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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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.
MEHDIE: The Middle East Heritage Data Integration Endeavor
Rusinek Sinai Haifa University, Israel sinai.rusinek@mail.huji.ac.il Digital Humanities 2023. Collaboration as Opportunity Graz
Sagi Tomer Haifa University, Israel tsagi@cs.aau.dk Digital Humanities 2023. Collaboration as Opportunity Graz
Zaga Moran Haifa University, Israel moran82@gmail.com Digital Humanities 2023. Collaboration as Opportunity Graz
Lev Efraim Haifa University, Israel elev@univ.haifa.ac.il Digital Humanities 2023. Collaboration as Opportunity Graz
Moshe Lavee Haifa University, Israel mlavee@univ.haifa.ac.il Digital Humanities 2023. Collaboration as Opportunity Graz
Zentrum für Informationsmodellierung - Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 2023 Graz Creative Commons BY 4.0 Digital Humanities 2023: Book of Abstracts Walter Scholger University of Graz Graz, Austria walter.scholger@uni-graz.at Georg Vogeler University of Graz Graz, Austria georg.vogeler@uni-graz.at Toma Tasovac Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities Belgrade, Serbia ttasovac@humanistika.org Anne Baillot Le Mans Université Le Mans, France anne.baillot@univ-lemans.fr Data Management Elisabeth Raunig Data Management Martina Scholger Data Management Elisabeth Steiner Data Curation Johanna Ofenauer Data Curation Christina Burgstaller 10.5281/zenodo.7961822
Converted from a Word document
DHConvalidator
claim_typemechanismsWe are building a multi-modal entity resolution tool that utilizes the spatial, temporal, and textual information about a pair of place records to help identify the semantic relation between them. We plan to share our progress towards the integration of knowledge sources related to the history of the Middle East.
English
Paper
Poster
entity matching multilinguality gazetteers transliteration toponyms
information retrieval and querying algorithms and methods linked (open) data spatial & spatio-temporal analysis modeling and visualization Geography and geo-humanities History
alternativescontent_tags↗MEHDIE , the Middle East Heritage Data Integration Endeavour is a project at Haifa University and Aalborg University, dedicated to facilitating semantic integration of knowledge sources related to the history of the Middle East, using innovative data integration methods.
research_questionmethod↗The multi-modal entity resolution tool we are developing will utilise spatial (geo-coordinates), temporal (dates/periods) and textual information about a pair of place/person records to help identify the semantic relationship between them. claim_relationsclaim_relationsconcept_edgesIn the demonstration we present tools related to spatial data, which we hope to integrate into the World Historical Gazetteer (Grossner and Mostern 2021) system to enhance its capabilities for inter-dataset matching. The poster will address our workflows for data extraction and assembly, as well as the results of matching experiments between various datasets . We describe how we leverage the linguistic affinities and continuities between the domain languages and various textual matching techniques.
In figure 1 we see the interface of the MEHDIE clone of the World Historical Gazetteer, with the added option to match two datasets against each other, in this case a dataset of the Hebrew toponyms from Benjamin of Tudela’s travelog collected in the framework of the TraveLab project (Rusinek and Shalit 2022), and Damast Multilingual Dataset from the Dhimmis and & Muslims project (Franke and Kock 2023). mechanismsAlso visible in the figure are the confidence measure and the explanation of the matching methods that yielded the candidate.
phenomenonlimitationsThe mission to connect data on the Middle eastern history domain is faced with special challenges: the scarcity of vowels in Semitic scripts, the indeterminacy of pronunciation and transliteration of written toponyms, and varying practices of naming and classifying places.
sensesconcept_edgesA common way to identify places, their locations and other information about them is to reconcile the source place names with unique identifiers from an external Gazetteer. limitationsconcept_edgesconcept_edgescontent_tagsGeonames and the Getty Thesaurus of geographic names are two such resources, but they contain few, if any, toponyms in the Semitic scripts relevant to the sources of Middle Eastern History. limitationscontent_tagscontent_tagsEven Wikidata, which is essentially multilingual, shows low recall when matching against them. limitationsclaim_relationsSuch general gazetteers may include contemporary Arabic, Hebrew or Syriac forms that denote major, well known cities, but very little historic variants of the lesser known settlements. With this obstacle in mind, one may turn to transliteration. sensesThe similarity between semitic languages, however, means that direct transliteration between semitic languages would be much more efficient in creating candidates for matching that transliteration into Latin script languages.
The example in figure 2 is a telling illustration for this:
sensesThe Hebrew toponym for the city of Bilbeis on the Nile’s delta (spelled “Bilbays” in Adler’s translation of Benjamin of Tudela) was mentioned in the 19th century edition of Benjamin of Tudela’s itinerary in the Hebrew form בלביש. In contemporary Hebrew it is spelled בילביס, with an additional vowel and a different letter to represent the final consonant. sensescontent_tagscontent_tagsWikidata currently includes a Hebrew alternative variant without the additional vowel, but not a variant with the more archaic letter ‘ ש’ (Wikidata contributors, "Q393495").
concept_edgesUsing the transliteration tool in our system to match against Arabic datasets such as Usaybia , Damast , ‘Al-Ṯurayya gazetteer (Romanov and Seydi, 2019) and from a dataset of toponyms from Yaqut al-Hamawi’s Mu 'jam ul-Buldān, limitationswe could easily find the match thanks to the transliteration of the Hebrew form to the Arabic form بلبيس, one of two possible transliterations. mechanismscontent_tagscontent_tagsThis shows the power of transliteration between semitic languages that reduces, rather than adds ambiguity: Neither Arabic nor Hebrew explicate the sound that is expressed in English by the first i and the e in the name. mechanismssensesTherefore, transliteration to latin script could not deduce an acceptable transliteration.
Several projects have been dedicated in recent years to the aggregation of geographic and prosopographic data on Middle Eastern History. claim_relationscontent_tags↗The Historical Middle East Data Alliance (Hist-ME) was initiated by Nathan P. Gibson at the Linked Pasts 2021 conference with a joint vision of connecting intra-religious and monolingual silos of disconnected data into a linked contextual wealth of knowledge. claim_relationsThe system we are developing at MEHDI facilitates collaboration between Hist-ME ’s partners towards this vision.
contributionsensesThe advantages of intra-domain transliteration for matching content_tagsopens a meta-discussion on approaches for linked open data and the preference of a “bottom-up” intra-domain strategy over a centralised one. content_tagsThe results of our work with the different datasets of Hist-ME member projects may also constitute an argument in favour of intra-domain collaboration.
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 5 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 | Can historical Middle Eastern datasets be linked by matching place names directly between the domain's own languages, rather than by transliterating them into Latin script or routing them through a general-purpose gazetteer? | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | Argues, from a worked example, that a general authority file under-covers a specialist domain's own vocabulary, and that intra-domain matching beats routing through a central one. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | cross-lingual toponym entity matching | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | system-or-tool-building also in: system-or-tool-building | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | Matching uses three kinds of evidence at once - coordinates, dates and the text of the name - rather than name similarity alone | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Transliterating between two Semitic languages preserves the ambiguity of both instead of forcing a decision, which is why it beats going through Latin script | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Latin transliteration fails because it demands vowels the source scripts never wrote | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Every candidate match is returned with a confidence and an account of which method produced it, so a human can judge it | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | General gazetteers barely cover the Semitic-script toponyms this domain runs on what this limits: any reliance on general gazetteers for this domain: GEONAMES AND THE GETTY THESAURUS ... CONTAIN FEW, IF ANY, TOPONYMS IN THE SEMITIC SCRIPTS relevant to the sources | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Even Wikidata, which is multilingual by design, matches poorly against these sources what this limits: Wikidata reconciliation specifically: EVEN WIKIDATA, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY MULTILINGUAL, SHOWS LOW RECALL WHEN MATCHING AGAINST THEM | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Where general resources do cover the domain it is the major cities, not the smaller settlements or the historic variants what this limits: the coverage that general resources do provide: they include forms that DENOTE MAJOR, WELL KNOWN CITIES, BUT VERY LITTLE HISTORIC VARIANTS OF THE LESSER KNOWN SETTLEMENTS | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The domain's own scripts make the problem harder before any tool is applied: missing vowels, uncertain pronunciation, and no settled naming practice what this limits: every matching result in the domain: THE SCARCITY OF VOWELS IN SEMITIC SCRIPTS, THE INDETERMINACY OF PRONUNCIATION AND TRAN[sliteration] make the problem hard before any tool is applied | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Even the successful transliteration is one of several possible forms, not a unique answer what this limits: any successful match treated as unique: the Hebrew-to-Arabic transliteration used was ONE OF TWO POSSIBLE TRANSLITERATIONS | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | transliteration - into Latin script: the usual move, which fails here because it requires vowels the source never wrote | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | transliteration - between Semitic languages: preserves the same indeterminacy on both sides, so it narrows candidates instead of multiplying them | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the place name - as written in a nineteenth-century edition: בלביש, with an archaic final consonant | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the place name - as written in contemporary Hebrew: בילביס, with an added vowel and a different final letter - and the authority holds only this one | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | linked data strategy - centralised: reconcile every source to one external authority, which is the default assumption | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | linked data strategy - bottom-up and intra-domain: match the domain's datasets against each other first, which this paper argues for | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | phenomenon: cross-lingual toponym entity matching a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: cross-lingual toponym entity matching — 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 | extends → World Historical Gazetteer (Grossner and Mostern 2021) | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Historical Middle East Data Alliance (Hist-ME) | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → the World Historical Gazetteer, which the matching tools are intended to enhance | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | supports → the Hist-ME vision of connecting monolingual and intra-religious data silos | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | critiques → reconciliation to general-purpose external gazetteers as the default linked-data strategy | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | transliteration —operationalised-as→ entity resolution strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but transliteration enabled matching; 'entity resolution' is the task, and operationalised-as overstates it. also in: transliteration · entity resolution | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Geonames —is-a→ gazetteer strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'two such resources' = external Gazetteers (previous sentence). | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Getty Thesaurus of geographic names —is-a→ gazetteer strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'two such resources' = external Gazetteers (previous sentence). also in: Getty Thesaurus of geographic names · gazetteer | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | gazetteer —operationalised-as→ entity resolution strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but reconciling names against a gazetteer is described; 'entity resolution' is the tagger's term for it. also in: gazetteer · entity resolution | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | World Historical Gazetteer —is-a→ gazetteer strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but is-a rests on the word 'Gazetteer' inside the name. also in: World Historical Gazetteer · gazetteer | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | General-purpose gazetteers carry almost none of the Semitic-script toponyms that Middle Eastern historical sources actually use. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wikidata, although multilingual, also matches these sources poorly. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | A concrete gap: Wikidata holds a modern Hebrew variant of the toponym but not the archaic spelling the historical source uses. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | transliteration between Semitic languages reduces rather than adds ambiguity | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors draw a general conclusion for linked open data: prefer a bottom-up, intra-domain strategy over a centralised one. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | general gazetteers including Wikidata have low recall against Semitic-script historical toponyms | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | transliteration between Semitic languages reduces rather than adds ambiguity: neither Arabic nor Hebrew writes the vowel sounds that English spells with the first i and the e | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wikidata holds a modern Hebrew variant of the toponym but not the variant with the archaic letter ש. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the results may also argue for collaboration within the domain | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | MEHDIE also in: MEHDIE | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Hist-ME also in: Hist-ME | content_tags.definitions[2] | 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.