The critical inquiry in humanities knowledge graphs: challenges, methods and innovations

This dissertation explores the challenges of representing humanities critical inquiries in Knowledge Graphs (KGs). Current KGs and online catalogues seem to flatten such an interpretative approach in the humanities. Additionally, they typically omit superseded theories rather than representing them with a weaker logical status (WLS). After defining the domain and its theoretical framework, the dissertation surveys existing methods for introducing claims in RDF (reification methods), examines how reification can convey a weaker logical status (expressing without asserting), and explores how existing ontologies formalise interpretations. Additionally, CH items in Wikidata have been systematically surveyed to determine annotators' habits and requirements, revealing poor usage of WLS claims and difficulty retrieving claims related to critical inquiry. Considering the strengths and weaknesses of existing reification methods, a new method, called Conjectures, which extends the RDF 1.1 syntax of Named Graphs, is proposed as a potential solution to include critical inquiries in CH KGs. The effectiveness and efficiency of Conjectures is assessed, demonstrating that it is competitive with existing reification methods. The representation is applied to a case study focusing on scholarly investigations into document authenticity. Specifically, the study examines the "Index of Medieval Documents Concerning the Upper Austrian Region that are Damaged, Tampered with, or Altered" by Siegfried Haider, which indexes the critical assessment of 153 historical documents. A data model and KG are produced and evaluated through a web application that integrates the claims into a prototypical online catalogue. The dissertation concludes by addressing the main research questions of the work and proposing some further developments on the work.