Advertisement

Humanists’ Virtual Knowledge Space: Model and Usage

  • Meliha Handzic
  • Charles van den Heuvel
Chapter
Part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning book series (IAKM, volume 7)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to present a conceptual model of a virtual knowledge space for use by digital humanists. Following the basic knowledge management strategies, the proposed model supports codification and personalisation, exploitation and exploration. In particular, it incorporates the ability to capture and organise explicit knowledge repositories, tools for knowledge discovery and visualisation, support for tacit knowledge sharing and collaboration with other researchers, as well as for new knowledge creation. The proposed virtual knowledge space is intended to help users to make humanistic knowledge in digital media more manageable and usable. As an illustration, the chapter presents two cases showing different ways humanities scholars may interact with their data in the context of the Republic of Letters. The first case describes a creative process of visual exploration by association, while the second case focuses on deeper methods of analysis and visualisation. Overall, the chapter suggests that the proposed virtual knowledge space may serve as reference for implementing various digital humanities projects relevant to a wide range of humanities disciplines.

Keywords

Knowledge management Digital humanities Virtual knowledge space Conceptual design Use cases 

References

  1. Allan, R. (2009). Virtual research environments: From portals to science gateways. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonijevic, S. (2015). Amongst digital humanists. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beghtol, C. (2008). From the universe of knowledge to the universe of concepts: The structural revolution in classification for information retrieval. Axiomathes, 18(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biscevic, V. (2006). Bosanski namjesnici Osmanskog Doba (pp. 1463–1878). Sarajevo: Connectum.Google Scholar
  5. Bizer, C., Heath, T., & Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked data - The story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 5(3), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair, A. M. (2010). Too much to know: Managing scholarly information before the modern age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bliss, H. E. (1929). The organization of knowledge and the system of the sciences. New York, NY: H. Holt and Co.Google Scholar
  8. Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data. In Scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bots, J. A. H. G. M. (1977). Republiek der Letteren. In Ideaal en werkelijkheid. Amsterdam: APA–Holland Universiteit Pers.Google Scholar
  10. Buning, M. (2014a). Between imitation and invention. Inventor privileges and technological Progress in the early Dutch Republic (c. 1585–1625). Intellectual History Review, 24(3), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buning, M. (2014b). Inventing scientific method: The privilege system as a model for scientific knowledge-production. Intellectual History Review, 24(1), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bush, V. (1945, July). As we may think. The Atlantic.Google Scholar
  13. Connaway, L. S., & Dickey, T. J. (2009). Towards a profile of the researcher of today: What can we learn from JISC projects? Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).Google Scholar
  14. Daston, L. (1991). The ideal and reality of the Republic of Letters in the enlightenment. Science in Context, 4, 367–386.Google Scholar
  15. Eppler, M. J., & Burkhard, R. A. (2007). Visual representations in knowledge management: Framework and cases. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996). Knowledge discovery and data mining: Towards a unifying framework. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD-96, Oregon.Google Scholar
  17. Fry, B. (2007). Visualizing data: Exploring and explaining data with the processing environment. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  18. Grafton, A. (2009). A sketch map of a lost continent: The Republic of Letters. Republic of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics and the Arts, 1(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Handzic, M. (2004). Knowledge management: Through the technology glass (Series on innovation and knowledge management). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  20. Handzic, M., & Dizdar, S. (2016). Knowledge management meets humanities: A case study of diplomatic correspondence visualisation. In Proceedings of the 11th forum on knowledge asset dynamics - towards a new architecture of knowledge: Big data, culture and creativity (IFKAD 2016) (pp. 1445–1457), 15–17 June, Dresden.Google Scholar
  21. Handzic, M., & Lin, J. C. Y. (2003). K-space and learning. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2003), November 28–29, Perth.Google Scholar
  22. Handzic, M., & Orhan, Z. (2018). Sentiment knowledge discovery: People versus technology. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2018), September 6–7, Padua.Google Scholar
  23. Handzic, M., & van den Heuvel, C. (2018). Digital humanists’ knowledge space: A conceptual design. In Proceedings of the 13th forum on knowledge asset dynamics – Societal impact of knowledge and design (IFKAD 2018), 4–6 July, Delft.Google Scholar
  24. Handzic, M., Ozlen, K., & Durmic, N. (2016). A contingency approach to knowledge management: Finding the best fit. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hinton, G. E., Osidero, S., & The, Y.-W. (2006). A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Computation, 18(7), 1527–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hjorland, B. (2008). What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowledge Organization, 35(2/3), 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jessop, M. (2004). Computing or humanities? Ubiquity, 5(41), 23–31.Google Scholar
  28. Kan, A. H. (1971). De jeugd van Constantijn Huygens door hemzelf beschreven. Uit het Latijn vertaald, toegelicht en met aanteekeningen voorzien door Dr. A.H. Kan met een bijdrage van G. Kamphuis, Rotterdam: Ad. Donker.Google Scholar
  29. Licklider, J. C. R. (1965). Libraries of the future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Linquist, T. (2016, January 22). Early Stuart diplomatic service: Prosopography and networks, COST action IS1310 workshop. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Liu, A. (2017). DH Toychest: Digital humanities tools. Accessed December 21, 2017, from http://dhresourcesforprojectbuilding.pbworks.com/
  32. Makela, E., Hyvonen, E., & Ruotsalo, T. (2012). How to deal with massively heterogeneous cultural heritage data-lessons learned in CultureSampo. Semantic Web, 3(I), 85–109.Google Scholar
  33. Martelli, F. (2005). Il viaggio in Europa di Pietro Guerrini (1682–1686), Edizione della corrispondenza e dei disegni di un inviato di Cosimo III dei Medici, a cura di Francesco Martelli. Florence: Olschki Editore.Google Scholar
  34. Mauelshagen, F. (2003). Networks of trust and imagined community of the learned. The Medieval History Journal, 6(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miksa, F. L. (1992). The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification. In N. J. Williamson & M. Hudon (Eds.), Classification research for knowledge representation and organization: Proceedings of the 5th international study conference on classification research (pp. 161–178). Toronto: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Mirto, A., & van Veen, H. T. (Eds.). (1993). Pieter Blaeu: lettere ai Fiorentini, Antonio Magliabechi, Leopoldo e Cosimo III de’ Medici e altri. Amsterdam: Centro Di. Firenze.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, A. (2013) Making words work: Balancing text and graphics for greatest impact. Accessed March 21, 2016, from http://blog.visual.ly/making-words-work-balancing-text-and-graphics-to-make-the-greatest-impact/
  38. Nakas, L. (2009). Anthology of borderers’ letters. Accessed February 26, 2016, from https://www.academia.edu/13165599/Antologija_kraji%C5%A1ni%C4%8Dkih_pisama
  39. Nellen, H. (2002). ‘In strict confidence’: Grotius’ correspondence with his Socinian friends. In T. van Houdt et al. (Eds.), Self-presentation and social identification. The rhetoric and pragmatics of letter writing in early modern times (Supplementa humanistica Lovaniensia, 18) (pp. 227–245). Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nellen, H. (2005). The correspondence of Hugo Grotius. In C. Berkvens-Stevelinck et al. (Eds.), Les grands intermédiaires culturels de la République des Lettres. Etudes des réseaux de correspondances du XVIe au XVIIIe siècles (pp. 127–164). Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  41. Prats Lopez, M. (2017). Managing citizen science in the humanities: The challenges of ensuring quality (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from VU-DARE Repository (55271).Google Scholar
  42. Ranganathan, S. R. (1957). Prologomena to library classification (2nd ed.). London: The Library Association.Google Scholar
  43. Ravenek, W., Heuvel, C., & van den Gerritsen, G. (2017). The ePistolarium: Origins and techniques. In J. Odijk & A. van Hessen (Eds.), CLARIN in the low countries (pp. 317–323). London: Ubiquity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Shneiderman, B. (2000). Creating creativity: User interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 114–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smiraglia, R. P., van den Heuvel, C., & Dousa T. M. (2011). Interactions between elementary structures in universes of knowledge. In Proceedings of the international UDC seminar classification and ontology, formal approaches and access to knowledge, September 19–20, The Hague.Google Scholar
  46. Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trausan-Matu, S. (2013). A polyphonic model, analysis method and computer support tools for the analysis of socially-built discourse. Romanian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 16(2–3), 144–154.Google Scholar
  48. Unsworth, J. (2000, May 13). Scholarly primitives: What methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how might our tools reflect this? In Symposium on humanities computing: Formal methods, experimental practice, London.Google Scholar
  49. van den Heuvel, C. (2012). Multidimensional classifications: Past and future conceptualizations and visualizations. Knowledge Organization, 39(6), 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van den Heuvel, C., & Smiraglia, R. P. (2010). Concepts as particles: Metaphors for the universe of knowledge, In C. Gnoli, & F. Mazzocchi (Eds.), Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the eleventh international ISKO conference, Rome (pp. 50–56), February 23–26, Ergon Verlag, Wurzburg.Google Scholar
  51. van den Heuvel, C., & Smiraglia, R. (2013). Likeness and likeliness: Exploring multidimensional classification for the multiverse of information. Advances in Classification Research Online, 23(1), 35–37.  https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v23i1.14235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van den Heuvel, C., Weingart, S. B., Spelt, N., & Nellen, H. (2016). Circles of confidence in correspondences. Confidentiality in seventeenth-century knowledge exchange in networks of letters and drawings. Nuncius, 31, 78–106.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18253911-03101002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Miert, D. K. W. (2016). What was the Republic of Letters? A brief introduction to a long history (1417–2008). Groniek, 47(204/205), 269–287.Google Scholar
  54. van Vugt, I. (2017a). Using multi-layered networks to disclose books in the Republic of Letters. Journal of Historical Network Research, 1(1), 25–51.Google Scholar
  55. van Vugt, I. (2017b). Storia e geografia di una rete epistolare. In P. Boutier, M. P. Paoli, & C. Viola (Eds.), Antonio Magliabechi nell’Europa dei Saperi (pp. 259–293). Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.Google Scholar
  56. Wagenaar, L. (2014). Een Toscaanse prins bezoekt Nederland. De twee reizen van Cosimo de’ Medici 1667–1669, bezorgd, ingeleid en geannotteerd door Lodewijk Wagenaar uit het Italiaans vertaald door Bertie Eringa. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bas Lubberhuizen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meliha Handzic
    • 1
  • Charles van den Heuvel
    • 2
  1. 1.International Burch UniversitySarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2.Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands (KNAW)Amsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations