Understanding the phenomenology of reading through modelling

Tracking #: 2429-3643

Alessio Antonini
Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
Alessandro Adamou
Francesca Benatti
François Vignale
Guillaume Gravier
Lucia Lupi

Responsible editor: 
Special Issue Cultural Heritage 2019

Submission type: 
Ontology Description
Large scale cultural heritage datasets and computational methods for the humanities research framework are the two pillars of Digital Humanities (DH), a research field aiming to expand humanities studies beyond specific sources and periods to address macroscope research questions on broad human phenomena. In this regard, the development of machine-readable semantically enriched data models based on a cross-disciplinary "language" of phenomena is critical for achieving the interoperability of research data. This paper reports, documents, and discusses the development of a model for the study of reading experiences as part of the EU JPI-CH project Reading Europe Advanced Data Investigation Tool (READ-IT). Through the discussion of the READ-IT ontology of reading experience, this contribution will highlight and address three challenges emerging from the development of a conceptual model for the support of research on cultural heritage. Firstly, this contribution addresses modelling for multi-disciplinary research. Secondly, this work addresses the development of an ontology of reading experience, under the light of the experience of previous projects, and of ongoing and future research developments. Lastly, this contribution addresses the validation of a conceptual model in the context of ongoing research, the lack of a consolidated set of theories and of a consensus of domain experts.
Full PDF Version: 

Minor Revision

Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
By Pietro Liuzzo submitted on 12/Mar/2020
Minor Revision
Review Comment:

The major weakness of this paper remains readability. The style of the paper is still fragmentary and difficult to follow. A large amount of english revision is still required.

page 1 "macroscope questions" should be changed with a more appropriate english phrase in the entire paper, I could not find other occurrences of this despite searching.

page 3 column 2 micro-sale --> micro-scale

page 5 column 1 "described from a bibliographical take" should be changed with a better english phrase

page 5 columns 1 and 2 my previous observation about the citation of the LAWD ontology has apparently not been taken into consideration. I think the quoted concept of reading is quite different from the ones under investigation and I find the quoted definition, unrelated to the context, not really useful. I would suggest to either motivate why would this be related if at all, or simply leave this out.

page 5, columns 1 and 2 look at the citation of the the LED ontologies, they are the same on the two columns. I think this is enough of a repetition, in parallel places on the page, so also quite visible.

page 6 column 1 something is missing or needs to be changed in the sentence "Computational expressiveness, in terms of e.g. which specific description logic family the ontology belongs to"

page 7 column 2 aims collecting

page 9 column 2 "as well the scope of their data model" something is missing

Fig 4 is not readable and of bad quality

page 10 column 2, perhaps a valid synonim for source can be found for the sentence "annotations of sources and sources (Research Data) about reading"

page 14 column 2, "The Reading Experience Ontology is mostly
aimed to support the encoding of annotations of a
wide variety of sources and produced through
different approaches" something in this sentence is missing or perhaps "and" is superfluous, in which case the name to which produced refers would become ambiguous.

Fig 12. :r1 in the picture, :read1 in the caption.

page 18 column 2 perhaps a reference could be provided for the statement "The characterisation of the effects of reading on the
reader’s mind is one of the major aims of the current
research on reading."

Fig 13, is not coherent with its caption, which uses different entities names.

Fig 15 r2 was better than r2. --> r1 ?

page 20 column 1 "and the research questions of
expressed in the use cases" perhaps should be without "of" ?

Review #2
Anonymous submitted on 09/Apr/2020
Review Comment:

The authors have thoroughly addressed the remarks I have made, the paper is more comprehensive and from a methodological point of view, it can be useful for many projects who'd like to model complex phenomena in SHS with ontologies and specifically relying on CIDOC-CRM.

Minor and very few issues:
- in fig4. the same example is used in 'ethical' et "aesthetical' categories.
- to rephrase : "therefore relies upon the existing event ontology literature:", something is missing in this phrase, a preposition maybe.

Review #3
By Roberta Ferrario submitted on 13/Apr/2020
Review Comment:

I believe the authors have done a really great effort to integrate the paper with the suggestions I made through my comment. I would say that I am satisfied of the work done and the paper is now for me acceptable for publication.
Only a minor point: at the end of p. 19/beginning of p. 20 there is the issue of comparability of two reading events. For me it is still not clear at all which are the criteria to say that two events are comparable or not and how the state of mind allows to compare events along certain aspects and not others is still not clear for me. I would suggest to make more explicit this part.