[Humanist] 25.868 CFPs: ontology-based annotation (DH2012); grand challenges (DH2013)
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Apr 2 11:05:05 CEST 2012
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 868.
Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
 From: Christian-Emil Ore <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no> (74)
Subject: cfp: preconference workshop “Ontology based annotation”
 From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> (33)
Subject: cfp: grand challenges for the digital humanities (DH2013)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:50:34 +0200
From: Christian-Emil Ore <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>
Subject: cfp: preconference workshop “Ontology based annotation” for DH2012
CALL FOR PAPERS
Preconference workshop “Ontology based annotation” July 17th 2012 in
connection with DH2012 in Hamburg, Germany
The Network for Digital Methods in the Arts and Humanities (NeDiMAH) ,
www.nedimah.eu, is a research network running from 2011 to 2015, funded
by the European Science Foundation, ESF. The network will examine the
practice of, and evidence for, advanced ICT methods in the arts and
humanities across Europe, and disseminate findings in a series of
outputs and publications.
The NeDiMAH WG3, Linked data and ontological methods, will organise a
half day preconference workshop “Ontology based annotation” in
connection with the conference Digital Humanities 2012 in Hamburg.
Workshop format: Short presentations 15 – 20 minutes including discussion.
Deadline for submission April 30th. We will endeavour to decide on the
final workshop programme by May 15th.
Submission format: Extended abstract, ca 1000 – 1500 words
Contact address: c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Presenters of accepted papers will have their workshop fees covered.
Successful contributors will also be considered for having their travel
and accommodation expenses covered by NeDiMAH. The full papers should be
circulated before the workshop.
Motivation and background
The use of computers as tools in the study of textual material in the
humanities and cultural heritage goes back to the late 1940s, with links
back to similar methods used without computer assistance, such as word
counting in the late nineteenth century and concordances from the
fourteenth century onwards. In the sixty years of computer assisted text
research, two traditions can be seen. One is that which includes corpus
linguistics and the creation of digital scholarly editions, while the
other strain is related to museum and archival texts. In the former
tradition, texts are commonly seen as first class feasible objects of
study, which can be examined by the reader using aesthetic, linguistic
or similar methods. In the latter tradition, texts are seen mainly as a
source for information; readings concentrate on the content of the
texts, not the form of their writing. Typical examples are museum
catalogues and historical source documents.
In the end of the 1980s the historian Manfred Thaller developed Kleio, a
simple ontological annotation system for historical texts. Later in the
1990s hypertext with inline links, not databases, became the tool of
choice for textual editions (Vanhoutte 2010). In the last decade the
stand-off database approach has been reintroduced, this time in the form
of ontologies (conceptual models) often expressed in the RDF formalism
to enable its use in the linked data world, and the semantic web.
A basic assumption is that reading a text includes a process of creating
a model in the mind of the reader. Reading a novel and reading a
historical source document both result in models. These models will be
different, but they can all be manifested as explicit ontologies
expressed in computer formats. The external model stored in the computer
system will be a different model from the one stored in the mind, but it
will still be a model of the text reading. By manipulating the computer
based model new things can be learned about the text in question, or it
can be compared to other similarly-treated texts.
An objective of the workshop is to throw light on consequences and
experiences of the renewed database approach in computer assisted
textual work, based on the development in text encoding over the last
decade as well as in ontological systems.
Short discussion papers are invited on any topic that looks at the
theory or practice of ontology-based annotation, including (but not
• How do we create models, and what ontologies should we use?
• To what extent can new insight be gained by linking together the
models based on information from the texts?
• How do we relate models back to the source text?
• Can we manage an ontology-based annotation of a text in different
editions and translations?
• How do we model uncertainty in annotation, and multiple annotations?
• Can ontology based annotation be combined with crowdsourcing, and does
this ask for special types of crowds?
Øyvind Eide, King's College, London UK
Faith Lawrence, King's College, London UK
Sebastian Rahtz, University of Oxford UK
Christian-Emil Ore, University of Oslo Norway
Alois Pichler, University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:35:32 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: cfp: grand challenges for the digital humanities (DH2013)
Call for expressions of interest:
A panel/session on grand challenges for the digital humanities from the
humanities for DH2013
This is a call for expressions of interest from potential contributors
to a panel or session of brief papers that I would like to propose for
DH2013. Ideally I'd like to have about half a dozen contributions, each
of which would articulate an as yet unfulfilled vision for computing
within the context of a single discipline. I'd like a spread of
disciplines represented, e.g. literary studies (including but not
confined to English), history, philosophy, classics, music,
anthropology, cultural studies. The perspective taken should be from
whatever single discipline the proposer speaks for but be informed by
sufficient knowledge of computing to connect with the digital
humanities. A state-of-the-art report is definitely not what is called
for here, rather a state-of-the-imagination. Changing what needs to be
changed, it should be, as David Hilbert said when he proposed
problems for mathematicians to work on, "difficult in order to entice
us, yet not completely inaccessible, lest it mock at our efforts. It
should be to us a guide post on the mazy paths to hidden truths, and
ultimately a reminder of our pleasure in the successful solution"
(transl. "Mathematical Problems", Bulletin of the American Mathematical
Society 37.4: 407-36).
At this stage all that is needed is a note to me outlining what you'd
like to do.
Professor Willard McCarty, Department of Digital Humanities, King's
College London; Professor (fractional), University of Western Sydney;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.isr-journal.org); Editor,
Humanist (www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/
More information about the Humanist