standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Introduction
content_tags↗The Women Film Pioneers Project (WFPP) is an established online resource for research on women in early cinema. The project focuses on telling individual stories of women film pioneers and making blind spots visible in order to draw attention to the major role played by women in the early days of film history (Gaines et al. n.d.). Initially conceived in the early 1990s as a classic book project, in 2013 the WFPP was published as a digital platform with three primary goals: to make research findings available, to stimulate further research, and to challenge traditional film historical narratives that fail to mention women's contributions. However, although structured metadata is central to making research data and digital publications visible, accessible, and reusable (Baca 2016; Flanders / Jannidis 2018), content_tagsWFPP's application of metadata has been very limited. claim_typealternativesTherefore, my project aims to create structured metadata for the WFPP, enrich it with authority data, and link it in a sustainable way to other datasets on women film pioneers.
Related work
claim_relationsIn addition to feminist film historiography, the digital humanities are a central point of reference for this project, particularly approaches that address accessibility of text as data, digital publishing, categorization practices, and metadata (Blaney et al. 2021; Flanders / Jannidis 2018). concept_edgesIn order to make metadata interoperable in the sense of the FAIR data principles, it can be made available as Linked Open Data (Schmidt et al. 2022). claim_relationsIn the field of film heritage institutions, the modeling of film data as Linked Open Data has been discussed for several years (Heftberger 2019), including case studies with Wikidata (Heftberger / Duchesne 2020).
Methodology
contributionsensesWhile the initial goal of the project was to develop a thesaurus tailored to the needs of WFPP’s staff and users, content_tagsit became clear as the project progressed that a more promising approach would be to focus on reusing existing thesauri to make the data FAIR. mechanismsThis conceptual shift from developing a project-specific thesaurus to opening up the collection by sustainably linking disparate datasets on women film pioneers had several implications for the project's methodological design. limitationssensescontent_tagscontent_tagsFirst, content_tagsthe nine categories initially identified for modeling the thesaurus (person, film work, occupation, place, technique, institution, film genre, theme, and publication) senseswere reduced to four categories relevant to the structured collection of filmographies: person, film work, institution, and place. phenomenonBy creating FAIR metadata using the WFPP filmographies as an example, the project explores how the FAIR principles can be applied in feminist film historiography. method↗mechanismsconcept_edgesSecond, whereas the initial concept included a manual text analysis and annotation with CATMA to build the thesaurus in a bottom-up approach, concept_edgesthe filmographic data is now extracted using Named Entity Recognition and then modeled as LOD. mechanismssensesconcept_edgesThird, concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgesan important step in the methodology is to analyze and evaluate existing thesauri and authority files concept_edgessuch as the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), Friend of a Friend (FOAF), Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND), and Wikidata regarding their usability for feminist film historiography.
Critical reflection
From a feminist perspective, when working with Linked Open Data, it is important to ask what assumptions, biases, and power relations are inscribed in Semantic Web technologies as well as in authority files and vocabularies. Furthermore, it also involves an examination of the epistemic conditions of a structured data approach and a reflection on the specific requirements of feminist film historiography for applying the FAIR data principles. research_questionlimitationslimitationsHow can the plurality of feminist film historiography be accounted for when modeling research data as LOD requires categorization and standardization, and thus a reduction of complexity? limitationsclaim_relationsclaim_relationsHow can we incorporate feminist values into the design of categories if we assume that classification practices are never neutral but always entangled with political attitudes and values (Bowker / Star 1999; Drabinski 2013; D'Ignazio / Klein 2020)? limitationsIn the context of feminist film historiography, we also have to ask how the numerous blind spots and knowledge gaps that exist due to lost sources and the limited documentation of "feminized labor" (Hill 2016: 5) can be represented in data-based approaches (Dang 2020).
limitationslimitationsalternativesThis poster outlines the methodological approach of the project and presents preliminary results.
Acknowledgements
This project is carried out within the framework of the BMBF-funded research group “Aesthetics of Access. Visualizing Research Data on Women in Film History (DAVIF)”.
Project website: https://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb09/institutes/media-studies/research/research-projects/davif [01.05.2023].
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| research_question | How can research data in feminist film historiography be modelled as Linked Open Data when categorisation reduces the very plurality and gaps the field exists to record? | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | Reports a reversal: from building a project thesaurus to reusing existing ones, and what that cost in categories. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | linked open data for feminist film historiography | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | system-or-tool-building also in: system-or-tool-building | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | Reusing existing thesauri rather than building one forces the project's categories down to those that carry across datasets, which is what makes the data linkable at all | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Extraction moves from manual annotation to named entity recognition once the target is linked data rather than a bespoke vocabulary | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Existing authority files are treated as objects of evaluation rather than given infrastructure, because their fitness for feminist film history is not assumed | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper reports only preliminary results; it is a poster describing a methodological approach rather than a completed, evaluated system. what this limits: everything reported: THIS POSTER OUTLINES THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE PROJECT AND PRESENTS PRELIMINARY RESULTS | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The scope was narrowed mid-project from nine modelling categories to four, restricting coverage to filmographic data. what this limits: the coverage of the thesaurus: THE NINE CATEGORIES INITIALLY IDENTIFIED ... WERE REDUCED TO FOUR | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The authors state as an open problem that LOD modelling forces categorisation, standardisation and a reduction of complexity that may not accommodate the plurality of feminist film historiography. what this limits: any LOD representation of the field's plurality: MODELING RESEARCH DATA AS LOD REQUIRES CATEGORIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION, AND THUS A REDUCTION OF COMPLEXITY | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Modelling as LOD requires standardisation, which reduces exactly the complexity the field is trying to preserve what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - standardisation reduces exactly the complexity the field exists to preserve | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Classification is taken to be never neutral, so the vocabularies being reused carry values that are not the project's own what this limits: every reused vocabulary: CLASSIFICATION PRACTICES ARE NEVER NEUTRAL BUT ALWAYS ENTANGLED WITH POLITICAL ATTITUDES AND VALUES | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The gaps left by lost sources and undocumented feminized labour have no obvious representation in a data model what this limits: anything the data model is taken to represent completely: THE NUMEROUS BLIND SPOTS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS THAT EXIST DUE TO LOST SOURCES AND THE LIMITED DOCUMENTATION OF FEMINIZED LABOR have no obvious representation | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The poster reports an approach and preliminary results rather than outcomes, so nothing here is yet evaluated duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - an approach and preliminary results, nothing yet evaluated | limitations[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concepts | authority file also in: authority file | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | Virtual International Authority File also in: Virtual International Authority File | concepts[12] | the paper's words | |
| senses | thesaurus - project-specific: built bottom-up for this resource's own staff and users, which was the original plan | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | thesaurus - existing and reused: an external vocabulary adopted so the data links outward, which is what the project switched to | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | categories - the nine identified for modelling a thesaurus, covering the resource's whole conceptual range | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | categories - the four kept for filmographies, which is what survived the decision to link outward | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: method a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: method — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: linked open data for feminist film historiography a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: linked open data for feminist film historiography — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → digital humanities work on text as data, digital publishing, categorization practices and metadata (Blaney et al. 2021; Flanders / Jannidis 2018) | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → critical classification scholarship (Bowker / Star 1999; Drabinski 2013; D'Ignazio / Klein 2020) | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → existing work modelling film heritage data as Linked Open Data, including Wikidata case studies | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | supports → the position that classification practices are never neutral (Bowker & Star, Drabinski, D'Ignazio & Klein) | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Linked Open Data —operationalised-as→ FAIR data principles strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but LOD serves FAIR interoperability; operationalised-as is the wrong type. also in: Linked Open Data · FAIR data principles | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Wikidata —is-a→ authority data strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span lists Wikidata among 'thesauri and authority files'; 'authority data' is a variant. also in: Wikidata · authority data | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Virtual International Authority File —is-a→ authority data strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but is-a rests on the word 'Authority' inside the name; the span is a bare list of resources. | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Named Entity Recognition —contrasted-with→ CATMA differs in: THE AXIS IS MANUAL VERSUS AUTOMATIC EXTRACTION. 'whereas the initial concept included a manual text analysis and annotation with CATMA to build the thesaurus in a bottom-up approach, the filmographic data is now extracted using Named Entity Recognition and then modeled as LOD.' A project describing its own method change, so the two are alternatives for one task rather than rival accounts of anything. · strength of the relation: 1 also in: Named Entity Recognition · CATMA | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Named Entity Recognition —operationalised-as→ filmographies strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but NER is the extraction method for filmographic data; operationalised-as is the wrong type. also in: Named Entity Recognition · filmographies | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Virtual International Authority File —is-a→ authority file strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span lists VIAF among 'thesauri and authority files'; is-a is loose. | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The project reversed its approach mid-way: reusing existing thesauri beat building its own. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The nine categories first identified for modeling the thesaurus were reduced to four. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the resource's own use of metadata had been very limited | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Women Film Pioneers Project also in: Women Film Pioneers Project | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 9 → 4 — modelling categories before and after the shift to reusing existing thesauri | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | nine categories reduced to four — the concrete cost of switching from a bespoke thesaurus to reusable vocabularies | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.