• Other research productsclose
• Open Access close
• Other ORP type close
• NARCIS close
• DARIAH EU close

This report addresses the ARIADNE project objectives and the framework of the impact evaluation, summarises the overall results, and gives recommendations for ARIADNE and other stakeholders with a focus on potential further advances.

Publishing research data as open data is not yet common practice for researchers in the arts and humanities, and lags behind other scientific fields, such as the natural sciences. Moreover, even when humanities researchers publish their data in repositories and archives, these data are often hard to find and use by other researchers in the field. This report gives an overview of the various aspects that are connected to open access publishing of research data in the humanities. After the introduction, where we give definitions of key concepts, we describe the research data life cycle. We present an overview of the different stakeholders involved and we look into advantages and obstacles for researchers to share research data. Furthermore, a description of the European data repositories is given, followed by certification standards of trusted digital data repositories. The possibility of data citation is important for sharing open data and is also described in this report. We also discuss the standards and use of metadata in the humanities. Finally, we discuss best practice example of open access research data system in the humanities: the French open research data ecosystem. With this report we provide information and guidance on open access publishing of humanities research data for researchers. It will also serve as input for the design and implementation of an open humanities data platform in DARIAH.

In deze publicatie geeft het Rathenau Instituut feitelijke informatie over het belang en de betekenis van het Europese onderzoeksbeleid en met name de European Research Area (ERA) voor het wetenschappelijk onderzoek in Nederland.

The CENDARI project committed in its original description of work to the production of a Business Plan (Deliverable 2.4), outlining a method statement for ensuring that the outputs of the CENDARI project would be available to future users. The project team decided to rename this deliverable the CENDARI “Sustainability Plan” and this document sets out the plan which is based upon a multidimensional conceptualisation of what CENDARI is and the value of its assets, as well as on the fundamental understanding of a digital project as useless if it does not ‘evolve and involve.’ This document presents not only the actions that have been and will continue to be taken by the CENDARI team, but also interrogates the topic of sustainability of research infrastructures

While the acquisition and curation of heterogeneous data in a single repository presents a technical challenge in itself, the ingestion of data into the CENDARI repository also opens up the possibility to process and index them through data extraction, entity recognition, semantic enhancement and other transformations. In this way the CENDARI project was able to act as a bridge between cultural heritage institutions and historical researchers, insofar as it drew together holdings from a broad range of institutions and enabled the browsing of this heterogeneous content within a single search space. This document describes a broad range of ways in which the CENDARI project acquired data from cultural heritage institutions as well as the necessary technical background. In exemplifying diverse data creation or acquisition strategies, multiple formats and technical solutions, assets and drawbacks of a repository, this “White Book” aims at providing guidance and advice as well as best practices for archivists and cultural heritage institutions collaborating or planning to collaborate with infrastructure projects.

This article reports about the on-going work on a new version of the metadata framework Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI), central to the CLARIN infrastructure. Version 1.2 introduces a number of important changes based on the experience gathered in the last five years of intensive use of CMDI by the digital humanities community, addressing problems encountered, but also introducing new functionality. Next to the consolidation of the structure of the model and schema sanity, new means for lifecycle management have been introduced aimed at combatting the observed proliferation of components, new mechanism for use of external vocabularies will contribute to more consistent use of controlled values and cues for tools will allow improved presentation of the metadata records to the human users. The feature set has been frozen and approved, and the infrastructure is now entering a transition phase, in which all the tools and data need to be migrated to the new version.

This report was produced in the context of the project Data Service Infrastructure for the Social Sciences and Humanities (DASISH) work package 4.3 Convergence of Data Services. The goal has been to allow the selection and promotion of high-quality deposit services for researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and to make suggestions for service improvements.

The aim of this task was to analyse and compare the different metadata strategies of CLARIN, DARIAH and CESSDA, and to identify possibilities of cross-fertilization to take profit from each other solutions where possible. To have a better understanding in which stages of the research lifecycle metadata comes to the fore, we looked at several research data lifecycles and business process models. However the current research data lifecycle models have the ‘static’ data object as basis, whereas metadata design , redesign, creation and management can continue to be ‘live’ issues within the research lifecycle. We therefore developed a metadata lifecycle based closely on familiar lifecycle models but extended to support the more dynamic metadata issues. To describe the metadata management of the different infrastructures we took a double approach. We looked on a more general level and outlined the policies and strategies regarding metadata of the three infrastructures. We evaluated these strategies on metadata qua lity issues with the Bruce and Hillmann criteria. On the other hand we looked with more detail how the work on metadata management is done by the individual data repositories. The infrastructures of CESSDA, CLARIN and DARIAH differ in visions, strategies and initiatives regarding metadata issues; similarly there is a difference in metadata management among the various repositories. Despite these differences, cross fertilisation by coordination on common lists of metadata elements, sharing of knowledge, and linking resources would leverage the overall metadata quality. Evaluation of the prototype of the joint CLARIN, DARIAH and CESSDA metadata portal endorses the opinion that more coordination is needed. Metadata quality must be discussed in relation to the activities for which they are used. We suggest that the infrastructures DARIAH and CLARIN prioritise future collaboration about standardisation efforts, which have already been in itialised in dialogue between the CLARIN Standards Committee and the DARIAH representatives. Similar initiatives could be established with CESSDA.