry’s editorial records were reorganized to obtain a data set of discussion statements (n=608), based on which linked-structures were built, and PageRank algorithm was used to analyze the co-editing process. Skewness statistic was applied to measure the consensus of co-editing, and consensus evolution over time was explored. Linear or curve fitting was performed to analyze the correlation between consensus evolution and its influential factors. Findings In WDHPs, co-editing activity of content creation can be considered as a large-scale group discussion, consensus can evaluate the efficiency of co-editing, which evolves with time and is influenced by the number of statements, breadth and depth of argumentation structure. Taking “Mogao Grottoes” as an example, group discussions around 15 key issues dominate the content creating process, consensus is on a rise with time, finally reaches a relatively high level, and consensus evolution is more influenced by breadth than by depth of argumentation structure, which indicates that co-editing efficiency of “Mogao Grottoes” is fine and more argumentation in a depth manner should be guided. Practical implications For researchers of WDHPs, it is beneficial to apply online encyclopedia platform combining with consensus analysis to develop WDHPs. For designers of WDHPs, the elements related to argumentation structure can be absorbed into the design to promote co-editing in an effective manner. For DH researchers, the analytic procedure can be beneficial of revealing the interest of contributors in a specific DH field. Originality/value This research is novel in comprehensively understanding co-editing mechanism of content creation in WDHPs, resulting in a three-step analytic procedure of presenting co-editing process, evaluating and improving co-editing efficiency.

Hilfe für die digitale Hilfswissenschaft

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-81
Author(s):  
Markus Krajewski
Keyword(s):  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Software Developers ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Major Player ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Data Collections ◽  
Fotis Jannidis

In den letzten zehn Jahren sind die digitalen Geisteswissenschaften von einem Randphänomen zu einem der sichtbareren Felder kultur- und geisteswissenschaftlicher Forschung geworden. Dieser Erfolg ist von Kritik begleitet und Fotis Jannidis identifiziert drei Topoi der Kritik an den Digital Humanities, die oft vorgebracht und wiederholt werden: 1. ›Das wussten wir schon vorher‹ 2. ›Die Themen der Digital Humanities sind veraltet‹ 3. Es handle sich bei den Digital Humanities um eine neue Form des Positivismus, der geisteswissenschaftliche Gegenstände nicht adäquat beschreibt. Diese drei Vorwürfe gegen die Digital Humanities werden von Jannidis aufgegriffen und auf ihren argumentativen und wissenschaftspolitischen Gehalt befragt und hinterfragt. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Plädoyer für das Ausprobieren, Basteln und für die Neugierde auf die neu entstehenden Datensammlungen in den Bibliotheken und Archiven. Markus Krajewski hält die Erwartungen an das Innovationspotenzial der Digital Humanities dagegen für überzogen, die aus seiner Perspektive bisher über den Status einer Hilfswissenschaft nicht hinausgekommen sind. So wie die Diplomatik um die Analyse von Urkunden oder die Numismatik um die Einordnung von Münzen oder die Paläographie um die Analyse von Handschriften besorgt ist, so kümmern sich die Digital Humanities bisher lediglich um die Nahtstelle von geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschungsfragen mit computergestützten Methoden. Die eigentliche Aufgabe der Digital Humanities bestünde aber darin, die Kulturtechnik Codieren in den Vordergrund zu rücken. Denn Programmcodes lesen und schreiben zu können, seien auch für Geisteswissenschaftler eine Schlüsselkompetenz, damit die Schrift der Zukunft – die von Softwareentwicklern, Computeringenieuren und selbstlernenden Maschinen entworfenen Algorithmen – weiterhin kritisch kommentiert und interpretiert (und nicht bloß passiv angewandt) werden kann. During the last ten years, the so-called digital humanities have developed from a footnote to being a major player in the academic field of cultural studies and humanities alike. However, success goes hand in hand with increasing criticism, and Fotis Jannidis identifies three topoi of critique digital humanities repeatedly have to face. 1. ›We already knew that‹ 2. ›The topics of digital humanities are outdated‹ 3. Digital humanities are said to be a new form of positivism not adequately describing humanities related issues. Jannides takes up these accusations against digital humanities by scrutinizing and questioning their argumentative and scientific- political substance. The article closes with a speech promoting of a phase of trial and error, of tinkering and of curiosity for the subject at hand while analyzing newly originated data collections from libraries or archives. In Markus Krajewski’s opinion, however, the expectations placed in the potential of innovation of digital humanities are exaggerated which subsequently leads him to label them an ancillary discipline. The usefulness of digital humanities is entirely limited to providing the link between humanities-related research questions and computer-based methods in the same way diplomatics relies on the analysis of records, numismatics on the process of categorizing coins or paleography on the analysis of historical manuscripts. Krajewski sees the real task of digital humanities in bringing the cultural technology of coding into the spotlight. He describes the ability to write and read source code as a key competence every modern humanities scholar needs in order to be able to critically comment and interpret the script of the future: algorithms designed by software developers, computer engineers, and auto-didactic machines.

Digitale Geisteswissenschaften: Offene Fragen - schöne Aussichten

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
Fotis Jannidis
Keyword(s):  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Software Developers ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Major Player ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Data Collections ◽  
Fotis Jannidis

In den letzten zehn Jahren sind die digitalen Geisteswissenschaften von einem Randphänomen zu einem der sichtbareren Felder kultur- und geisteswissenschaftlicher Forschung geworden. Dieser Erfolg ist von Kritik begleitet und Fotis Jannidis identifiziert drei Topoi der Kritik an den Digital Humanities, die oft vorgebracht und wiederholt werden: 1. ›Das wussten wir schon vorher‹ 2. ›Die Themen der Digital Humanities sind veraltet‹ 3. Es handle sich bei den Digital Humanities um eine neue Form des Positivismus, der geisteswissenschaftliche Gegenstände nicht adäquat beschreibt. Diese drei Vorwürfe gegen die Digital Humanities werden von Jannidis aufgegriffen und auf ihren argumentativen und wissenschaftspolitischen Gehalt befragt und hinterfragt. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Plädoyer für das Ausprobieren, Basteln und für die Neugierde auf die neu entstehenden Datensammlungen in den Bibliotheken und Archiven. Markus Krajewski hält die Erwartungen an das Innovationspotenzial der Digital Humanities dagegen für überzogen, die aus seiner Perspektive bisher über den Status einer Hilfswissenschaft nicht hinausgekommen sind. So wie die Diplomatik um die Analyse von Urkunden oder die Numismatik um die Einordnung von Münzen oder die Paläographie um die Analyse von Handschriften besorgt ist, so kümmern sich die Digital Humanities bisher lediglich um die Nahtstelle von geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschungsfragen mit computergestützten Methoden. Die eigentliche Aufgabe der Digital Humanities bestünde aber darin, die Kulturtechnik Codieren in den Vordergrund zu rücken. Denn Programmcodes lesen und schreiben zu können, seien auch für Geisteswissenschaftler eine Schlüsselkompetenz, damit die Schrift der Zukunft – die von Softwareentwicklern, Computeringenieuren und selbstlernenden Maschinen entworfenen Algorithmen – weiterhin kritisch kommentiert und interpretiert (und nicht bloß passiv angewandt) werden kann. During the last ten years, the so-called digital humanities have developed from a footnote to being a major player in the academic field of cultural studies and humanities alike. However, success goes hand in hand with increasing criticism, and Fotis Jannidis identifies three topoi of critique digital humanities repeatedly have to face. 1. ›We already knew that‹ 2. ›The topics of digital humanities are outdated‹ 3. Digital humanities are said to be a new form of positivism not adequately describing humanities related issues. Jannides takes up these accusations against digital humanities by scrutinizing and questioning their argumentative and scientific- political substance. The article closes with a speech promoting of a phase of trial and error, of tinkering and of curiosity for the subject at hand while analyzing newly originated data collections from libraries or archives. In Markus Krajewski’s opinion, however, the expectations placed in the potential of innovation of digital humanities are exaggerated which subsequently leads him to label them an ancillary discipline. The usefulness of digital humanities is entirely limited to providing the link between humanities-related research questions and computer-based methods in the same way diplomatics relies on the analysis of records, numismatics on the process of categorizing coins or paleography on the analysis of historical manuscripts. Krajewski sees the real task of digital humanities in bringing the cultural technology of coding into the spotlight. He describes the ability to write and read source code as a key competence every modern humanities scholar needs in order to be able to critically comment and interpret the script of the future: algorithms designed by software developers, computer engineers, and auto-didactic machines.

scholarly journals Static Analysis of XML Transformations in Java

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Kirkegaard ◽  
Anders Møller ◽  
Michael I. Schwartzbach
Keyword(s):  
Static Analysis ◽  
Input Data ◽  
Data Type ◽  
Output Data ◽  
Type Checking ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Xml Documents ◽  
Input And Output ◽  
Schema Languages ◽  
High Level

XML documents generated dynamically by programs are typically represented as text strings or DOM trees. This is a low-level approach for several reasons: 1) Traversing and modifying such structures can be tedious and error prone; 2) Although schema languages, e.g. DTD, allow classes of XML documents to be defined, there are generally no automatic mechanisms for statically checking that a program transforms from one class to another as intended. We introduce X<small>ACT</small>, a high-level approach for Java using XML templates as a first-class data type with operations for manipulating XML values based on XPath. In addition to an efficient runtime representation, the data type permits static type checking using DTD schemas as types. By specifying schemas for the input and output of a program, our algorithm will statically verify that valid input data is always transformed into valid output data and that no errors occur during processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document