Alison Langmead

Computers cannot see, at least not in any way that is recognizably human, and therefore cannot participate in aesthetic discourse.

Our workshop, which will take place on November 13, 2015, takes this provocative stance as an axiomatic point of departure. But rather than praise or blame either humans or computers for this disjuncture, we are interested in exploring the consequences of this position. Can we find a way to pivot from the language of anthropomorphism, as in “computers cannot do what humans do,” in order to provide a better description of the interface between human vision and technologically-aided modes of perception? How might interrogating the deep history of works of art produced computationally, and yet prior to the digital age, provide insight into the current state of the question? By scrutinizing the intersections and misalignments between a number of different fields that have privileged visual perception (both human and computer), this workshop confronts the challenge of how digital technologies can aid in the study visual and material culture.

While computers cannot “see,” there are things that they can perceive better than humans, just as there are many things that humans perceive better than computers. Recognizing these simple facts might become generative of a new mode of scholarship that unites different disciplines invested in visual perception. By bringing together scholars from the humanities and computer science, this workshop will draw attention to the limits of computing aesthetics. Pointing out limits, we believe, is essentially providing challenges and opportunities for the creation of new knowledge.

Thus, we are interested in signaling a few things:

How might digital technologies help humanists better understand the human-created, visible world, especially in the realm of value judgements;
How might humanists help computer scientists better understand potential uses for digitally-aided modes of visual perception, and;
What new questions can emerge when scholars in the humanities unite with computer scientists to bring human vision into productive tension with computational power?

This workshop will take place from 9am to 5pm in the 3rd floor Collaboration Space in the School of Information Sciences (135 N. Bellefield Avenue) at the University of Pittsburgh. In the morning session, which will take place from 9am-noon, four scholars actively engaged in the question of the role of the digital computer in the world of the humanities will offer four personal viewpoints on these essential questions arising from the point of view of their own research:

Thomas Lombardi,Computing and Information Studies, Washington and Jefferson College
Benjamin C. Tilghman,  Art History, Lawrence University
Alison Langmead, School of Information Sciences and History of Art and Architecture, University of Pittsburgh
Christopher Nygren, History of Art and Architecture, University of Pittsburgh
Adriana Kovashka, Computer Science, University of Pittsburgh

The afternoon session will take the form of a faceted conversation between the participants, including the presenters, in order to delve more deeply into the three main questions posed above. Those staying for both sessions will be treated to lunch at noon.

Scholars have long been interested in networks. Networks of scholarly exchange, trade, kinship, and patronage are some of the many such longstanding subjects of study. Recent and ongoing digital humanities projects are now considering networks with fresh approaches and increasingly complex datasets. At the heart of these digital projects are ‘network ontologies’ — functional data models for distilling the complicated, messy connections between historical people, objects, and places. Although scholars creating network ontologies necessarily focus on different types of content, if these networks are to form a coherent body of scholarship in the future, we must work towards the creation interoperable ontological structures, rather than yet another set of competing standards.

Here we examine the methodological considerations behind designing such interoperable ontologies, focusing primarily on the example of Early Modern historical networks. We argue that it would be infeasible to adopt a single ontological standard for all possible digital humanities projects; flexibility is essential to accommodate all subjects and objects of humanistic enquiry, from the micro-level to the longue-durée. However, we believe it possible to establish shared practices to structure these network ontologies on an ongoing basis in order to ensure their long-term interoperability.

Metadata that is associated with either an information system or an information object for purposes of description, administration, legal requirements, technical functionality, use and usage, and preservation, plays a critical role in ensuring the creation, management, preservation and use and re-use of trustworthymaterials, including records. Recordkeeping1 metadata, of which one key type is archival description, plays a particularly important role in documenting the reliability and authenticity of records and recordkeeping systemsas well as the various contexts (legal-administrative, provenancial, procedural, documentary, and technical) within which records are created and kept as they move across space and time. In the digital environment, metadata is also the means by which it is possible to identify how record components – those constituent aspects of a digital record that may be managed, stored and used separately by the creator or the preserver – can be reassembled to generate an authentic copy of a record or reformulated per a user’s request as a customized output package.
Issues relating to the creation, capture, management and preservation of adequate metadata are, therefore, integral to any research study addressing the reliability and authenticity of digital entities, regardless of the community, sector or institution within which they are being created. The InterPARES 2 Description Cross-Domain Group (DCD) examined the conceptualization, definitions, roles, and current functionality of metadata and archival description in terms of requirements generated by InterPARES 12. Because of the needs to communicate the work of InterPARES in a meaningful way across not only other disciplines, but also different archival traditions; to interface with, evaluate and inform existing standards, practices and other research projects; and to ensure interoperability across the three focus areas of InterPARES2, the Description Cross-Domain also addressed its research goals with reference to wider thinking about and developments in recordkeeping and metadata.
InterPARES2 addressed not only records, however, but a range of digital information objects (referred to as “entities” by InterPARES 2, but not to be confused with the term “entities” as used in metadata and database applications) that are the products and by-products of government, scientific and artistic activities that are carried out using dynamic, interactive or experiential digital systems. The nature of these entities was determined through a diplomatic analysis undertaken as part of extensive case studies of digital systems that were conducted by the InterPARES 2 Focus Groups. This diplomatic analysis established whether the entities identified during the case studies were records, non-records that nevertheless raised important concerns relating to reliability and authenticity, or “potential records.” To be determined to be records, the entities had to meet the criteria outlined by archival theory – they had to have a fixed documentary format and stable content. It was not sufficient that they be considered to be or treated as records by the creator. “Potential records” is a new construct that indicates that a digital system has the potential to create records upon demand, but does not actually fix and set aside records in the normal course of business. The work of the Description Cross-Domain Group, therefore, addresses the metadata needs for all three categories of entities.
Finally, since “metadata” as a term is used today so ubiquitously and in so many different ways by different communities, that it is in peril of losing any specificity, part of the work of the DCD sought to name and type categories of metadata. It also addressed incentives for creators to generate appropriate metadata, as well as issues associated with the retention, maintenance and eventual disposition of the metadata that aggregates around digital entities over time.