Towards a FAIR(er) Epigraphy

The potential of digital methods for enhancing epigraphic study has long been recognised. Individual tools and techniques support the core work of epigraphists, such as text databases and digital imaging. The development of the EpiDoc TEI standard has enabled the detailed encoding of epigraphic texts in machine-readable format. However, it is in the move towards full epigraphic editions in digital form, and therefore digital corpora, that a fundamental challenge has emerged, less technical, more cultural (Panciera 2012: 273). The essence of this challenge can be seen in the emergence of major database projects and particularly the federal approach adopted in 2003 by EDR, EDH, EDB and HEpOnl (Bodel 2012: 285); and in the bold attempt by the EAGLE project (2013-2016) to aggregate the data of these and other projects (Liuzzo 2015 and 2018 on the challenges). As with all corpora projects there are limits to resource and capacity, combined with disciplinary specialisation, resulting in a fragmented landscape; and yet the ambition of the digital approach is the potential of ‘big’ data (whether for machine-learning, e.g. Assael et al. 2022, quantitative analysis, e.g. Heřmánková et al. 2021, or socio-linguistics, e.g. https://latinnow.eu/). Combining and re-using data requires that the data be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable, i.e. FAIR (Wilkinson et al. 2016); but at present the majority of digital epigraphic data does not meet these requirements.

The FAIR Epigraphy project aims to support the development of tools and best practice for the implementation of FAIR approaches to digital epigraphy. A survey of digital projects in 2022 (Heřmánková et al. 2022) identified core needs and concerns. Specific tools have already been developed to facilitate interoperability, some in direct response to the survey:

• A free user interface for the Trismegistos TexRelations Matcher API, enabling the easy
  alignment of epigraphic identifiers across projects: https://id-resolver.inscriptiones.org/
• A Linked Open Data bibliography, to provide stable, citeable and reusable bibliographic data
  for epigraphic projects, beginning with the AIEGL-sponsored Greek epigraphic abbreviations
  list: https://biblio.inscriptiones.org/

Building on the work of the https://epigraphy.info/ community, the FAIR Epigraphy project advocates the use of a Linked Open Data approach, with individual projects sharing data through the use of the RDF (Resource Description Framework) standard (see https://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Linked_Open_Data). The project aims to develop and host a RDF triple store to serve this ambition. The above tools support such an approach, but the larger need is:

1. a set of community-agreed standards (vocabularies) for epigraphic data (as trialled by the EAGLE vocabularies (https://www.eagle-network.eu/resources/vocabularies/); compare the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/). Work is currently underway to develop a ‘bottom-up’ alignment of existing project standards. 
2. A conceptual framework (ontology) for the connecting of distinct items of epigraphic data. A 
   preliminary epigraphic ontology (Bodard et al. 2021) provides a starting point, and a proof-of-concept demonstrates that this already works with existing data (https://browser.inscriptiones.org/). Work is underway to develop this further.

The proposed poster will present this work, for which we seek the collaboration of the wider epigraphic community.

• References
  Assael, Y., Sommerschield, T., Shillingford, B., Bordbar, M., Pavlopoulos, J., Chatzipanagiotou, M., Androutsopoulos, I., Prag, J. and de Freitas, N. (2022) “Restoring and attributing ancient texts using deep neural networks”, Nature 603 (7900), 280‑283.
• Bodel, J. (2012) “Latin Epigraphy and the IT Revolution”, in J.K. Davies and J.J. Wilkes (eds), Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences (Oxford), 275‑296.
• Heřmánková, P., Kaše, V. and Sobotková, A. (2021) “Inscriptions as data: digital epigraphy in macro-historical perspective”, Journal of Digital Humanities 1 (http://doi.org/10.1515/JDH-2021-1004?locatt=label:IDHFULL).
• Heřmánková, P., Horster, M., and Prag, J. (2022) “Digital Epigraphy in 2022: A Report from the Scoping Survey of the FAIR Epigraphy Project (v1.0.0)”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6610696.
• Liuzzo, P.M. (2015) “EAGLE and EUROPEANA: Architecture Problems for Aggregation and Harmonization”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Cultural Heritage Markup. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, 16 (http://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol16.Liuzzo01).
• Liuzzo, P.M. (2018) “EAGLE Continued: IDEA. The International Digital Epigraphy Association”, in A. De Santis and I. Rossi (eds), Crossing Experiences in Digital Epigraphy: From Practice to Discipline (Warsaw, Berlin), 216-230.
• Panciera, S. (2012) “Epigraphy and Informatics”, in J.K. Davies and J.J. Wilkes (eds), Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences (Oxford), 271‑273.
• Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Mons, B., et al. (2016) “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship”, Scientific Data 3 (1), 1‑9.