• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2013-2022close
• Other ORP type close
• EU close
• NARCIS close

The aim of this report is to present to its stakeholders (researchers, policy makers, cultural heritage institutions, research infrastructures, archives) a series of recommendations and guidelines about which policies to apply during and after their research or infrastructure work. “During their research work”, because policies on data and repositories guide the data creator to produce high quality data; “after their research work”, because policies on access and reuse help make the data more accessible and reusable. The research communities are: Archaeology, History, Language related studies and social sciences.

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.

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

This document aims to specify the service design of the ARIADNE portal, and provide a common vision, a user perspective on the functionality, and a framework to identify, discuss and validate the requirements for the underlying technical services.

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.