Beyond Embedded Markup
0 likes265 views
This document summarizes John Unsworth's discussion of different phases in digital humanities and related technological developments. It notes that digital humanities has progressed from a focus on tools in earlier phases, to primary sources more recently, and appears to be shifting back to a focus on tools. It also discusses how forms of attention to information have changed from processing content algorithmically on mainframes, to visualization on PCs, remote access and display on the web, and now processing information content using semantic web technologies. Finally, it briefly discusses data representation and processing languages used in digital humanities like XML, XSLT and XQuery.
![20 July 2012
Digital Humanities 2012
University of Hamburg 9
Document
and
Text
A
literary
criDc's
answer:
“The
text
is
not
a
physical
reality
at
all
but
a
concept-‐limit
[
Grenzbegriff
].”
“The
nature
of
the
text
is
not
material
[...]
the
text
is
only’
and
‘always
an
image.”
C.
Segre,
Introduc2on
to
the
analysis
of
the
literary
text,
Bloomington,
Ind.,
Indiana
University
Press,
1988,
pp.
301,
315
.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/hamburg12-introd-130420113044-phpapp01/85/Beyond-Embedded-Markup-9-320.jpg)
Beyond Embedded Markup
- 1. 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 1 Beyond Embedded Markup Dino Buzze4 University of Bologna Manfred Thaller University at Cologne
- 2. John Unsworth 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 2 J. Unsworth (2004), Forms of A/en2on: Digital Humani2es Beyond Representa2on : forms of a(en+on (Frank Kermode) change over 2me we are, I think, on the verge of what seems to me the third major phase in humaniDes compuDng, which has moved from tools in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, to primary sources in the 80s and 90s, and now seems to be moving back to tools I think we are arriving at a moment when the form of the aEenDon that we pay to primary source materials is shiFing from digiDzing to analyzing, from ar2facts to aggregates, and from representaDon to abstracDon
- 3. Digital HumaniDes phases 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 3 tools – processing primary sources – representaDon tools – processing
- 4. Technological innovaDon phases different phases from mainframes PC s and stand-‐alone worksta2ons the World Wide Web the SemanDc Web to 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 4
- 5. Forms of aEenDon phases from mainframes – algorithms to process informaDon content PC s – WYSIWYG systems : visualizaDon World Wide Web – remote access and display SemanDc Web – technologies to process informaDon content to 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 5
- 6. Languages 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 6 Data representaDon languages SGML, HTML, XML Data processing languages XSLT, XPath, XQuery
- 7. What do we process ? 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 7 XSLT takes a tree structure as its input, and generates another tree structure as its output Michael Kay (2005), What Kind of Language is XSLT? An analysis and overview h/p://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-‐xslt/
- 8. Strategic choices 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 8 database community vs document community – the database community chose to standardize the semanDcs of data – the document community chose to standardize the representaDon of data D. Raymond et al. ‘From Data Representa2on to Data Model: Meta-‐seman2c issues in the evolu2on of SGML’, in Computer Standards & Interfaces, 18 (1996), 25-‐36, p. 27.
- 9. 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 9 Document and Text A literary criDc's answer: “The text is not a physical reality at all but a concept-‐limit [ Grenzbegriff ].” “The nature of the text is not material [...] the text is only’ and ‘always an image.” C. Segre, Introduc2on to the analysis of the literary text, Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University Press, 1988, pp. 301, 315 .
- 10. The scholarly community 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 10 A/empts to define semanDcs in the scholarly community, most notably the Text Encoding Ini2a2ve, similarly met with resistance. Thus, the route proposed by SGML was a reasonable one: promote the no2on of applicaDon and machine independence, and provide a base on which seman2cs could eventually be developed, but avoid actually specifying a seman2cs D. Raymond et al. From Data Representa2on to Data Model: Meta-‐seman2c issues in the evolu2on of SGML, in «Computer Standards & Interfaces», 18 (1996), 25-‐36, pp. 27-‐28.
- 11. Some inadequacies of embedded markup 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 11 basically processing informa2on content but also representaDon of textual variants (overlapping)
- 12. Proposed soluDons LMNL – Wendell Piez Extended Strings – Manfred Thaller CATMA, CLÉA – Jan Christof Meister Standoff properDes – Desmond Schmidt 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 12
- 13. Beyond RepresentaDon 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 13 “We need (we s2ll need) to demonstrate the usefulness of all the stuff we have digi2zed over the last decade and more – and usefulness not just in the form of increased access, but specifically, in what we can do with the stuff once we get it.” J. Unsworth (2003), Tool-‐Time, or “Haven’t We Been Here Already?” Ten Years in Humani2es Compu2ng
- 14. Embedded vs Standoff ? 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 14 Data vs InformaDon Expression vs Content Different structures and different representaDons We need both We need to find ways to relate the two different structures
- 15. Thank you ! 20 July 2012 Digital Humanities 2012 University of Hamburg 15