Compared to Other Tools

NanoHistory occupies a distinct niche in the quickly growing realm of historical social networking and RDF platforms. Its main purposes - to bind existing Linked Open Data with ongoing historical research, and by use of a new event model, create a different way of writing history as small interactions - sets it apart from other tools in important ways.

NanoHistory occupies a spot in the middle of these examples. Like SylvaDB it allows users to create new networked representations of data, but it aids scholars by providing a well defined theoretical model and vocabulary that permits reuse of the data by scholars in a number of contexts. Like Wikidata, it collates and allows reuse of data by other users, and shares much of the intentions of the ISNI initiative, bringing together disparate records under expert defined authority entities. And it acts as a critical counterpoint to projects like SDFB by letting scholars edit the results of data produced by automation, whether algorithmic scraping or statistical analysis.

How is it different?