Virtual Archive of Logical Empiricism (VALEP)

This is the electronic hanbook of VALEP. The page was created on Dec 1, 2020 and will be continusly developed in the following weeks.

• On the history, hosts, and cooperation partners of VALEP see About VALEP
• See how VALEP is processing knowledge into metadata
• Or jump directly to VALEP

The scope and mission of VALEP

VALEP is an archive management tool that is intended as a platform for the history of Logical Empiricism and related currents.

VALEP processes

• (left/red part of the window) the hierarchical structures of archives that include archives, collections, digitizations, shelfs, boxes, folders, files

• (middle/green part of the window) documents that process files of an archive into objects that belong to a certain document category, document type and become specified by means of metadata that include title, description, author, date

• (upper right/yellow part of the window) All archive nodes and documents are characterized by metadata that can be viewed in the upper right part of the window

• (lower right/blue part of the window) Files and documents can be watched in an integrated document viewer (already available) and they can be downloaded and printed (to be implemented in 2021)

VALEP stores titles, descriptions and the like as Unicode. But some metadata categories that include date, location, language, persons, and institutions are stored here via references in a relational database and/or using special formats and parsing tools, e.g., EDTF for data, and an internal tool for the mereological grasp of locations. See the metadata page for the details.

Is it digital humanities?

If one expects from a digital humanities project the adoption of sophisticated statistical methods of experimental research, then the answer is clearly no. Though the data pool being built by VALEP might in the future be used for the adoption of such methods, VALEP neither now nor in the near future is planning to integrate any tools for complex statistical evaluation.

On the other hand, VALEP is certainly aiming to collect large amounts of data. The history of Logical Empiricism, together with related currents such as Neokantianism, French Positivism, British Empiricism, and American Pragmatism, comprises of dozens of main figures and probably thousands of minor figures that include university and private scholars. The estates of many of these relevant figures are to be found in public institutions and private collections. Further material was collected by relevant universitarian and private institutions. There are thousands of manuscripts, publications, and probably millions of letters between representatives of the relevant currents that might be taken into account in one or another way, in our studies of Logical Empiricism. VALEP allows us to story any of these sources, as soon as we get them available in electronic form. Then, we can search them and filter them, in order to select the material that is relevant for us. This is, of course, also a variety of digital humanities.

Existing tools are document oriented and typically cover only rudimentary metadata

Existing tools for the management of archival sources include (1) those tools that university archives such as the Archives of Scientific Philosophy use; (2) open tools such as PhilArchive where everybody might upload electronic documents; (3) tools being tailored for the presentation of the material of a specific origin such as the papers of Ludwig Wittgenstein. All these tools have in common that they are more or less strictly document oriented. They do not mirror the physical structure of an archive but rather store documents that form a particular unit of metadata. This approach could be fruitful, if the processing of the documents might be rather well developed and the metadata might be clear and transparent and sufficiently complex.

However, the problem is that most of the existing tools cover only rather rudimentary metadata, and, in the case of the tools being used by public archives, the problem is often that they hardly process single documents as forming a logical unit of some kind (e.g. letter from Otto Neurath to Rudolf Carnap from December 26, 1934) but rather focus on those units being naturally provided by the archive, viz., folders that contain, e.g., several letters from Carnap to Neurath from the years 1923 to 1929 and sometimes might also include further material that does not directly relate to the main theme. In cases like that, complex metadata may not be possible at all, simply because the document units are too vague.

An archive oriented presentation might be helpful

In cases where a digital archive only covers rudimentary metadata and rather ambiguous documents, it might be most helpful to include a presentation of the digital material that represents the physical structure of an archive. Archives typically structure their material into collections and subcollections, shelfs, boxes, folders, and the like, and the finegrained structure of this organization of the material very often already represents a certain order, e.g., distinguishes between manuscripts and correspondence, puts some chronological order to the material and/or picks out certain topics or correspondence partners. Even if such an order is quite inconsistent and also covers pure chaos at times, users of an archive usually are able to use this order in a mnemotechnical way, often supported by useful finding aids that exist for an archive. Therefore, the most obvious way to make electronic archival sources more transparent and usable would be to add a perspective on the material that mirrors the physcial structure of the archive.

Adequate metadata are important

Metadata can be needlessly complex and confusing. A careful selection is important. This includes that a document should be associated only with these metadata categories that might become relevant for it. Only a letter, for example, has a receiver or a place of posting, whereas a manuscript unlike a published book or article may not offer any publication data. So, one important aspect of making making metadata adequate is to restrict documents of a certain category to those metadata categories being relevant here.

But metadata should also be carefully selected, regarding their format. This holds, in particular, for key metadata such as date and location. Dates should be able to cover not only (several) single days but also entire months or years, and date ranges, e.g. from December 24 1924 until October 1930. This allows one to cover also cases where the date of a document is not sufficiently localized or where a document was produced over a longer period and/or at different days or years. Locations, on the other hand, should become embedded into the mereological structure of geography. That Vienna, for example, belongs to Austria and Europe but also to the Habsburg Empire and the German speeking world, is a fact that is not easily to be reproduced but is needed in order to pick out all Viennese locations, if one filters documents from Vienna, Austria, Europe, the Habsburg Empire, or the German speeking world. Finally, in many other cases, e.g., regarding persons, institutions, languages, a consistently searchable and filterable layout is easily obtained if the database uses relational features and stores these items in certain predefined lists or tables.

Desirable Features

The following features would be desirable additions to the coverage of existing archival tools:

• To cover the physical structure of an archive (in order to serve the mnemotechnical skills of researchers and make existing finding aids more useful)
• To provide