A workflow model for holistic data management and semantic interoperability in quantitative archival research

Abstract

Archival research is a complicated task that involves several diverse activities for the extraction of evidence and knowledge from a set of archival documents. The involved activities are usually unconnected, in terms of data connection and flow, making difficult their recursive revision and execution, as well as the inspection of provenance information at data element level. This article proposes a workflow model for holistic data management in archival research: from transcribing and documenting a set of archival documents, to curating the transcribed data, integrating it to a rich semantic network (knowledge graph), and then exploring the integrated data quantitatively. The workflow is provenance-aware, highly recursive and focuses on semantic interoperability, aiming at the production of sustainable data of high value and long-term validity. We provide implementation details for each step of the workflow and present its application in maritime history research. We also discuss relevant quality aspects and lessons learned from its application in a real context.

Recommended 3D Workflow for Digital Heritage Practices

“…Two recently published activity processes or research workflows caught our attention, and we take them as a source of inspiration because the first one is concerned with semantic interoperability aspects in an archival context [6] and the second heuristic is rather a generic workflow in the Humanities [7]. Both things are very close to what we do at the Digital Humanities Lab of the University of Basel where we have as much a digitization service for cultural heritage institutions as academic objectives.…”

“…Fafalios et al [6] recognize the following six activities as common data management to enable semantic interoperability:…”

“…Rather than activities, he outlines six functions (Collect, Catalog, Transcribe/Translate, Identify, Analyze/Interpret, and Publish) and gives examples of either tools or standards for each function within a research workflow (see Figure 1). Another critical difference with [6] is also in the transcription approach, which is a separate post-cataloguing step inside Waters' workflow. [7] In Table 1 hereafter, we have attempted to align the two heuristics with our components by taking the approach of Fafalios et al for the digitization and transcription part while adding a long-term preservation component.…”

“…Champion and Rahaman surveyed in 2020 comparing commercials with 9 For an up-to-date overview of the major commercial online platforms, see Frey on All3DP: https://all3dp.com/1/free-3d-models-download-best-sites-3d-archive-3d 8 https://openrefine.org/ 7 Voyager is also the name of their 3D viewer. 6 https://smithsonian.github.io/dpo-cook/…”