Building an API is not enough! Investigating Reuse of Cultural Heritage Data

The Europeana cultural heritage archive has a wealth of digital content that can be used for a variety of purposes, both by researchers and practitioners in the community. Vicky Garnett and Jennifer Edmond chart the progression of research into how this content is being used and accessed and what technical requirements would improve the digital archive’s development. For example, is an API the answer? How big a part do web-services actually play in their overall research? One of the most common problems participants have reported encountering is the quality of the metadata in the content they are accessing. If the metadata can’t be relied on, neither can the results

APIs and Researchers: The Emperor's New Clothes?

As part of the Europeana Cloud (eCloud) project, Trinity College Dublin investigated best practice in the use of web services, such as APIs, for accessing large data sets from cultural heritage collections. This research looked into the provision and use of APIs, and moreover, whether or not more customised programmatic access to datasets is what researchers want or need. In order to understand whether current patterns of API usage reflect a skills gap on the part of researchers or a mismatch of tool to purpose, we looked not only at the creators and developer/users of APIs, but also at humanists already re-using big data; approaches in cultural heritage institutions and other research infrastructures to bring API use to non-technical audiences; and the kinds of training and other support services available or emerging within the data-intensive humanities research lifecycle. We conducted both desk research and a series of 11 interviews with figures working as researchers, developers or data providers, including figures from both the API development and the data usage communities. This research, conducted under the eCloud project and supported by the European Commission’s ICT Policy and Support Programme (Grant number 325091), was begun in March 2014 and is now in its concluding validation stage. The results of the research are not yet finalised, but the contribution is already emerging of this work to the debate about APIs being either the way forward for digital cultural heritage collections, or the Emperor’s New Clothes (or maybe a bit of both)

D5.3 National Meetings Reports 2012

In 2012, DigCurV Partners organised or attended National Meetings for the express purpose of promoting the activities of DigCurV and the Curriculum Framework development. At each meeting, the rationale behind the lenses was discussed, and the uses of lenses themselves were explained. Many partners used the meetings as a means to promote DigCurV. UGOE suggest that their meeting ‘…served as a platform for the exchange of experiences...’ and highlighted how useful the meeting was for networking. Other partners found other useful feedback from the meetings, particularly with regards to promoting future events, discussing the Curriculum Framework in its current form, and using the CURATE! game as a means of raising topics for discussion. This report looks at each national meeting in turn by country of the reporting partner. Details of the reports are presented in sections looking at the audience profile of the event, the outcomes of the meetings, and the impact of the meeting. The report concludes with a summary of the feedback and information taken from each meetng, and present recommendatons for future meetngs and work of the network

Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications

A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 31176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research Fellowship

Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framewor

58 pages, 5 figures, 3 tables- The World Economic Forum now ranks biodiversity loss as a top-five risk to the global economy, and the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework proposes an expansion of conservation areas to 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 (hereafter the “30% target”), using protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). - Two immediate concerns are how much a 30% target might cost and whether it will cause economic losses to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. - Conservation areas also generate economic benefits (e.g. revenue from nature tourism and ecosystem services), making PAs/Nature an economic sector in their own right. - If some economic sectors benefit but others experience a loss, high-level policy makers need to know the net impact on the wider economy, as well as on individual sectors. [...]A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 311176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research FellowshipPeer reviewe

Digital Humanities Benelux

[Extract from the Introduction] Research Infrastructures are becoming an increasingly distinct presence in the landscape of the digital humanities, creating unique research ecosystems that interact with, but remain distinct from, the traditional university-based ones. It is a research sector still very much in the process of defining itself, however, in particular in the arts and humanities, not only in terms of how exactly infrastructures support research but also in terms of how a word with such ?hard? connotations (conjuring up images of roads and bridges) can encompass the many ?soft? resources and skills, from data to know-how, that we now recognise as a part of infrastructural provision for research in Europe. This tension is already present in how research infrastructure is defined, with some camps preferring to fall back on long lists of elements infrastructure may or may not comprise, such as data, services and tools, while others remain more theoretical, placing them in the role of ?mediating? (Badenoch and Flickers, 2010) or ?below the level of the work? (Edwards et al, 2007: 17). Regardless of how we conceptualise it, however, infrastructure is undeniable as a rising presence, with a growing impact on how research is conceptualised and carried out, how research results are communicated and shared, and how the potential scale of a humanities project can be conceptualised

Early Career Researchers and Research Infrastructures: Barriers and Pathways to Engagement

Abstract and poster of paper 0628 presented at the Digital Humanities Conference 2019 (DH2019), Utrecht , the Netherlands 9-12 July, 2019

D7.4 Advocacy report

• To the extent that is has been theorised, work on DH pedagogy has tended to be very strongly tied to the classroom experience. A classroom experience, however, exists within a particular social and institutional framework (students seeking knowledge, experience or qualification from instructors who master a specific body of knowledge) which is quite different from the operational and distributed nature of Research Infrastructures such as DARIAH.• Research infrastructures seldom possess the kinds of specialised procedures, staff, resources and expertise to deliver formal educational programmes, but the strength of RI’s lies in the provision of and reflection upon the experience of acculturation and professionalization in “real” cross-institutional and often cross-cultural projects in which peer learning, skills transfers and network building are a rule rather than an exception.• Research Infrastructures such as DARIAH have a specific role to play in the European educational landscape by complementing rather than replacing the pedagogical models prevalent in HEIs today.• RI’s such as DARIAH should focus not only on DH or even on a discipline in which a student or researcher seeks to use DH methodologies, but also on highlighting how these practices engage interdependent communities of practice with intersecting concerns.• DARIAH should intensify effort to position itself as pedagogically relevant beyond the individual humanities disciplines in terms of what it can contribute to the development and dissemination of early-career researchers’ transferable skills and competences as identified by the Eurodoc 2018 Report.• DARIAH should establish an active educational partnership network in order to validate a new approach to the skills needs of humanities students and researchers, looking beyond the frame of what is currently available in the context of formal educational programmes.• DARIAH should develop a curricular model and, if possible, an internship program, to enable fluid exchange of knowledge and students between university programmes and the applied contexts of the research infrastructure.• DARIAH should continue to create and maintain essential filtering and contextualising layers for training materials, which are now available throughDARIAH-Campus, in order to coordinate and enhance open educational resources with other stakeholders in the field.• DARIAH should aim to apply and test its learning resources in different HE contexts in order to profit from unforeseen synergies and unexpected outcomes such as, for instance, the initiative to publish young researchers’ data papers using the DARIAH-Campus Event Capture Template, which emerged out of the DESIR Workshop at the University of Neuchâtel.• Building on currently identified needs, DARIAH should develop foresight models to predict future needs within the Higher Education sector

D7.4 Advocacy report

• To the extent that is has been theorised, work on DH pedagogy has tended to be very strongly tied to the classroom experience. A classroom experience, however, exists within a particular social and institutional framework (students seeking knowledge, experience or qualification from instructors who master a specific body of knowledge) which is quite different from the operational and distributed nature of Research Infrastructures such as DARIAH.• Research infrastructures seldom possess the kinds of specialised procedures, staff, resources and expertise to deliver formal educational programmes, but the strength of RI’s lies in the provision of and reflection upon the experience of acculturation and professionalization in “real” cross-institutional and often cross-cultural projects in which peer learning, skills transfers and network building are a rule rather than an exception.• Research Infrastructures such as DARIAH have a specific role to play in the European educational landscape by complementing rather than replacing the pedagogical models prevalent in HEIs today.• RI’s such as DARIAH should focus not only on DH or even on a discipline in which a student or researcher seeks to use DH methodologies, but also on highlighting how these practices engage interdependent communities of practice with intersecting concerns.• DARIAH should intensify effort to position itself as pedagogically relevant beyond the individual humanities disciplines in terms of what it can contribute to the development and dissemination of early-career researchers’ transferable skills and competences as identified by the Eurodoc 2018 Report.• DARIAH should establish an active educational partnership network in order to validate a new approach to the skills needs of humanities students and researchers, looking beyond the frame of what is currently available in the context of formal educational programmes.• DARIAH should develop a curricular model and, if possible, an internship program, to enable fluid exchange of knowledge and students between university programmes and the applied contexts of the research infrastructure.• DARIAH should continue to create and maintain essential filtering and contextualising layers for training materials, which are now available throughDARIAH-Campus, in order to coordinate and enhance open educational resources with other stakeholders in the field.• DARIAH should aim to apply and test its learning resources in different HE contexts in order to profit from unforeseen synergies and unexpected outcomes such as, for instance, the initiative to publish young researchers’ data papers using the DARIAH-Campus Event Capture Template, which emerged out of the DESIR Workshop at the University of Neuchâtel.• Building on currently identified needs, DARIAH should develop foresight models to predict future needs within the Higher Education sector

Developing and Integrating Training Materials on Research Infrastructures into Higher Education course design: The PARTHENOS Experience

Abstract of paper 0392 presented at the Digital Humanities Conference 2019 (DH2019), Utrecht , the Netherlands 9-12 July, 2019