Research in the Digital Humanities requires computer systems that can document and analyze interpretations of creative works, such as literary texts. These systems are designed to provide access to existing interpretations and identify their similarities and differences. To this end, we propose an approach to formally representing interpretations. In particular, we develop an ontology of observations aimed at capturing, through what we call observational vocabularies, what interpreters claim about the texts that they interpret. We distinguish between different types of observations, in particular, basic observations, which represent specific and domain-dependent claims (e.g., regarding the analysis of literary characters’ traits), and observations such as assertion, denial, support, and defeat to document more nuanced claims. We also introduce formal mechanisms that can be used to analyze particular (sets of) observations, texts, and so on. Throughout the article, we illustrate the discussion with examples from literary studies.
AustinJ. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Edited by J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà.
2.
BachK.HarnishR. M. (1979). Communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
3.
BarabucciG.TomasiF.VitaliF. (2021). Supporting complexity and conjectures in cultural heritage descriptions. In Proceedings of the international conference collect and connect: Archives and collections in a digital age (COLCO 2020), CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2810).
4.
BentonM. A.Van ElswykP. (2020). Hedged assertion. In S. C. Goldberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assertion (pp. 245–263). Oxford University Press Oxford.
5.
BrancaV. (1956). Boccaccio Medievale. G. C. Sansoni.
6.
BrewkaG. (2001). Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2), 257–282.
7.
BrusekerG.CarboniN.GuillemA. (2017). Cultural heritage data management: The role of formal ontology and cidoc crm. In M. Vincent, V. López-Menchero Bendicho, M. Ioannides, & T. Levy (Eds.), Heritage and archaeology in the digital age: Quantitative methods in the humanities and social sciences (pp. 91–109). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9_6.
8.
CabitzaF.CampagnerA.BasileV. (2023). Toward a perspectivist turn in ground truthing for predictive computing. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 37, pp. 6860–6868).
9.
CarraraM.ChiffiD.De FlorioC. (2024). Towards a polarized semantics for assertion and denial. Logic Journal of the IGPL, jzae090. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzae090
10.
CarrieroV. A.GangemiA.MancinelliM. L.NuzzoleseA. G.PresuttiV.VeninataC. (2021). Pattern-based design applied to cultural heritage knowledge graphs. Semantic Web, 12(2), 313–357.
11.
CayrolC.Lagasquie-SchiexM. C. (2013). Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(7), 876–899.
12.
DaquinoM.PasqualV.TomasiF. (2020). Knowledge representation of digital hermeneutics of archival and literary sources. JLIS. IT, 11(3), 59–76.
13.
DaquinoM.TomasiF. (2015). Historical context ontology (HiCO): A conceptual model for describing context information of cultural heritage objects. In Metadata and semantics research: 9th Research conference, 2015, Proceedings (pp. 424–436). Springer.
14.
DerridaJ.AttridgeD. (1991). This strange institution called literature. An interview with Jacques Derrida. In J. Derrida & D. Attridge (Eds.), Acts of literature (pp. 33–75). Routledge.
15.
DoerrM.KritsotakiA.BoutsikaK. (2011). Factual argumentation—A core model for assertions making. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 3(3), 1–34.
16.
DoerrM.OreC. E.FafaliosP. (2023). Definition of the crminf. An extension of CIDOC-CRM to support argumentation (Technical Report), CIDOC CRM-SIG.
17.
DuboisD.HájekP.PradeH. (2000). Knowledge-driven versus data-driven logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9, 65–89.
18.
DungP. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.
19.
FeaginS. L. (1982). Incompatible interpretations of art. Philosophy and Literature, 6(1), 133–146.
20.
FriendS. (2017). The real foundation of fictional worlds. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(1), 29–42.
21.
GalvánL. (2017). Counterfactual claims about fictional characters: Philosophical and literary perspectives. Journal of Literary Semantics, 46(2), 87–107.
22.
GiusE.JackeJ. (2017). The hermeneutic profit of annotation: On preventing and fostering disagreement in literary analysis. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 11(2), 233–254.
23.
HatzelH. O.StiemerH.BiemannC.GiusE. (2023). Machine learning in computational literary studies. IT - Information Technology, 65(4-5), 200–217.
24.
HempferK. W. (2024). Fundamentals of literary theory. Springer.
25.
HorstmannJ.NantkeJ.SchlupkothenF. (2020). Undogmatic literary annotation with CATMA. Annotations in Scholarly Editions and Research, 157–176.
26.
JackeJ. (2014). Is there a context-free way of understanding texts? The case of structuralist narratology. Journal of Literary Theory, 8(1), 118–139.
27.
JackeJ. (2025). Operationalization and interpretation dependence in computational literary studies. Journal of Computational Literary Studies, 4(1), 1–26.
28.
JanowiczK.HallerA.CoxS. J.Le PhuocD.LefrançoisM. (2019). SOSA: A lightweight ontology for sensors, observations, samples, and actuators. Journal of Web Semantics, 56, 1–10.
29.
KampH.ReyleU. (2013). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Springer.
30.
KrauszM. (2010). Is there a single right interpretation?. Penn State Press.
31.
KripkeS. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language: An elementary exposition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674954009.
32.
KroonF.VoltoliniA. (2023). Fictional Entities. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2023 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
33.
LascaridesA.AsherN. (2007). Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Computing meaning (pp. 87–124). Springer.
34.
MargolinU. (2012). Mathematics and narrative: A narratological perspective. In Circles disturbed: The interplay of mathematics and narrative (pp. 481–507). Princeton University Press.
35.
MarsiliN. (2024). The definition of assertion: Commitment and truth. Mind & Language, 39(4), 540–560.
36.
MasoloC.Botti BenevidesA.PorelloD. (2018). The interplay between models and observations. Applied Ontology, 13(1), 41–71.
37.
MasoloC.SanfilippoE. M.FerrarioR.PierazzoE. (2021). Texts, compositions, and works: A socio-cultural perspective on information entities. In JOWO proceedings (Vol. 2969). CEUR.
38.
PasqualV.ManzanoG.UzeirE.TomasiF.VitaliF. (2024). Evaluation of expressing without asserting approaches in rdf. the case of conjectures. In IRCDL (pp. 60–73).
39.
PianzolaF.ChengL.PannachF.YangX.ScottiL. (2025). The GOLEM ontology for narrative and fiction. Humanities, 14(10), 1–27.
40.
PichlerA.ReiterN. (2022). From concepts to texts and back: Operationalization as a core activity of digital humanities. Journal of Cultural Analytics, 7(4).
41.
PiconeM. (2008). Boccaccio e la codificazione della novella: letture del “Decameron”. Longo.
42.
PriestG. (2002). Paraconsistent logic. In Handbook of philosophical logic (pp. 287–393). Springer.
43.
PustejovskyJ.BuntH.ZaenenA. (2017). Designing annotation schemes: From theory to model. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (pp. 37–69). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0881-2_2
44.
RescherN. (1968). Topics in philosophical logic. Springer Science & Business Media.
45.
SanfilippoE. M. (2021). Ontologies for information entities: State of the art and open challenges. Applied Ontology, 16(2), 111–135.
46.
SanfilippoE. M.FerrarioR. (2024). D3.1 – Observations Modeling: State of the Art. Project report, Project MITE – Make it explicit: Documenting interpretations of literary fictions with conceptual formal. https://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/mite/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/MITE_D3_1.pdf. Funded by European Union – Next Generation EU.
47.
SanfilippoE. M.MasoloC.FerrarioR.BottazziE. (2024a). Interpreting texts and their characters. In Formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2024), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 394, pp. 119–133). IOS Press.
48.
SanfilippoE. M.MasoloC.MoscaA.TomazzoliG. (2024b). Operationalizing scholarly observations in OWL. In Semantic Web and ontology design for cultural heritage 2024. Proceedings of the fourth edition of the international workshop on semantic web and ontology design for cultural heritage (Vol. 3809, pp. 1–12). CEUR.
49.
SanfilippoE. M.SotgiuA.TomazzoliG.MasoloC.PorelloD.FerrarioR. (2023). Ontological modeling of scholarly statements: A case study in literary criticism. In Formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2023), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 377, pp. 349–363). IOS Press.
50.
SartiniB.BaronciniS.van ErpM.TomasiF.GangemiA. (2023). ICON: An ontology for comprehensive artistic interpretations. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 16(3), 1–38.
51.
SchöchC.HinzmannM.RöttgermannJ.DietzK.KleeA. (2022). Smart modelling for literary history. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 16(1), 78–93.
52.
SchwitzgebelE. (2024). Belief. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy Spring 2024 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
53.
SearleJ. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press.
54.
TomazzoliG. (2025). La filoginia è nell’occhio di chi guarda? Verso un modello formale per l’argomentazione nella critica letteraria. In Raccontare le donne, G. Paradisi & G. Santini (Eds.). Spolia (forthcoming).
55.
TraffordJ. (2014). An inferentialist approach to paraconsistency. Abstracta, 8(1), 55–73.
56.
Van DitmarschH.van Der HoekW.KooiB. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic, vol. 337. Springer Science & Business Media.
57.
WilliamsonT. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, USA.
