Advertisement

Linguistic Linked Data in Digital Humanities

  • Philipp Cimiano
  • Christian Chiarcos
  • John P. McCrae
  • Jorge Gracia
Chapter

Abstract

In recent years, Digital Humanities (DH) has become an increasingly flourishing field of research, often posing novel research challenges that require extensions or revisions of existing technologies. One characteristic of this area is the great heterogeneity of scientific disciplines and user communities involved. This leads to heterogeneity of data formats and data sources that represents a technical challenge from the point of view of interoperability. Linked data technology has the potential to facilitate the integration of heterogeneous data formats and distributed data sources. This chapter describes prototypical applications of LLD technologies and LOD resources in Digital Humanities as well as frequently used vocabularies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Busa, Sancti Thomae Aquinatis hymnorum ritualium varia specimina concordantiarum. Archivum Philosophicum Aloisianum, vol. II(7) (Fratelli Bocca, Milan, 1951)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W.N. Francis, H. Kucera, Brown Corpus manual. Technical Report, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, 1964. Revised edition 1979Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Davis, Three applications of edge-punched cards for recording and analyzing field data. Mem. Soc. Am. Archaeol. 19, 216 (1965). Contributions of the Wetherill Mesa Archeological Project. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25146687
  4. 4.
    W. Aydelotte, Quantification in history. Am. Hist. Rev. 71(Apr), 803–825 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N.M. Ide, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, The TEI: history, goals, and future, in Text Encoding Initiative: Background and Context, ed. by N. Ide, J. Véronis (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1995), pp. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0325-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Burnard, Report of workshop on text encoding guidelines. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 3(2), 131 (1988). https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-abstract/3/2/131/1020443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.F. Goldfarb, Information processing: text and office systems: Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). Technical Report, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 1986Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Albritton, M. Appleby, R. Sanderson, J. Stroop, IIIF Presentation API 2.0. Technical Report, IIIF Consortium, 2017. http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2.0/. Accessed 22.10.2017
  9. 9.
    A. Schreurs, C. Blüm, T. Wübbena, Sandrart.net: Eine Online-Edition eines Textes des 17. Jahrhunderts (Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, Frankfurt, 2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Gruber, S. Heath, A. Meadows, D. Pett, K. Tolle, D. Wigg-Wolf, Semantic Web technologies applied to numismatic collections, in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Baca, M. Gill, Encoding multilingual knowledge systems in the digital age: the Getty vocabularies, in Proceedings of the 5th North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) (Los Angeles, 2015), pp. 41–63Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Khan, F. Boschetti, F. Frontini, Using lemon to model lexical semantic shift in diachronic lexical resources, in Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL-2014): Multilingual Knowledge Resources and Natural Language Processing (Reykjavik, Iceland, 2014), pp. 50–54Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Abromeit, C. Chiarcos, C. Fäth, M. Ionov, Linking the Tower of Babel: modelling a massive set of etymological dictionaries as RDF, in Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL-2016): Managing, Building and Using Linked Language Resources, ed. by J. McCrae, C. Chiarcos, E. Montiel Ponsoda, T. Declerck, P. Osenova, S. Hellmann (Portoroz, Slovenia, 2016), pp. 11–19Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Bauman, J. Flanders, ODD customizations, in Proceedings of Extreme Markup Languages 2004 (EML-2004) (Montreal, 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Burnard, C. Sperberg-McQueen, TEI Lite: encoding for interchange: an introduction to the TEI. Technical Report, Text Encoding Initiative, 2012. Final revised edition for TEI P5. www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-exemplars/html/tei_lite.doc.html
  16. 16.
    Ø. Eide, A. Felicetti, C. Ore, A. D’Andrea, J. Holmen, Encoding cultural heritage information for the Semantic Web. Procedures for data integration through CIDOC-CRM mapping, in Proceedings of the EPOCH Conference on Open Digital Cultural Heritage Systems, ed. by D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci, D. Pletinckx, L. Van Gool (EPOCH/3D-COFORM Publication, Congresso Rospigliosi, Rome, 2008), pp. 47–53Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Ciotti, F. Tomasi, Formal ontologies, linked data and TEI semantics. Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative (9) (2016).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Ciotti, P. Silvio, T. Francesca, V. Fabio, An OWL 2 formal ontology for the text encoding initiative, in Digital Humanities 2016: Conference Abstracts (Jagiellonian University/Pedagogical University, Kraków/Poland, 2016), pp. 151–153Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Tummarello, C. Morbidoni, F. Kepler, F. Piazza, P. Puliti, A novel textual encoding paradigm based on Semantic Web tools and semantics, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (2006), pp. 247–52Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Baker, S. Bechhofer, A. Isaac, A. Miles, G. Schreiber, E. Summers, Key choices in the design of simple knowledge organization system (SKOS). J. Web Semant. 20, 35 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Hodge, Systems of knowledge organization for digital libraries: beyond traditional authority files. Technical Report, Council on Library and Information Resources (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Baker, E. Bermès, K. Coyle, G. Dunsire, A. Isaac, P. Murray, M. Panzer, J. Schneider, R. Singer, E. Summers, W. Waites, J. Young, M. Zeng, Library Linked Data incubator group final report. Technical Report, W3C Incubator Group Report 25 October 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Miles, S. Bechhofer, SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL). Technical Report, W3C Recommendation (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Peroni, F. Tomasi, F. Vitali, Reflecting on the Europeana data model, in Proceedings of the Italian Research Conference on Digital Libraries (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 228–240Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Manguinhas, V. Charles, A. Isaac, T. Miles, A. Lima, A. Nroulidis, V. Ginouvès, D. Atsidis, M. Hildebrand, M. Brinkerink, S. Gordea, Linking subject labels in cultural heritage metadata to mimo vocabulary using CultuurLINK, in Proceedings of the 15th European Workshop on Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) (2016), pp. 32–35Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. Declerck, P. Lendvai, K. Mörth, G. Budin, T. Váradi, Towards linked language data for digital humanities, in Linked Data in Linguistics, ed. by C. Chiarcos, S. Nordhoff, S. Hellmann (Springer, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Meroño-Peñuela, Digital humanities on the Semantic Web: accessing historical and musical linked data. J. Catalan Intellect. Hist. 1(11), 144–149 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1515/jocih-2016-0013. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jocih CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Binding, Implementing archaeological time periods using CIDOC CRM and SKOS, in Proceedings of the Extended Semantic Web Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6088 (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 273–287Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CIDOC, Statement on linked data identifiers for museum objects, in Proceedings of the Annual CIDOC General Meeting, 2012-06-13, Helsinki (2012). http://network.icom.museum/cidoc/resources/cidoc-standards-guidelines/. http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/cidoc/PDF/StatementOnLinkedDataIdentifiersForMuseumObjects.pdf
  30. 30.
    ISO, ISO 21127:2006 Information and documentation – a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. Technical Report, International Standards Organization, 2006. https://www.iso.org/standard/34424.html
  31. 31.
    ISO, ISO 21127:2014 Information and documentation – a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. Technical Report, International Standards Organization, 2014. Second edition. https://www.iso.org/standard/57832.html
  32. 32.
    N. Crofts, M. Doerr, T. Gill, S. Stead, M. Stiff, Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model, version 5.0.4. Technical Report, ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, 2011. Produced by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. http://new.cidoc-crm.org/get-last-official-release
  33. 33.
    G. Goerz, M. Oischinger, B. Schiemann, An implementation of the CIDOC conceptual reference model (4.2.4) in OWL-DL, in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CIDOC-The Digital Curation of Cultural Heritage (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Scholz, G. Goerz, WissKI: a virtual research environment for cultural heritage, in Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2012), pp. 1017–1018Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    C. Blackwell, N. Smith, The homer multitext: infrastructure and applications, in Digital Humanities 2008. Proceedings of the 20th Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, and the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the 1st Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, the Association for Computers and the Humanities, and the Society for Digital Humanities Société pour l’étude des médias interactifs (Oulu, Finland, 2008), pp. 10–11. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fdde/bd4bb4f0e21a803a301361a704572904b0b6.pdf#page=27
  36. 36.
    C. Blackwell, N. Smith, The Canonical text services protocol, version 5.0.rc.2. Technical Report, Center for Hellenic Studies (CHS) Technical Working Group, Harvard University, 2014. http://cite-architecture.github.io/cts_spec/
  37. 37.
    C. Dué, M. Ebbott, A.R. Scaife, W.B. Seales, C. Blackwell, N. Smith, D.C. Porter, R. Baumann, Homer multitext project, in Digital Humanities 2008. Proceedings of the 20th Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, and the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the 1st Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, the Association for Computers and the Humanities, and the Society for Digital Humanities Société pour l’étude des médias interactifs (Oulu, Finland, 2008), pp. 5–13. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fdde/bd4bb4f0e21a803a301361a704572904b0b6.pdf#page=22
  38. 38.
    D. Smith, G. Weaver, Applying domain knowledge from structured citation formats to text and data mining: examples using the CITE architecture. Technical Report, Dartmouth Computer Science Technical Report TR2009-649, 2009. http://katahdin.cs.dartmouth.edu/reports/TR2009-649.pdf
  39. 39.
    B. Almas, M. Berti, The linked fragment: TEI and the encoding of text re-uses of lost authors, in TEI Conference 2013 (2013). http://sites.tufts.edu/perseids/files/2013/10/TEI-Meeting-2013.pdf
  40. 40.
    J. Kalvesmaki, Canonical references in electronic texts: rationale and best practices. Digit. Humanit. Q. 8(2) (2014). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/8/2/000181/000181.html
  41. 41.
    B. Almas, H. Cayless, T. Clérice, Z. Fletcher, V. Jolivet, P. Liuzzo, E. Morlock, J. Robie, M. Romanello, J. Tauber, J. Witt, Distributed Text Services (DTS). First public working draft. Technical Report, Github (2019). Version of May 23, 2019Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    C. Chiarcos, I. Khait, É. Pagé-Perron, N. Schenk, C. Fäth, J. Steuer, W. Mcgrath, J. Wang, Annotating a low-resource language with LLOD technology: Sumerian morphology and syntax. Information 9(11), 290 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    C. Chiarcos, B. Kosmehl, C. Fäth, M. Sukhareva, Analyzing Middle High German syntax with RDF and SPARQL, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Miyazaki (2018)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    C. Chiarcos, K. Donandt, H. Sargsian, M. Ionov, J. Wichers Schreur, Towards LLOD-based language contact studies. A case study in interoperability, in Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL), Miyazaki (May 2018)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    F. Khan, A. Bellandi, F. Boschetti, M. Monachini, The challenges of converting legacy lexical resources to linked open data using OntoLex-Lemon: the case of the intermediate Lidell-Scott lexicon, in Proceedings of the LDK Workshops: OntoLex, TIAD and Challenges for Wordnets, Galway, Ireland (2017), pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    H. Hockerts, Zertifiziertes biographisches Wissen im Netz. Die “Deutsche Biographie” auf dem Weg zum zentralen historisch-biographischen Informationssystem für den deutschsprachigen Raum. Akademie Aktuell 37(4), 3–36 (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    S. Lohmann, P. Heim, T. Stegemann, J. Ziegler, The RelFinder user interface: interactive exploration of relationships between objects of interest, in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2010), pp. 421–422Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    T. Elliott, S. Gillies, Pleiades: the un-GIS for ancient geography. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 22, 1091 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    L. Isaksen, R. Simon, E.T. Barker, P. de Soto Cañamares, Pelagios and the emerging graph of ancient world data, in Proceedings of the International ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci) (ACM, New York, 2014), pp. 197–201Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    R. Simon, E. Barker, L. Isaksen, P. de Soto Cañamares, Linked data annotation without the pointy brackets: introducing Recogito 2. J. Map Geogr. Libr. 13(1), 111 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    F. Diehr, M. Brodhun, S. Gronemeyer, K. Diederichs, C. Prager, E. Wagner, N. Grube, Ein digitaler Zeichenkatalog als Organisationssystem für die noch nicht entzifferte Schrift der Klassischen Maya, in Proceedings of Wissensorganisation 2017: 15. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) (WissOrg’17). German Chapter of the ISKO (Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, 2018), pp. 37–43.  https://doi.org/10.17169/FUDOCS_document_000000028863
  52. 52.
    E. Förstemann, Commentary on the Maya Manuscripts in the Royal Public Library of Dresden (The Peabody Museum, Cambridge, 1906)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    H. Neuroth, F. Lohmeier, K.M. Smith, TextGrid–virtual research environment for the humanities. Int. J. Digit. Curation 6(2), 222 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    J. Thompson, A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1962)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    K. Baldinger, Dictionnaire Étymologique de l’ancien français – DEAF (Presses de L’Université Laval/Niemeyer/De Gruyter, Québec, Canada/Tübingen/Berlin, Germany, since 1971). Kurt Baldinger (founder), continued by Frankwalt Möhren, published under the direction of Thomas Städtler; electronic version DEAF. https://deaf-server.adw.uni-heidelberg.de. Accessed 24.12.2017
  56. 56.
    S. Tittel, C. Chiarcos, Historical lexicography of old French and linked open data: transforming the resources of the Dictionnaire Étymologique de l’ancien français with OntoLex-Lemon, in Proceedings of the LREC-2018 GLOBALEX Workshop (GLOBALEX-2018) (Miyazaki, Japan, accepted)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    S. Tittel, Die Anathomie in der Grande Chirurgie des Gui de Chauliac: Wort- und sachgeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Edition (Niemeyer, Tübingen, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    S. Tittel, C. Chiarcos, Using RDFa to link text and dictionary data for medieval French, in Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL): Towards Linguistic Data Science (European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Paris, 2018)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    T. Blanke, G. Bodard, M. Bryant, S. Dunn, M. Hedges, M. Jackson, D. Scott, Linked data for humanities research—the SPQR experiment, in Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST) (IEEE, Piscataway, 2012), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    J.L. Hardesty, Transitioning from XML to RDF: considerations for an effective move towards linked data and the Semantic Web. Inform. Technol. Libr. 35(1), 51 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    G. Barabucci, A. Di Iorio, S. Peroni, F. Poggi, F. Vitali, Annotations with EARMARK in practice: a fairy tale, in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Collaborative Annotations in Shared Environment: Metadata, Vocabularies and Techniques in the Digital Humanities (2013), p. 11Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    P. Ruiz Fabo, H. Bermúdez Sabel, C.I. Martínez Cantón, E. González-Blanco, B. Navarro-Colorado, The diachronic Spanish sonnet corpus (DISCO): TEI and linked open data encoding, data distribution and metrical findings, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Humanities (DH) (Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2018), pp. 486–489Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, J. Unsworth (eds.), A New Companion to Digital Humanities (Wiley, Chichester, 2016)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    J. Flanders, F. Jannidis (eds.), The Shape of Data in Digital Humanities. Modelling Texts and Text-Based Resources. Digital Research in the Arts and the Humanities (Routledge, Abingdon, New York, 2019)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    S. Van Hooland, R. Verborgh, Linked Data for Libraries, Archives and Museums: How to Clean, Link and Publish Your Metadata (Neal-Shuman/Facet, Chicago, 2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Semantic Computing GroupBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Angewandte ComputerlinguistikGoethe-UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Insight Centre for Data AnalyticsNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A)University of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations