@book{publication-3790,
  year = {2017},
  issn = {2363-4952},
  volume = {2017},
  number = {6},
  url = {http://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-6/},
  title = {RIDE - A review journal for digital editions and resources:  Issue 6: Digital Text Collections},
  editor = {Ulrike Henny and Frederike Neuber},
  month = {sep},
  abstract = {We are pleased to present the sixth issue of the Review Journal for Digital Editions and Resources (RIDE), published by the IDE since 2014, which is at the same time the first issue on Digital Text Collections (DTC). We generally define DTCs as digital resources that involve the collecting, structuring and enrichment of textual data and include in this definition DTCs from various humanities disciplines such as Literary Studies, Linguistics and History.
From the beginning, RIDE has been conceived not only as a reviewing journal for digital scholarly editions but also for other kinds of resources with relevance for Digital Humanities, including data sets of different types, software and applications. The idea to edit an issue on DTC came up in late 2016 and was triggered by the following observations: While there is an ever growing number of projects and studies in Digital Humanities creating and using large sets of digital texts,1 the methods and practices have not yet obtained the level of standardization and best practice that has been reached in areas with a longer tradition in corpus-based studies like Linguistics, for example. Often, research on or the creation of new DTCs is based on already existing textual resources scattered among the WWW. Therefore, it is crucial to establish common standards for the documentation and provision of DTCs that support the exchange of textual data while preventing a loss of quality and reliability. Finally, at present, the various self-classifications of DTCs are ranging from “Corpus“ to “Digital archive” to “Digital library” to “Repository” to many more; each of the terms, however, can point to very different types of resources, containing very different contents and applying very different methods. This lack of a common nomenclature and classification impedes a further systematization of types of DTCs and hinders the scholarly discourse about the resources. Such a discourse, however, is desirable if DTCs are to play an ever more important role in Humanities research.
We believe that reviewing DTCs systematically will (1) stimulate a more vivid discourse about reliability and sustainability of textual data and disseminate and canonize approved methods and approaches among disciplines; (2) help to identify and compare various methodological frameworks, and thereby provide an overview of the transfer of methods between single disciplines when building DTCs in Digital Humanities; (3) contribute to sharpen terminologies and concepts of different kinds of DTCs and in the long term lead to a more differentiated understanding of what types of “text collections” exist and in what way they differ from each other. Last but not least, we also want to raise awareness of the scholarly work involved in designing and providing DTCs.

===

Editorial: Reviewing Digital Text Collections
By Ulrike Henny-Krahmer (Universität Würzburg) and Frederike Neuber (University of Cologne)
CELT – Corpus of Electronic texts, Hiram Morgan (ed.), 1997. http://celt.ucc.ie/. Reviewed by Turlough O’Riordan (Royal Irish Academy)
Litteraturbanken: the Swedish Literature Bank, Mats Malm, Cai Alfredson, Dick Claésson, Paulina Helgesson, Anja Hellström, Carl-Johan Lind, Ellen Mattson, Ljubica Miočević, Therese Röök, Ilaria Tedde (ed.), 2004ff. http://litteraturbanken.se. Reviewed by Mats Dahlström (University of Borås), and Wout Dillen (University of Antwerp).
Varitext und das Corpus des variétés nationales du français, Sascha Diwersy, Peter Blumenthal, Salah Mejri (ed.), 2013. http://syrah.uni-koeln.de/varitext/. Reviewed by Julia Burkhardt (University of Leipzig)
Corpus of Spanish Golden-Age Sonnets, Borja Navarro Colorado, María Ribes Lafoz and Noelia Sánchez (ed.), 2015. https://github.com/bncolorado/CorpusSonetosSigloDeOro. Reviewed by José Calvo Tello (University of Würzburg)
Regesta Imperii online, Deutsche Kommission für die Bearbeitung der Regesta Imperii e.V. (ed.), 2001-2017. http://www.regesta-imperii.de/. Reviewed by Julian Schulz (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität)
Spectateurs (Moralische Wochenschriften), Klaus-Dieter Ertler, Alexandra Fuchs, Michaela Fischer, Elisabeth Hobisch (ed.), 2011. http://gams.uni-graz.at/context:mws. Reviewed by Greta Franzini (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen), gfranzini (at) etrap.eu.
Electronic Enlightenment Scholarly Edition of Correspondence, Robert McNamee, Mark Rogerson (ed.), 2008-2017. http://www.e-enlightenment.com. Reviewed by Mark J. Hill (London School of Economics)
Deutsches Textarchiv, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), 2017. http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/. Reviewed by Dario Kampkaspar (Herzog August Bibliothek / Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften).
“La Repubblica” Corpus, Marco Baroni, Silvia Bernardini, Sara Castagnoli, Federica Comastri, Lorenzo Piccioni, Alessandra Volpi, Guy Aston, Marco Mazzoleni, Eros Zanchetta (ed.), 2004ff. https://corpora.dipintra.it/public/run.cgi/first?corpname=repubblica. Reviewed by Rebecca Sierig (University of Leipzig)
Women Writers in Review, Julia Flanders, Syd Bauman, Ashley Clark, Sarah Connell (ed.), 2016. http://www.wwp.northeastern.edu/review/index.html. Reviewed by Amanda Gagel (Mark Twain Project, UC-Berkeley)},
  keywords = {Textsammlungen,Korpora,Rezension,Forschungsdaten,Digital Humanities,Literaturwissenschaft,Sprachwissenschaft,Französisch,Italienisch,Spanisch},
}
